RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The emergency department (ED) represents an environment with a high density of invasive, and thus, infection-prone procedures. The two primary goals of this study were (1) to define the number of hand-rubs needed for an individual patient care at the ED and (2) to optimize hand hygiene (HH) compliance without increasing workload. METHODS: Prospective tri-phase (6-week observation phases interrupted by two 6-week interventions) before after study to determine opportunities for and compliance with HH (WHO definition). Standard operating procedures (SOPs) were optimized for invasive procedures during two predefined intervention periods (phases I and II) to improve workflow practices and thus compliance with HH. RESULTS: 378 patient cases were evaluated with 5674 opportunities for hand rubs (HR) and 1664 HR performed. Compliance significantly increased from 21% (545/2603) to 29% (467/1607), and finally 45% (652/1464; all p<0.001) in phases 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The number of HR needed for one patient care significantly decreased from 22 to 13 for the non-surgical and from 13 to 7 for the surgical patients (both p<0.001) due to improved workflow practices after implementing SOPs. In parallel, the number of HR performed increased from 3 to 5 for non-surgical (p<0.001) and from 2 to 3 for surgical patients (p=0.317). Avoidable opportunities as well as glove usage instead of HR significantly decreased by 70% and 73%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides the first detailed data on HH in an ED setting. Importantly, HH compliance improved significantly without increasing workload.
Assuntos
Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência/estatística & dados numéricos , Higiene das Mãos/estatística & dados numéricos , Pessoal de Saúde , Distribuição de Qui-Quadrado , Comportamentos Relacionados com a Saúde , Humanos , Assistência ao Paciente/estatística & dados numéricos , Estudos ProspectivosRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: The patient's presenting complaint guides diagnosis and treatment in the emergency department, but there is no classification system available in German. The Canadian Emergency Department Information System (CEDIS) Presenting Complaint List (PCL) is available only in English and French. As translation risks the altering of meaning, the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) has set guidelines to ensure translational accuracy. The aim of this paper is to describe our experiences of using the ISPOR guidelines to translate the CEDIS PCL into German. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The CEDIS PCL (version 3.0) was forward-translated and back-translated in accordance with the ISPOR guidelines using bilingual clinicians/translators and an occupationally mixed evaluation group that completed a self-developed questionnaire. RESULTS: The CEDIS PCL was forward-translated (four emergency physicians) and back-translated (three mixed translators). Back-translation uncovered eight PCL items requiring amendment. In total, 156 comments were received from 32 evaluators, six of which resulted in amendments. CONCLUSION: The ISPOR guidelines facilitated adaptation of a PCL into German, but the process required time, language skills and clinical knowledge. The current methodology may be applicable to translating the CEDIS PCL into other languages, with the aim of developing a harmonized, multilingual PCL.