The application of antimicrobial stewardship knowledge to nursing practice: A national survey of United Kingdom pre-registration nursing students.

AIM: To assess student nurses understanding and skills in the application of antimicrobial stewardship knowledge to practice. DESIGN: Quantitative. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey. RESULTS: Five hundred and twenty three student nurses responded across 23 UK universities. Although students felt prepared in competencies in infection prevention and control, patient-centred care and interprofessional collaborative practice, they felt less prepared in competencies in which microbiological knowledge, prescribing and its effect on antimicrobial stewardship is required. Problem-based learning, activities in the clinical setting and face-to-face teaching were identified as the preferred modes of education delivery. Those who had shared antimicrobial stewardship teaching with students from other professions reported the benefits to include a broader understanding of antimicrobial stewardship, an understanding of the roles of others in antimicrobial stewardship and improved interprofessional working. CONCLUSION: There are gaps in student nurses' knowledge of the basic sciences associated with the antimicrobial stewardship activities in which nurses are involved, and a need to strengthen knowledge in pre-registration nurse education programmes pertaining to antimicrobial management, specifically microbiology and antimicrobial regimes and effects on antimicrobial stewardship. Infection prevention and control, patient-centred care and interprofessional collaborative practice are areas of antimicrobial stewardship in which student nurses feel prepared. Interprofessional education would help nurses and other members of the antimicrobial stewardship team clarify the role nurses can play in antimicrobial stewardship and therefore maximize their contribution to antimicrobial stewardship and antimicrobial management. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION: There is a need to strengthen knowledge from the basic sciences, specifically pertaining to antimicrobial management, in pre-registration nurse education programmes. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution. IMPACT: What Problem Did the Study Address? Nurses must protect health through understanding and applying antimicrobial stewardship knowledge and skills (Nursing and Midwifery Council 2018); however, there is no research available that has investigated nurses understanding and skills of the basic sciences associated with the antimicrobial stewardship activities in which they are involved. What Were the Main Findings? There are gaps in student nurses' knowledge of the basic sciences (specifically microbiology and prescribing) associated with the antimicrobial stewardship activities in which nurses are involved. Problem-based learning, and activities in the clinical setting, were reported as useful teaching methods, whereas online learning, was seen as less useful. Where and on Whom Will the Research Have an Impact? Pre-registration nurse education programmes. REPORTING METHOD: The relevant reporting method has been adhered to, that is, STROBE.

Aseptic versus clean technique during wound management? Systematic review with meta-analysis.

The management of wounds by health professionals usually involves aseptic technique. An alternative is the use of clean techniques where the risk of infection is minimised but use of non-sterile materials is considered permissible. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares these two approaches. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall risk of bias was judged to be low. The random-effects relative risk of infection for clean dressings rather than aseptic dressings was 0.86 (95% CI 0.67, 1.12). There was little evidence of statistical heterogeneity, although the small number of infections in either group resulted in wide confidence intervals. The 95% prediction interval for future studies was 0.63, 1.18. There was therefore no evidence showing inferiority of clean techniques compared to aseptic methods. Before clinical studies are undertaken with higher risk procedures, laboratory simulations should explore safety by investigating the potential for pathogen transmission at each stage in the dressing procedure.

Face mask use to prevent COVID-19 in clinical practice. Using a review of reviews to improve decision-making and transparency.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of transparency and scientific rigour in the development of clinical guidance. Rapid review methodologies were widely used in the development of guidance, and in the United Kingdom, COVID-19 guidance was criticized for methodological inadequacy and erroneous conclusions. AIMS: To summarize the evidence looking at the use of face masks to prevent COVID-19 infection in clinical practice areas, and to show how this can be used in decision-making. DESIGN: Overview of systematic reviews. METHOD: Systematic reviews which included meta-analyses were sought, and data on the protective effect of face masks on COVID-19 transmission were extracted. A total of 15 papers yielded 44 effect sizes suitable for quantitative presentation, which showed wide variation in effect depending on the outcome and intervention chosen. CONCLUSIONS: Guideline development groups need to take care to choose outcomes that are of most importance to those who are the target of guidance. Quantification of the protective effect of interventions such as different types of face mask will help nurses and others decide on the utility of their use, alongside consideration of the other factors that go into informing clinical recommendations. IMPLICATIONS FOR PATIENT CARE AND THE PROFESSION: COVID-19 has been an unprecedented public health issue, but much clinical guidance was lacking in transparency. Nurses and other healthcare professionals have often expressed a lack of confidence in guidance. Systematic reviews reported a wide range of effect sizes. However, there was a high degree of indirectness and heterogeneity in methods and findings. To produce transparent guidance, those for whom guidance is intended should have evidence of effect where this is available. IMPACT: Guideline authors should reflect these outcomes in their recommendations, clearly balancing both the benefits and harms of recommending face masks to prevent COVID-19.

