4.5 Article

Use patterns and frequency of hand hygiene in healthcare facilities: Analysis of electronic surveillance data

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INFECTION CONTROL
卷 46, 期 10, 页码 1104-1109

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2018.04.205

关键词

Hand hygiene; Healthcare; Monitoring; Alcohol-based handrub; Infection prevention; Occupational exposure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Healthcare workers perform hand hygiene much more frequently than workers in other fields. As a result, healthcare workers have a higher exposure to topical antiseptic products. Methods: Five tertiary care facilities were equipped with an electronic hand hygiene compliance monitoring system. Alcohol-based handrub (ABHR) and handwash use was recorded on a worker-specific basis for 6 months. Total hand hygiene product use and total hours worked were calculated for each worker to determine use frequency. Results: A detailed, descriptive analysis of hand hygiene practices was performed. All facilities demonstrated high hand hygiene compliance rates (> 85%). ABHR use was more frequent (9.1 uses/hour, 95th percentile) than handwashing (2.1 uses/hour, 95th percentile). This study identified a relationship between hand hygiene frequency and job function. Nursing and nonclinical support staff demonstrated higher usage rates than other healthcare workers. For these workers with high hand hygiene frequency, 95th percentile usage rates for ABHR use and handwashing were 9.6 and 2.2 uses/hour, respectively. Conclusions: This extensive dataset, monitoring nearly 4000 healthcare workers and more than 6 million data points, provides a detailed description of current hand hygiene practices of hospital staff. ABHR was used more frequently than handwashing. Job function was found to affect hand hygiene frequency, with nonclinical staff and nursing staff demonstrating elevated rates of hand hygiene. (C) 2018 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据