SEARCH · PubMed Health
Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Partners in Your Care, a patient education behavioral model for increasing handwashing compliance and empowering the patient with responsibility for their care was evaluated in an acute care hospital in Oxford, UK. A controlled prospective intervention study comparing medical and surgical patients was performed. Ninety-eight patients were eligible for the study. Thirty-nine patients (40%) agreed to participate in the programme Partners in Your Care by asking all healthcare workers who were going to have direct contact with them "Did you wash your hands?" Compliance with the programme was measured through soap/alcohol usage and handwashings per bed day before and after its introduction. Partners in Your Care increased handwashing on average 50%. Healthcare workers washed hands more often with surgical patients than with medical (P< 0.05). Alcohol gel was used on less than 1% of occasions. Sixty-two percent of patients in study felt at ease when asking healthcare workers "Did you wash your hands?" Seventy-eight percent received a positive response (washed hands). All patients asked nurses, but only 35% asked physicians. Partners in Your Care increased handwashing compliance in the UK. This programme empowers patients with responsibility for their care, provides infection control staff with a continuing means for providing handwashing education without additional staff and can save costs for a hospital.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the knowledge, beliefs, and practices of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) healthcare workers (HCWs). DESIGN: Self-administered survey. SETTING: A 55-bed NICU. PARTICIPANTS: NICU HCWs (N = 215). RESULTS: The response rate was 68%. Ninety-two percent knew central venous catheters (CVCs) should be capped, clamped, or connected to running fluids at all times. Ninety-five percent knew when to change gloves. Thirty-one percent knew the recommended duration for handwashing. Most HCWs believed sterile technique in CVC care (96%), gloves (91%), and handwashing (99%) prevent nosocomial infection (NI). Sixty-seven percent used sterile barriers to insert CVCs, 76% reported wearing gloves, 81% reported routine handwashing, 35% knew that bacterial hand counts are higher with rings, 30% knew that long fingernails are associated with higher gram-negative bacterial hand contamination, and 35% knew that artificial fingernails are associated with higher gram-negative bacterial hand contamination. Most (93%) believed HCWs can affect outcomes of patients with NIs. Fewer believed rings (40%), artificial fingernails (61%), and long fingernails (48%) play a role in NIs, or that policies concerning number of rings (50%), cutting fingernails (35%), or prohibiting artificial fingernails (47%) would prevent NIs. Sixty-one percent of HCWs regularly wore at least one ring to work, 56% wore their fingernails shorter than the fingertip, and 8% wore artificial fingernails. CONCLUSIONS: A disconnect existed between CVC knowledge and beliefs and practice. HCWs did not know the relationship between bacterial hand counts and rings and fingernails, and did not believe rings or long or artificial fingernails increased the risk of NIs.
Four detergent preparations containing triclosan; two alcoholic products, containing triclosan and chlorhexidine respectively, and a detergent preparation containing chlorhexidine were compared with 60 per cent isopropyl alcohol following a single hand wash using Escherichia coli as the test organism. In vitro tests indicated that all had a high activity against hospital pathogens. The triclosan-containing preparations exhibited a significant pathogens. The triclosan-containing preparations exhibited a significant residual activity. Experiments in volunteers showed that 0.5 per cent alcoholic triclosan was significantly more effective than all other preparations tested. All the detergent preparations had an effect similar to that of 60 per cent isopropyl alcohol. None of the seven products evaluated was significantly less bactericidal than 60 per cent isopropyl alcohol.
