4.5 Article

Are health care workers protected? An observational study of selection and removal of personal protective equipment in Canadian acute care hospitals

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INFECTION CONTROL
卷 41, 期 3, 页码 240-244

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2012.04.332

关键词

Infection prevention and control; Respiratory illness; Hand hygiene

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) by health care workers (HCWs) is vital in preventing the spread of infection and has implications for HCW safety. Methods: An observational study was performed in 11 hospitals participating in the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program between January 7 and March 30, 2011. Using a standardized data collection tool, observers recorded HCWs selecting and removing PPE and performing hand hygiene on entry into the rooms of febrile respiratory illness patients. Results: The majority of HCWs put on gloves (88%, n = 390), gown (83%, n = 368), and mask (88%, n = 386). Only 37% (n = 163) were observed to have put on eye protection. Working in a pediatric unit was significantly associated with not wearing eye protection (7%), gown (70%), gloves (77%), or mask (79%). Half of the observed HCWs (54%, n = 206) removed their PPE in the correct sequence. Twenty-six percent performed hand hygiene after removing their gloves, 46% after removing their gown, and 57% after removing their mask and/or eye protection. Conclusion: Overall adherence with appropriate PPE use in health care settings involving febrile respiratory illness patients was modest, particularly on pediatric units. Interventions to improve PPE use should be targeted toward the use of recommended precautions (eg, eye protection), HCWs working in pediatric units, the correct sequence of PPE removal, and performing hand hygiene. Copyright (C) 2013 by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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