4.3 Article

Poor Hand Hygiene Procedure Compliance among Polish Medical Students and Physicians-The Result of an Ineffective Education Basis or the Impact of Organizational Culture?

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14091026

Keywords

hand hygiene; healthcare-associated infections; medical students; physicians

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The objective of the study was to examine the knowledge of Polish physicians and medical students about the role of hand hygiene (HH) in healthcare-associated infection (HAI) prevention. Study design: A survey was conducted using an author-prepared questionnaire, which was filled out on the first day of hospital work (or internship) by newly admitted physicians who had worked in other hospitals and students of different medical schools in Poland. Methods: 100 respondents participated in the study: 28 students, 18 medical interns and 54 physicians. Results: As many as 3/ 4 of physicians and students did not use the HH techniques correctly. The respondents declared that they perform HH in the following situations: 74.4% of respondents before an aseptic task; 60.8% before patient contact; 57.0% after patient contact; 11.5% after body fluid exposure risk, and only two respondents (1.1%) after contact with patient surroundings. 64% of respondents declared that their supervisor checked their knowledge of the HH technique when they were touching patients, but their supervisors checked the five instances for HH only in the case of 27 respondents (27%). Students experienced any control of HH in the workplace less often. Interns and physicians mentioned that the most important preventive action in HAI is HH, but for students it is the use of gloves. Conclusions: The level of knowledge and skills of physicians and students in the field of HH is insufficient. Deficiencies in skills and knowledge of HH were identified as early as at the level of the first internship.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available