Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Am Med Dir Assoc ; 21(8): 1134-1140, 2020 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31791901

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess safety risks pertaining to tracheostomy care in the long-term care (LTC) setting using a human factors engineering approach. DESIGN: We utilized a 5-part approach to complete our proactive risk assessment: (1) performed a hierarchical task analysis of the processes of tracheostomy stoma and suctioning; (2) identified failure modes where a subtask may be completed inappropriately; (3) prioritized each failure mode based on a risk priority scale; (4) identified contributing factors to and consequences for each of the prioritized failure modes; and (5) identified potential solutions to eliminate or mitigate risks. SETTING: Three high-acuity LTC facilities with ventilator units across Maryland. METHODS: The hierarchical task analysis was conducted jointly by 2 human-factors experts and an infectious disease physician based on respiratory care policies from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and existing policies at each LTC facility. The findings were used to guide direct observations with contextual inquiry and focus group sessions to assess safety risks for residents receiving tracheostomy care. RESULTS: Direct observations of tracheostomy care and suctioning in the LTC setting revealed significant variations in practice. Respiratory therapists working in LTC reported lack of training and ambiguity concerning recommended procedures to reduce infection transmission in daily care. Highest risk steps identified in tracheostomy care and suctioning included hand hygiene, donning gloves, and providing intermittent suctioning as the suction catheter was withdrawn. Participants identified risk mitigation strategies targeting these high-risk failure modes that addressed contributing factors related to 5 work system components: person (knowledge and competency), task (eg, urgency or time constraints), tools and technology (eg, availability of hand sanitizer), environment (eg, communal rooms), and organization (eg, patient safety culture). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Human factors analysis of the highest-risk steps in respiratory care activities in the LTC setting suggest several potential mitigation strategies to decrease the risk of infection transmission. Clear procedure guidelines with training are needed to reduce ambiguity and improve care in this setting. Involving frontline staff in patient safety issues using human factors principles and risk analysis may encourage participation and improve the infection prevention culture in LTC.


Assuntos
Assistência de Longa Duração , Casas de Saúde , Grupos Focais , Humanos , Maryland , Medição de Risco
2.
Clin Infect Dis ; 69(Suppl 3): S248-S255, 2019 09 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31517976

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: More than 28 000 people were infected with Ebola virus during the 2014-2015 West African outbreak, resulting in more than 11 000 deaths. Better methods are needed to reduce the risk of self-contamination while doffing personal protective equipment (PPE) to prevent pathogen transmission. METHODS: A set of interventions based on previously identified failure modes was designed to mitigate the risk of self- contamination during PPE doffing. These interventions were tested in a randomized controlled trial of 48 participants with no prior experience doffing enhanced PPE. Contamination was simulated using a fluorescent tracer slurry and fluorescent polystyrene latex spheres (PLSs). Self-contamination of scrubs and skin was measured using ultraviolet light visualization and swabbing followed by microscopy, respectively. Doffing sessions were videotaped and reviewed to score standardized teamwork behaviors. RESULTS: Participants in the intervention group contaminated significantly fewer body sites than those in the control group (median [interquartile range], 6 [3-8] vs 11 [6-13], P = .002). The median contamination score was lower for the intervention group than the control group when measured by ultraviolet light visualization (23.15 vs 64.45, P = .004) and PLS swabbing (72.4 vs 144.8, P = .001). The mean teamwork score was greater in the intervention group (42.2 vs 27.5, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: An intervention package addressing the PPE doffing task, tools, environment, and teamwork skills significantly reduced the amount of self-contamination by study participants. These elements can be incorporated into PPE guidance and training to reduce the risk of pathogen transmission.


Assuntos
Pessoal de Saúde/educação , Controle de Infecções/métodos , Equipe de Assistência ao Paciente , Equipamento de Proteção Individual , Pele , Surtos de Doenças/prevenção & controle , Fluorescência , Luvas Protetoras , Doença pelo Vírus Ebola/prevenção & controle , Doença pelo Vírus Ebola/transmissão , Humanos , Poliestirenos , Dispositivos de Proteção Respiratória , Treinamento por Simulação
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...