Article

Dissemination of the CDC's Hand Hygiene Guideline and impact on infection rates.

Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, NY 10032, USA.
American journal of infection control (Impact Factor: 2.33). 12/2007; 35(10):666-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2006.10.006
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The diffusion of national evidence-based practice guidelines and their impact on patient outcomes often go unmeasured.
Our objectives were to (1) evaluate implementation and compliance with clinical practices recommended in the new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hand Hygiene Guideline, (2) compare rates of health care-associated infections (HAI) before and after implementation of the Guideline recommendations, and (3) examine the patterns and correlates of changes in rates of HAI. We used pre- and post-Guideline implementation site visits and surveys in the setting of 40 US hospitals--members of the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System--and measured HAI rates 1 year before and after publication of the CDC Guideline and used direct observation of hand hygiene compliance and Guideline implementation scores.
All study hospitals had changed their policies and procedures and provided products in compliance with Guideline recommendations; 89.8% of 1359 staff members surveyed anonymously reported that they were familiar with the Guideline. However, in 44.2% of the hospitals (19/40), there was no evidence of a multidisciplinary program to improve compliance. Hand hygiene rates remained low (mean, 56.6%). Rates of central line-associated bloodstream infections were significantly lower in hospitals with higher rates of hand hygiene (P < .001). No impact of Guideline implementation or hand hygiene compliance on other HAI rates was identified. Other factors occurring over time could affect rates of HAI. Observed hand hygiene compliance rates were likely to overestimate rates in actual practice. The study may have been of too short duration to detect the impact of a practice guideline.
Wide dissemination of this Guideline was not sufficient to change practice. Only some hospitals had initiated multidisciplinary programs; practice change is unlikely without such multidisciplinary efforts and explicit administrative support.

0 Followers
 · 
127 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Healthy infection prevention practices (HIPP) include hand hygiene, respiratory etiquette, environmental cleanliness, and use of personal protective equipment. These healthy practices are most used to protect individuals against exposure to bacterial and viral infections in the workplace, as well as in the home. Most often these infection prevention behaviors in critical care units are promoted to protect the patient from healthcare-associated infections. Yet, these practices are just as important to the health of the critical care nurse. Self-health in the workplace is essential to creating a healthy workplace environment, which is the goal of many intensive care units today. The benefits of creating a healthy work environment are improvement of patient/nurse satisfaction and nurse retention. HIPP reduce the risk of the critical care nurse's exposure to microbial pathogens such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and influenza. Pathogens that cause infections may contaminate the hands, the clothing, equipment, and blood, putting the nurse at risk for unhealthy hands, unhealthy flora, and unhealthy blood. The intensive care nurse is encouraged to embrace HIPP to nurture self, as well as protect the patient.
    Critical care nursing quarterly 32(3):242-50; quiz 251-2. DOI:10.1097/CNQ.0b013e3181ab9273
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Traditional approaches to definitions of nosocomial infections and their prophylaxis focus on time cut-offs and non-antibiotic manoeuvres. In general, the time cut-off of 48 h has been applied to distinguish community and hospital infection from ICU infection, and hand washing has been the cornerstone of conventional policies for the prevention of ICU infections occurring after 48 h. In contrast, the philosophy of antibiotic prophylaxis using selective decontamination of the digestive tract is based on the criterion of the carrier state of a limited range of potential pathogens that are involved in three different types of infection: endogenous infections, both primary and secondary, and exogenous infections. Most infections are of primary endogenous development due to micro-organisms carried in the admission flora and are controlled by parenteral cefotaxime administered immediately on admission. The aim of polymyxin E/tobramycin/amphotericin B applied topically in the throat and gut is to prevent secondary endogenous infections due to micro-organisms acquired on the unit, and generally occurring after 7 days. Exogenous infections caused by micro-organisms not previously carried can occur at any time during the stay on the unit and only high standards of hygiene are able to prevent them. The most extensive meta-analysis reports data on 5727 patients enrolled in 33 randomized trials and indicates a significant reduction of both infections (OR=0.35; 95% CI=0.29–0.41) and total mortality (OR=0.80; 95% CI=0.69–0.93). There are no randomized trials available which show that rigid implementation of hand washing reduces morbidity or mortality. The aim of this review is to help readers distinguish between what is evidence-based, and what is still largely opinion-based.
    Current Anaesthesia and Critical Care 02/2001; 12(1):34–40. DOI:10.1054/cacc.2001.0320
  • Value in Health 11/2003; 6(6):711-711. DOI:10.1016/S1098-3015(10)61813-X · 2.89 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
2 Downloads
Available from