Surgical nurses and compliance with personal protective equipment

Pomeranian Medical University in Szczecin, Stettin, West Pomeranian Voivodeship, Poland
Journal of Hospital Infection (Impact Factor: 2.78). 08/2007; 66(4):346-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2007.05.007
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The study objectives were to evaluate self-reported compliance with personal protective equipment (PPE) use among surgical nurses and factors associated with both compliance and non-compliance. A total of 601 surgical nurses, from 18 randomly selected hospitals (seven urban and 11 rural) in the Pomeranian region of Poland, were surveyed using a confidential questionnaire. The survey indicated that compliance with PPE varied considerably. Compliance was high for glove use (83%), but much lower for protective eyewear (9%). Only 5% of respondents routinely used gloves, masks, protective eyewear and gowns when in contact with potentially infective material. Adherence to PPE use was highest in the municipal hospitals and in the operating rooms. Nurses who had a high or moderate level of fear of acquiring human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) at work were more likely (P<0.005 and P<0.04, respectively) than staff with no fear to be compliant. Significantly higher compliance was found among nurses with previous training in infection control or experience of caring for an HIV patient; the combined effect of training and experience exceeded that for either alone. The most commonly stated reasons for non-compliance were non-availability of PPE (37%), the conviction that the source patient was not infected (33%) and staff concern that following locally recommended practices actually interfered with providing good patient care (32%). We recommend wider implementation, evaluation and improvement of training in infection control, preferably combined with practical experience with HIV patients and easier access and improved comfort of PPE.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In industrial environments, hearing protection devices (HPDs) are used to protect workers from noise exposure. However, the effectiveness of this practice can be compromised when workers periodically remove their HPDs while exposed to noise, which greatly affects the attenuation of the devices. Therefore, it is important for techniques that assess the “real” use of HPDs to be accurate. This study analysed the accuracy and reliability of three HPD assessment methods: (1) the self-reported use, (2) the use of a statistical sampling observation method and (3) the use of video to monitor (record) all of the workers' activity. The studied techniques were applied in an industrial environment where 2 types of HPDs are used and where wearing HPDs is compulsory. The results demonstrated that self-reported data differ from the observed workers' behaviour and that workers tend to overestimate their use of the HPDs. From the analysed variables, it can be concluded that the self-reported data are more reliable for older workers and for those with greater experience in using HPDs. Accordingly, it can be concluded that the self-reported use of HPDs is a good, practical method, particularly in terms of the time-effectiveness, cost and accuracy of the technique.Relevance to industryThe efficacy of hearing protection devices is strongly linked to the use period of the devices. Accordingly, it is essential that both field researchers and health and safety practitioners can be aware of the implications of the use of different methods to estimate the use period.
    International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 11/2013; 43(6):518–525. DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2012.07.002 · 1.21 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Source

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 10, 2014