Undergraduate nursing students' education and training in aseptic technique: A mixed methods systematic review.

AIM: To appraise and synthesize empirical studies exploring undergraduate nursing students' education and training in aseptic technique. DESIGN: Mixed methods, systematic literature review adopting Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. DATA SOURCES: Thirteen electronic databases were searched 1996-2020, followed by searches with a general browser, hand-searching key journals and reviewing reference lists of retrieved papers. REVIEW METHODS: Potentially eligible papers were scrutinised by two reviewers. Those eligible were critically appraised and quality assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme and Specialist Unit for Review Evidence checklists. RESULTS: Of 538 potentially eligible studies, 27 met the inclusion criteria. There was limited evidence of the effectiveness of different teaching methods. Students' knowledge, understanding and competency varied and were often poor, although they reported confidence in their ability to perform aseptic technique. Students and qualified nurses perceived that education and training in aseptic techniques might be improved. CONCLUSION: Education and training in aseptic technique might be improved but the review findings should be viewed cautiously because the studies lacked methodological rigour. IMPACT: This appears to be the first systematic review to explore undergraduate nursing students' education and training in relation to aseptic technique. There was limited evidence to support the effectiveness of different teaching methods and scope for improving nursing students' knowledge, understanding and competency in aseptic technique. Students and qualified nurses suggested that education and training might be enhanced. More robust studies are required to support education, practice and policy.

Teaching health care students hand hygiene theory and skills: a systematic review.

Hand hygiene is the cornerstone of infection prevention but is poorly undertaken and under-appreciated by medical, nursing, and other health care students. This systematic review aimed to identify and describe strategies used to teach the theory and practice of hand hygiene, determine impact on knowledge and practice, and identify need for future education and research. Ten studies met the criteria for review. Health care students' theoretical knowledge of hand hygiene and their ability to practise are suboptimal and should be improved before they have contact with vulnerable patients. Educational input can increase knowledge and practice but the methodological heterogeneity of the studies and lack of rigour make it impossible to determine which interventions are most likely to be successful. The literature provides little evidence upon which to base educational practice in this area. There is a need for multi-centred longitudinal studies to measure effectiveness of teaching methods over time.

Interventions to improve hand hygiene compliance in patient care.

BACKGROUND: Health care-associated infection is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Hand hygiene is regarded as an effective preventive measure. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the short- and long-term success of strategies to improve compliance to recommendations for hand hygiene, and to determine whether an increase in hand hygiene compliance can reduce rates of health care-associated infection. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL. We conducted the searches from November 2009 to October 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) that evaluated any intervention to improve compliance with hand hygiene using soap and water or alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR), or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias for each included study. Meta-analysis was not possible, as there was substantial heterogeneity across studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach and present the results narratively in a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 26 studies: 14 randomised trials, two non-randomised trials and 10 ITS studies. Most studies were conducted in hospitals or long-term care facilities in different countries, and collected data from a variety of healthcare workers. Fourteen studies assessed the success of different combinations of strategies recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) to improve hand hygiene compliance. Strategies consisted of the following: increasing the availability of ABHR, different types of education for staff, reminders (written and verbal), different types of performance feedback, administrative support, and staff involvement. Six studies assessed different types of performance feedback, two studies evaluated education, three studies evaluated cues such as signs or scent, and one study assessed placement of ABHR. Observed hand hygiene compliance was measured in all but three studies which reported product usage. Eight studies also reported either infection or colonisation rates. All studies had two or more sources of high or unclear risks of bias, most often associated with blinding or independence of the intervention.Multimodal interventions that include some but not all strategies recommended in the WHO guidelines may slightly improve hand hygiene compliance (five studies; 56 centres) and may slightly reduce infection rates (three studies; 34 centres), low certainty of evidence for both outcomes.Multimodal interventions that include all strategies recommended in the WHO guidelines may slightly reduce colonisation rates (one study; 167 centres; low certainty of evidence). It is unclear whether the intervention improves hand hygiene compliance (five studies; 184 centres) or reduces infection (two studies; 16 centres) because the certainty of this evidence is very low.Multimodal interventions that contain all strategies recommended in the WHO guidelines plus additional strategies may slightly improve hand hygiene compliance (six studies; 15 centres; low certainty of evidence). It is unclear whether this intervention reduces infection rates (one study; one centre; very low certainty of evidence).Performance feedback may improve hand hygiene compliance (six studies; 21 centres; low certainty of evidence). This intervention probably slightly reduces infection (one study; one centre) and colonisation rates (one study; one centre) based on moderate certainty of evidence.Education may improve hand hygiene compliance (two studies; two centres), low certainty of evidence.Cues such as signs or scent may slightly improve hand hygiene compliance (three studies; three centres), low certainty of evidence.Placement of ABHR close to point of use probably slightly improves hand hygiene compliance (one study; one centre), moderate certainty of evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: With the identified variability in certainty of evidence, interventions, and methods, there remains an urgent need to undertake methodologically robust research to explore the effectiveness of multimodal versus simpler interventions to increase hand hygiene compliance, and to identify which components of multimodal interventions or combinations of strategies are most effective in a particular context.

