Dataset Information

Patient as a Partner in Healthcare-Associated Infection Prevention.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:The objective of the study was getting to know the knowledge and attitudes towards hand hygiene (HH) among Polish patients and healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS:459 respondents replied to the survey: 173 (37.6%) patients and 286 (62.3%) HCWs; 57 HCWs were additionally interviewed. RESULTS:Few HCWs knew and used the "5 moments for HH" in the required situations. Both patients and HCWs rated HH of other HCWs poorly: only 75% of patients and 54% of HCWs noticed the application of HH before blood sample collection, but 1/2 of interviewed HCWs did not encounter a request for HH from a patient. According to interviews, 23 (40%) HCWs did not admonish others when they did not use HH. Seventy-five percent of patients and HCWs claimed that, in the past, in schools the toilets were poorly stocked, but the situation improved with the passage of time. CONCLUSIONS:There are barriers with resspect to treating patients as partners in HH in Polish hospitals and HCWs' lack of compliance with the "5 moments for HH" significantly reduces patients' safety. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS:Education regarding HH should be conducted for the whole society from an early age: lack of proper supplies in school bathrooms impedes the development of positive HH habits.

SUBMITTER: Walaszek M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5923666 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient as a Partner in Healthcare-Associated Infection Prevention.

Wałaszek Marta M Kołpa Małgorzata M Wolak Zdzisław Z Różańska Anna A Wójkowska-Mach Jadwiga J

International journal of environmental research and public health 20180329 4

<h4>Objectives</h4>The objective of the study was getting to know the knowledge and attitudes towards hand hygiene (HH) among Polish patients and healthcare workers (HCWs).<h4>Methods</h4>459 respondents replied to the survey: 173 (37.6%) patients and 286 (62.3%) HCWs; 57 HCWs were additionally interviewed.<h4>Results</h4>Few HCWs knew and used the "5 moments for HH" in the required situations. Both patients and HCWs rated HH of other HCWs poorly: only 75% of patients and 54% of HCWs noticed the ...[more]

PMID: 29596333

Similar Datasets

Project description:Given the high risk of contracting a healthcare-associated infection in long-term care facilities, infection prevention and control are essential for the quality of care and safety of residents and staff. To develop more effective infection prevention and control interventions in long-term care facilities, it is important to assess the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of existing interventions. There are only a few reviews on this subject, but these are not recent and most do not perform an economic evaluation. Moreover, none uses a discounting approach which limits inter-study comparison. To address these gaps, we will conduct a systematic review of economic evaluations related to healthcare-associated infection prevention and control in long-term care facilities using a discounting approach. We will query MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, CINAHL, EconLit, JSTOR, and Scopus, as well as the gray literature databases CORDIS and ProQuest. We will include quantitative studies that evaluate four clinical best practices associated with infection prevention and control (hand hygiene, hygiene and sanitation, screening, basic, and additional precautions) and use at least one of five economic analyses (cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, cost-minimization, cost-utility, cost-consequences). Primary outcomes will include net cost savings, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year, and incremental cost per disability-adjusted life year. Two co-authors will independently screen and select articles, extract data, and assess the quality of selected articles using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria, the Economic Evaluation criteria, and the Cochrane criteria for economic evaluation. Extracted data will be synthesized, and values will be adjusted to 2022 Canadian dollars using the discount rates of 3%, 5%, and 8%. Information obtained through this systematic review may help researchers and policy makers make more efficient use of limited healthcare resources to ensure the safety and quality of long-term care. Research registry ID: reviewregistry1210.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare-associated infections (HCAI) are common in long-term care facilities (LTCF) and cause significant burden. Infection prevention and control (IPC) measures include the clinical best practices (CBP) of hand hygiene, hygiene and sanitation, screening, and basic and additional precautions. Few studies demonstrate their cost-effectiveness in LTCF, and those that do, largely focus on one CBP. An overarching synthesis of IPC economic analyses in this context is warranted. The aim of this paper is to conduct a systematic review of economic evaluations of CBP applied in LTCF.MethodsWe twice queried CINAHL, Cochrane, EconLit, Embase, Medline, Web of Science and Scopus for studies published in the last three decades of economic evaluations of CBP in LTCF. We included controlled and randomized clinical trials, cohort, longitudinal, follow-up, prospective, retrospective, cross-sectional, and simulations studies, as well as those based on mathematical or statistical modelling. Two reviewers conducted study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment of studies. We applied discounting rates of 3%, 5% and 8%, and presented all costs in 2022 Canadian dollars. The protocol of this review was registered with Research Registry (reviewregistry1210) and published in BMC Systematic Reviews.FindingsWe found 3,331 records and then 822 records; ten studies were retained. The economic analyses described were cost-minimization (n = 1), cost-benefit (n = 1), cost-savings (n = 2), cost-utility (n = 2) and cost-effectiveness which included cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses (n = 4). Four studies were high quality, three were moderate, and three were low quality. Inter-rater agreement for quality assessment was 91⋅7%. All studies (n = 10) demonstrated that CBP associated with IPC are clinically effective in LTCF and many (n = 6) demonstrated their cost effectiveness.InterpretationOngoing economic evaluation research of IPC remains essential to underpin healthcare policy choices guided by empirical evidence for LTCF residents and staff.

Dataset Information

Patient as a Partner in Healthcare-Associated Infection Prevention.

Publications

Patient as a Partner in Healthcare-Associated Infection Prevention.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets