Infection control and management of MRSA: assessing the knowledge of staff in an acute hospital setting.

Directorate of Change and Innovation, Tayside NHS Board, Dundee, UK.
Journal of Hospital Infection (Impact Factor: 2.86). 06/2007; 66(1):29-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2006.12.016
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Much of the recent work in tackling meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has focused on hygiene in hospitals, but it is unclear how much hospital staff know about the treatment and management of patients who are colonized or infected with MRSA. The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge and perceived practice of staff regarding MRSA and its management in an acute hospital setting. A further aim was to determine what staff felt was needed in terms of information or education on the risks, management and treatment of MRSA. A questionnaire survey was carried out through group administration during a study day and by face-to-face interviews. Subjects included in the questionnaire were infection and colonization, treatment, and the availability of local support and advice. There were 174 responses, divided equally between doctors and nurses. Knowledge on many aspects of MRSA and its management was deficient, although the majority of participants who felt that they required additional information about MRSA acknowledged this. The survey confirmed that assumptions should not be made about adequate knowledge and expertise of staff in relation to MRSA. Gaps in awareness of aspects of care and management were highlighted and information and educational needs identified.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Control of infection and prevention of healthcare associated infections is an ongoing issue worldwide. Yet despite initiatives and strategies to reduce the burden that these infections cause, healthcare workers' practice is still reported as suboptimal and these infections persist. Much of the research to date has primarily focused on predicting infection prevention behaviours and factors associated with guideline compliance. While this has given valuable insight, an investigation aiming to understand and explain behaviours that occur in everyday practice from the perspective of the actors themselves may hold the key to the challenges of effecting behaviour change. This study questioned "How can nurses' infection prevention behaviour be explained?" This paper presents one of three identified themes 'Rationalising dirt-related behaviour'. This interpretative qualitative study uses vignettes, developed from nurses' accounts of practice, to explore nurses' reported infection prevention behaviours. Registered nurses working in an acute hospital setting and had been qualified for over a year. They were recruited while studying part-time at a London University. Twenty semi-structured interviews were undertaken using a topic guide and vignettes. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using the framework method. The findings demonstrate that participants were keen to give a good impression and present themselves as knowledgeable practitioners, although it was evident that they did not always follow procedure and policy. They rationalised their own behaviour and logically justified any deviations from policy. Deviations in others were criticised as irrational and explained as superficial and part of a 'show' or display. However, participants also gave a presentation of themselves: a show or display that was influenced by the desire to protect self and satisfy patient scrutiny. This study contributes to the identification and explanation of nurses' infection prevention behaviours which are considered inappropriate or harmful. Behaviour is multifaceted and complex, stemming from a response to factors that are outside a purely 'scientific' understanding of infection and not simply understood as a deficit in knowledge. This calls for educational interventions that consider beliefs, values and social understanding of dirt and infection.
    International journal of nursing studies 07/2013; · 1.91 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Patient–professional interactions and adherence to infection control measures are central to the quality of care and patient safety in healthcare. Persons colonized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) describe insufficient support and unprofessional behavior among healthcare personnel. Methods A descriptive qualitative study was conducted to investigate managers’, physicians’, registered nurses’ and MRSA-colonized persons’ experiences of patient–professional interactions in relation to and responsibilities for infection prevention in the care of colonized patients. Five persons with MRSA colonization and 20 healthcare personnel employed within infection, hematology, nephrology or primary healthcare settings participated. The data were collected using open-ended semi-structured individual interviews with the MRSA-colonized persons and semi-structured focus group interviews with the healthcare personnel. Results The participants perceived MRSA as an indefinable threat and described that the responsibility for infection prevention is important, but such adherence was a neglected and negotiable issue. The described actions that were acknowledged as unprofessional and inappropriate adherence to infection prevention resulted in stigmatized patients. Conclusion Colonized persons’ and healthcare personnel's understanding of MRSA determines whether the personnel's behavior is perceived as proper or improper. Individual responsibility for patient–professional interactions in relation to MRSA colonization and adherence to infection control measures should be more stringent.
    Journal of Infection and Public Health 01/2014;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This cross-sectional study aimed to assess knowledge of routes of transmission, awareness of MRSA control guidelines and reasons for non-adherence to guidelines among medical staff at Alexandria University hospitals. A random sample of 158 physicians and 47 nurses answered a self-administered questionnaire. Overall awareness of MRSA control guidelines was 67.3%, and nurses were significantly more aware than physicians (91.5% versus 60.1%). The lowest awareness level was among anaesthesiologists; only 54.4% knew the correct transmission routes. Among medical staff overall, 70.0% accepted the necessity of screening measures for high-risk patients and 35.8% of doctors accepted the use of the same pair of gloves when caring for different body sites on an individual patient. Lack of resources was the most common justification for suboptimum adherence. The study showed low awareness levels of MRSA-related guidelines. Sensibilisation aux recommandations de l'Organisation mondiale de la Santé sur la lutte contre Staphylococcus aureus résistant à la méthicilline dans des hôpitaux universitaires d'Alexandrie RÉSUMÉ La présente étude transversale visait à évaluer la connaissance des voies de transmission, la sensibilisation aux recommandations sur la lutte contre Staphylococcus aureus résistant à la méthicilline et les motifs du non respect de ces recommandations par le personnel médical des hôpitaux universitaires d'Alexandrie. Un échantillon randomisé de 158 médecins et 47 infirmières ont répondu à un auto-questionnaire. Globalement, la sensibilisation aux recommandations sur la lutte contre Staphylococcus aureus résistant à la méthicilline était de 67,3 %, et le personnel infirmier était beaucoup plus sensibilisé que les médecins (91,5 % contre 60,1 %). Le niveau de sensibilisation le plus faible a été retrouvé chez les anesthésistes. Seuls 54,4 % de ces derniers connaissaient les voies de transmission correctes. Au sein du personnel médical globalement, 70,0 % avaient accepté la nécessité de mesures de dépistage pour les patients à haut risque mais 35,8 % des médecins reconnaissaient utiliser une seule paire de gants même lors de soins prodigués sur différents sites corporels d'un même patient. Le manque de ressources était la justification la plus fréquente pour le respect insuffisant de ces recommandations. L'étude a mis en évidence les faibles niveaux de sensibilisation aux recommandations sur la lutte contre Staphylococcus aureus résistant à la méthicilline.

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 5, 2014