Infection control practice: interview with 20 nurses reveals themes of rationalising their own behaviour and justifying any deviations from policy.

Implications for practice and research: Infection prevention involves complex social behaviour. Education is unlikely to be sufficient when seeking to improve nurses' infection prevention practice. Multifaceted campaigns that include education are more likely to be effective. Further research is needed to identify the beliefs held by other health workers about healthcare-associated infection.

A qualitative study of senior hospital managers' views on current and innovative strategies to improve hand hygiene.

BACKGROUND: Despite universal recognition of the importance of hand hygiene in reducing the incidence of healthcare associated infections, health care workers' compliance with best practice has been sub-optimal. Senior hospital managers have responsibilities for implementing patient safety initiatives and are therefore ideally placed to provide suggestions for improving strategies to increase hand hygiene compliance. This is an under-researched area, accordingly the aim of this study was to identify senior hospital managers' views on current and innovative strategies to improve hand hygiene compliance. METHODS: Qualitative design comprising face-to-face interviews with thirteen purposively sampled senior managers at a major teaching and referral hospital in Sydney, Australia. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Seven themes emerged: culture change starts with leaders, refresh and renew the message, connect the five moments to the whole patient journey, actionable audit results, empower patients, reconceptualising non-compliance and start using the hammer. CONCLUSIONS: To strengthen hand hygiene programmes, strategies based on the five moments of hand hygiene should be tailored to specific roles and settings and take into account the whole patient journey including patient interactions with clinical and non-clinical staff. Senior clinical and non-clinical leaders should visibly champion and mandate best practice initiatives and articulate that hand hygiene non-compliance is culturally and professionally unacceptable to the organization. Strategies that included a disciplinary component and which conceptualise hand hygiene non-compliance as a patient safety error may be worth evaluating in terms of staff acceptability and effectiveness.

Disciplinary processes and the management of poor performance among UK nurses: bad apple or systemic failure? A scoping study.

The rise of managerialism within healthcare systems has been noted globally. This paper uses the findings of a scoping study to investigate the management of poor performance among nurses and midwives in the United Kingdom within this context. The management of poor performance among clinicians in the NHS has been seen as a significant policy problem. There has been a profound shift in the distribution of power between professional and managerial groups in many health systems globally. We examined literature published between 2000 and 10 to explore aspects of poor performance and its management. We used Web of Science, CINAHL, MEDLINE, British Nursing Index, HMIC, Cochrane Library and PubMed. Empirical data are limited but indicate that nurses and midwives are the clinical groups most likely to be suspended and that poor performance is often represented as an individual deficit. A focus on the individual as a source of trouble can serve as a distraction from more complex systematic problems.

Healthcare-associated respiratory tract infection.

Respiratory tract infections have been identified as the most common healthcare-associated infection in acute hospitals. Patients most at risk are those who are critically ill, in particular patients who are mechanically ventilated. Ventilator-associated pneumonia can have serious consequences for patients, increasing morbidity and mortality rates duration of ventilation and length of stay in intensive care. This article focuses on the prevention of healthcare-associated respiratory tract infections, and discusses strategies that staff can implement to minimise the risk of infection.