The efficacy of two chlorhexidine hand-wash detergents and liquid soap was compared in a laboratory trial using artificial contamination of fingers with Micrococcus and Serratia. Agents were assessed for both a rapid and sustained effect after a single contact, and for a cumulative persistent effect after multiple contact over four days. Disinfectant activities were compared by statistical analysis of log reduction factors and log count time gradients (decimal reduction times). The latter analysis attempted to accommodate significant subject variation in response to both agent and organism. All handwashing methods significantly reduced contamination levels. Both chlorhexidine formulations were significantly better than soap in their activity against Micrococcus, but were not more effective than soap in removing contamination with Serratia. Both chlorhexidine preparations showed significant skin persistence and were generally acceptable to subjects after prolonged use. Some effect of the formulation of the hand-wash on chlorhexidine activity was demonstrated.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
A standardised test procedure is described in which finger-tips are inoculated with broth cultures of organisms (Staphylococcus aureus, Staphyloccocus saprophyticus, Escherichia coli, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa): counts are made from washings of hands after disinfection with various antiseptic-detergents, alcoholic solutions, or unmedicated soap. 70% alcohol, with or without chlorhexidine, was the most effective preparation. The two antiseptic detergents showed variable results, but against Gram-negative bacilli neither was significantly more effective than plain soap. Some tests were also made on the death rate of organisms dried on the skin without disinfection.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
As most nosocomial infections are thought to be transmitted by the hands of healthcare workers, handwashing is considered to be the single most important intervention to prevent nosocomial infections. However, studies have shown that handwashing practices are poor, especially among medical personnel. This review gives an overview of handwashing in health care and in the community, including some aspects that have attracted little attention, such as hand drying and cultural issues determining hand hygiene behaviour. Hand hygiene is the most effective measure for interrupting the transmission of micro-organisms which cause infection, both in the community and in the healthcare setting. Using hand hygiene as a sole measure to reduce infection is unlikely to be successful when other factors in infection control, such as environmental hygiene, crowding, staffing levels and education, are inadequate. Hand hygiene must be part of an integrated approach to infection control. Compliance with hand hygiene recommendations is poor worldwide. While the techniques involved in hand hygiene are simple, the complex interdependence of factors that determine hand hygiene behaviour makes the study of hand hygiene complex. It is now recognized that improving compliance with hand hygiene recommendations depends on altering human behaviour. Input from behavioural and social sciences is essential when designing studies to investigate compliance. Interventions to increase compliance with hand hygiene practices must be appropriate for different cultural and social needs.
Evaluation of the infection potential in the home suggests that improved hygiene practice could significantly reduce the impact of infectious diseases. Fundamental to developing infection prevention policy for the home is the need to recognise that people live in an environment where all human activities occur, including food and water hygiene, hand hygiene, and hygiene related to care of vulnerable groups. In all these situations, reducing infection risks is based on the same underlying microbiological principles. In developing countries, disposal of human and animal excreta and other waste is often also the responsibility of the family and community. Adopting a holistic approach provides the opportunity for a rational approach to home hygiene based on risk assessment. The International Scientific Forum on Home Hygiene (IFH) believes that to deliver hygiene policy with real health benefits, a risk-based approach must be developed and promoted for the home. A risk-based approach starts from the principle that pathogens are introduced continually into homes on people, food and water, pets, insects and air. Inadequate disposal of human and animal excreta serves to increase this risk. Additionally, sites where stagnant water accumulates, such as sinks, toilets and cleaning cloths can support microbial growth and become a source of infection. By assessing the frequency occurrence of pathogens and potential pathogens on hands, hand and food contact surfaces, laundry, reservoir and reservoir/disseminator sites, together with the potential for transfer in the home, the exposure risk can be assessed.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Over a century has passed since Ignaz P. Semmelweis demonstrated the association between hand hygiene and nosocomial infections, but this simple procedure is still not recognized by many healthcare workers as one of the most important measures to prevent cross-transmission of microorganisms. A relatively large amount of research has been done, in particular to try to understand why compliance remains so low, in order to implement successful promotion campaigns. This research has generated a fair amount of strong scientific data which are sometimes misunderstood and misused because of myths or certain beliefs. Observational or intervention studies have consistently shown a number of risk factors associated with non-compliance, such as high workload, professional category, or type of ward. Others are thought to be barriers to adequate compliance but have not yet been properly assessed. These include skin irritation due to hand hygiene agents, lack of knowledge of hand hygiene recommendations, or lack of institutional policy. Future interventions to promote hand hygiene will need to address these risk factors, and target the individual healthcare worker, as well as the group or institution if a significant degree of success is to be achieved.
The Austrian Standard Hygienic Hand-Disinfection Test was adapted for comparing the effect of washing artificially contaminated hands (using Escherichia coli) with contaminated gloved hands, using liquid soap and rinsing with water. Tests showed that a single soap wash completely removed all the bacteria from the glove, and was more than 1000 times more effective on the glove than on the hand.
BACKGROUND: The hands of health care workers are a major source of nosocomial infection. Studies conducted mainly in intensive-care units and emergency departments have shown low compliance with hand hygiene recommendation. OBJECTIVE: To study hand hygiene practices in outpatient dermatology clinics in Israel. METHODS: The fingers of 13 dermatologist physicians were sampled for bacterial cultures and their hand hygiene practices were monitored by two observers. In addition, 51 dermatologists attending a professional conference completed a questionnaire on hand hygiene practice. RESULTS: All the physicians' hands were found to be contaminated. Staphylococcus aureus was isolated in 9 cases (69.2%), a methicillin-resistant S. aureus in 1 (7.7%). Monitoring revealed 555 opportunities for handwashing; the average compliance was 31.4%. In the questionnaire, the main reasons given for poor hand hygiene were excessive work schedule (58%), lack of awareness (35.3%), reaction to disinfectants (17.7%) and lack of readily available facilities (15.7%). CONCLUSION: The hands of dermatologists are frequently colonized with microbial pathogens, but compliance with hand hygiene practice recommendations is low, despite a fairly high awareness of the importance. An active educational infection control program should be introduced in dermatology clinics.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of a hand hygiene program on compliance with hand hygiene and the rate of nosocomial infections in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). DESIGN: Open trial. SETTING: A level-III NICU in a teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Nurses, physicians, and other healthcare workers in the NICU. INTERVENTIONS: A multimodal campaign for hand hygiene promotion was conducted beginning in September 1998. This program consisted of formal lectures, written instructions and posted reminders regarding hand hygiene and proper handwashing techniques, covert observation, financial incentives, and regular group feedback on compliance. Surveillance of handwashing compliance and nosocomial infections before and during the program was analyzed. RESULTS: Overall compliance with hand hygiene improved from 43% at baseline to 80% during the promotion program. The rate of nosocomial infections decreased from 15.13 to 10.69 per 1,000 patient-days (P = .003) with improved handwashing compliance. In particular, respiratory tract infections decreased from 3.35 to 1.06 per 1,000 patient-days during the handwashing campaign (P = .002). Furthermore, the correlation between nosocomial infection of the respiratory tract and handwashing compliance also reached statistical significance (r = -0.385; P = .014). CONCLUSIONS: Improved compliance with handwashing was associated with a significant decrease in overall rates of nosocomial infection and respiratory infections in particular. Washing hands is a simple, economical, and effective method for preventing nosocomial infections in the NICU.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of introduction of an alcohol-based hand rub on hand hygiene knowledge and compliance and hand colonization of healthcare workers (HCWs) in a long-term-care facility (LTCF). METHODS: Two floors of an LTCF participated. Ward A used the hand rub as an adjunct to soap and water; ward B was the control. HCWs' hands were cultured using the bag-broth technique for Staphylococcus aureus, gram-negative bacilli (GNB), Candida, and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE). HCWs completed a questionnaire at baseline and after an educational intervention and introduction of rub. RESULTS: Hand hygiene practices, knowledge, and opinions did not change after the educational or rub intervention. Ward A HCWs thought that the rub was faster (P = .002) and less drying (P = .04) than soap. Hand hygiene frequency did not differ at baseline between the two floors, but increased on ward A by the end of the study (P = .04). HCWs were colonized frequently with GNB (66%), Candida (41%), S. aureus (20%), and VRE (9%). Although colonization did not change from baseline on either ward, the rub was more effective in clearing GNB P =.03) and S. aureus (P = .003). Nosocomial infection rates did not change. CONCLUSION: The alcohol-based hand rub was a faster, more convenient, less drying method of hand hygiene for HCWs in an LTCF, and it improved compliance. Although microbial colonization did not change, the rub was more efficacious in removing pathogens already present on the hands of HCWs.