How aseptic technique is taught to undergraduate student nurses: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Aseptic technique is essential to prevent healthcare-associated infection and reduce the risk of antimicrobial resistance but little research has explored how it is taught in undergraduate nursing curricula. OBJECTIVE: Explore how undergraduate student nurses learn about aseptic technique in classroom and clinical settings and the contribution of key stakeholders in the educational process: nurse educators, mentors and infection prevention nurses. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study with observation of teaching. SETTING: Two contrasting sites, one reporting greater innovation in relation to the teaching and practice of aseptic technique than the other. Each site comprised a university nursing department and the organisations providing student placements. PARTICIPANTS: Student nurses, university-based nurse educators, clinical mentors and infection prevention nurses. METHODS: Telephone interviews, fieldwork and unstructured observation of teaching in the universities. FINDINGS: Student nurses reported feeling poorly prepared to undertake aseptic technique. There were misunderstandings and confusion about its purpose and how it should be conducted among nurse educators and mentors. Suboptimal facilities, poor curriculum design and arrangements for competency assessment in both sites contributed to students' experiences. Reports of better innovation in one of the participating sites compared to standard practice in the other were not reflected in the data. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study corroborate earlier research: student nurses do not feel well-prepared to undertake aseptic technique. Healthcare providers and universities need to investigate and address deficiencies in understanding among those responsible for teaching and performing this key nursing skill. University curricula should be revised to ensure that teaching takes place optimally in relation to clinical placements, improve arrangements for students' competency assessment, focus more on teaching the principles underpinning aseptic technique and promote transferability from the classroom to different types of clinical settings. Communication between university and clinical staff should be strengthened.

Skin flora: implications for nursing.

Many patients receiving inpatient care or admitted as day cases undergo invasive procedures that place them at potential risk of healthcare-associated infection. Human skin is populated with microorganisms most of which are harmless, however some have pathogenic potential. This article outlines the protective function of intact skin and describes its resident and transient microbial flora. The role and limitations of antiseptics in reducing the risk of infection are discussed.

The management of poor performance in nursing and midwifery: a case for concern.

AIM(S): To examine the evidence of how poorly performing nurses and midwives are managed in the UK National Health Service (NHS). BACKGROUND: Nurses and midwives form the largest clinical group in the NHS. There is little evidence, however, about poor performance and its management in nursing and midwifery literature. METHOD(S): The present study comprised a literature search, analysis of recent Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) data and observation at NMC fitness to practice hearings. RESULT: Nurses and midwives are the clinical groups most likely to be suspended in the NHS; Trusts do not report data on suspensions therefore no data exist on numbers, reasons for suspensions, managerial processes, gender, area of work, or ethnicity of those suspended; the few major research projects identify variable management practices, the significant financial cost to the NHS and the personal cost to those suspended; there is evidence that inexperienced, poorly trained, or poorly supported managers use suspension inappropriately. Our observation supported this. CONCLUSION(S): There is a need for robust data gathering and research in the field of NHS managerial practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Managers should refrain from adopting punitive forms of performance management. Frontline staff and management need better training and support for dealing with poor performance.

Diagnosis, prevention and treatment of fungal infections .

Most fungi live harmlessly in the environment, but some species can cause disease in the human host. Nurses working in primary care are likely to see patients with superficial fungal infections and are well placed to offer advice about treatment and measures to prevent the spread of infection in the home. Patients with weakened immune function admitted to hospital are at high risk of developing serious, invasive fungal infections. Systemic fungal infections are a major problem among critically ill patients in acute care settings and are responsible for an increasing proportion of healthcare-associated infections.

MRSA: implications for hospitals and nursing homes.

Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a major infection prevention and control challenge globally. In the UK, the occurrence of MRSA has fuelled public concern about hospital safety and had a major effect on health policy. Guidelines emphasise the importance of surveillance, decolonisation strategies, standard infection prevention and control precautions, and antibiotic stewardship to reduce the risk of transmission.

Outbreaks of infection in hospital and community settings.

Outbreaks of infection are managed by specialist practitioners in public health and infection control. However, the occurrence of an outbreak impinges on the work of other nurses employed in the affected service. In most cases, the effects will be self-limiting and although inconvenient at the time, are not far-reaching. However, media reports have raised concerns about outbreaks among healthcare workers as well as the public. The aim of this article is to provide an understanding of outbreaks of infection and the implications for nurses, drawing on the lessons learnt from a wide range of outbreaks past and present.

Undertaking qualitative reviews in nursing and education - A method of thematic analysis for students and clinicians.

Objectives: To develop a simplified but rigorous method for qualitative reviews using thematic analysis, suitable for students and clinicians. Design: Methodological review. Data sources: Cochrane and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methods, key references from these, and important original methodologies. Review methods: Examining similarities and differences between methods, and how key features can be combined. Results: Features of the JBI method, meta-ethnography, meta-study, and thematic-analysis were combined. This results in a method that uses codes from the original paper that are combined into themes. Themes reflect patterns in the data, most notably similarity and differences between codes; but also a line of argument. Where codes and themes are nested, the relationship between them should be shown in a hierarchical tree. There is also explicit consideration of the methods, theory, and assumptions behind each of the included papers. The quality of the underlying studies, body of evidence, and confidence in findings should be assessed using the tools described; and these used to develop transparent findings. Conclusions: This is one method by which systematic reviews can be undertaken by students and clinicians.

Survey with content analysis to explore nurses' satisfaction with opportunities to undertake continuing professional education in relation to aseptic technique.

BACKGROUND: Aseptic technique is a key skill undertaken every day by large numbers of nurses. However, there is relatively little empirical evidence to underpin practice. Furthermore, it is not clear to what extent it should be considered a single task or a set of principles to be applied differentially depending upon the situation and how individual nurses make this decision. OBJECTIVE: This study explored nurses' experiences of continuing professional education (CPE) in relation to aseptic technique. DESIGN: A national survey was undertaken throughout the United Kingdom. Responses were subjected to inductive quantitative content analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were recruited via an electronic link placed on the website of a major nursing organisation. RESULTS: 941 nurses responded. 253 (26.9%) were satisfied with arrangements for continuing professional education. Satisfaction was associated with a perception of good support from employers, sound preparation before qualifying and practising aseptic technique regularly. 311 (33%) were dissatisfied. Reasons included witnessing unwarranted variations in practice (n = 55, 5.8%), witnessing suboptimal practice requiring correction (65, 6.9%), a perception that standards had fallen through a decline in pre-registration preparation (n = 109, 11.6%) and opportunities for updating (n = 124, 13.2%). Some employers had introduced training in conjunction with organisation-wide change in practice. In other cases participants reported receiving updates when required to perform a new procedure, when moving between clinical specialities or changing employer. Train-the-trainer (cascade) teaching was used in formal and informal arrangements for updating. CONCLUSION: This study provides a springboard for exploring arrangements for updating and assessing nurses' competence to undertake aseptic technique. Health providers need to evaluate what is currently provided and address gaps in provision. There is clear evidence that the current system does not meet the needs of many nurses.

Interventions to improve hand hygiene compliance in patient care.

BACKGROUND: Health care-associated infection is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Hand hygiene is regarded as an effective preventive measure. OBJECTIVES: To update the review done in 2007, to assess the short and longer-term success of strategies to improve hand hygiene compliance and to determine whether a sustained increase in hand hygiene compliance can reduce rates of health care-associated infection. SEARCH STRATEGY: We conducted electronic searches of: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register of trials; MEDLINE; PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; and the BNI. Originally searched to July 2006, for the update databases were searched from August 2006 until November 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series analyses meeting explicit entry and quality criteria used by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group were eligible for inclusion. Studies reporting indicators of hand hygiene compliance and proxy indicators such as product use were considered. Self-reported data were not considered a valid measure of compliance. Studies to promote hand hygiene compliance as part of a care bundle approach were included, providing data relating specifically to hand hygiene were presented separately. Studies were excluded if hand hygiene was assessed in simulations, non-clinical settings or the operating theatre setting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed data quality. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies met the criteria for the review: two from the original review and two from the update. Two studies evaluated simple education initiatives, one using a randomized clinical trial design and the other a controlled before and after design. Both measured hand hygiene compliance by direct observation. The other two studies were both interrupted times series studies. One study presented three separate interventions within the same paper: simple substitutions of product and two multifaceted campaigns, one of which included involving practitioners in making decisions about choice of hand hygiene products and the components of the hand hygiene program. The other study also presented two separate multifaceted campaigns, one of which involved application of social marketing theory. In these two studies follow-up data collection continued beyond twelve months, and a proxy measure of hand hygiene compliance (product use) was recorded. Microbiological data were recorded in one study. Hand hygiene compliance increased for one of the studies where it was measured by direct observation, but the results from the other study were not conclusive. Product use increased in the two studies in which it was reported, with inconsistent results reported for one initiative. MRSA incidence decreased in the one study reporting microbiological data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The quality of intervention studies intended to increase hand hygiene compliance remains disappointing. Although multifaceted campaigns with social marketing or staff involvement appear to have an effect, there is insufficient evidence to draw a firm conclusion. There remains an urgent need to undertake methodologically robust research to explore the effectiveness of soundly designed and implemented interventions to increase hand hygiene compliance.

Causes, prevention and treatment of Escherichia coli infections.

Escherichia coli is a normal inhabitant of the human gastrointestinal tract and can cause healthcare-associated infections. The organism is most frequently responsible for urinary tract infections and it is the bacterium most often implicated in the cause of diarrhoea in people travelling overseas. In recent years, a strain called Ecoli O157 has gained notoriety for causing foodborne infection, which can have severe health consequences, especially in young children. This article describes the range of different infections caused by Ecoli in healthcare settings and the community and discusses the characteristics of the different strains of the bacteria that explain variations in their pathogenicity.