Low Compliance with Alcohol Gel Compared with Chlorhexidine for Hand Hygiene in ICU Patients: Results of an Alcohol Gel Implementation Program
Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. <>The Brazilian journal of infectious diseases: an official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (Impact Factor: 1.3). 10/2009; 13(5):330-4. DOI: 10.1590/S1413-86702009000500003
Although the introduction of alcohol based products have increased compliance with hand hygiene in intensive care units (ICU), no comparative studies with other products in the same unit and in the same period have been conducted. We performed a two-month-observational prospective study comparing three units in an adult ICU, according to hand hygiene practices (chlorhexidine alone-unit A, both chlorhexidine and alcohol gel-unit B, and alcohol gel alone-unit C, respectively). Opportunities for hand hygiene were considered according to an institutional guideline. Patients were randomly allocated in the 3 units and data on hand hygiene compliance was collected without the knowledge of the health care staff. TISS score (used for measuring patient complexity) was similar between the three different units. Overall compliance with hand hygiene was 46.7% (659/1410). Compliance was significantly higher after patient care in unit A when compared to units B and C. On the other hand, compliance was significantly higher only between units A (32.1%) and C (23.1%) before patient care (p=0.02). Higher compliance rates were observed for general opportunities for hand hygiene (patient bathing, vital sign controls, etc), while very low compliance rates were observed for opportunities related to skin and gastroenteral care. One of the reasons for not using alcohol gel according to health care workers was the necessity for water contact (35.3%, 12/20). Although the use of alcohol based products is now the standard practice for hand hygiene the abrupt abolition of hand hygiene with traditional products may not be recommended for specific services.
Full-text previewDOI: · Available from: scielo.br
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Final year nursing students and infection prevention and control nurses were recorded verbalising their hand hygiene decision-making while working through clinical scenarios on a computer, to understand what factors they were taking into account in choosing a decontamination method (hand washing or alcohol based hand rub/gel) or to wear gloves. Results demonstrated an overuse of gloves, and underuse of gel. Three main themes emerged: ‘Experience or expectation’; this was what they had seen on placement, or it was what ‘we’ do. ‘Just in case,’ was characterised by an awareness that what they would do wasn’t actually necessary but they tended to do it anyway. Thirdly, ‘gel doesn’t feel clean,’ was characterised by a feeling that using gel didn’t make the nurses feel clean after ‘dirty’ tasks, even though gel is actually more effective. There was little evidence that participants were making risk assessments based on the individual patient characteristics given, or the tasks, as they had been taught to do. Choice of hand decontamination agent and whether to use gloves appeared to be based on an habitual characterisation of whether the task was ‘clean’ or ‘dirty,’ with a very low threshold for ‘dirty’ based on an excessive perception of risk to the student.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Hand hygiene is effective to prevent the transmission of microorganisms in health care settings, but compliance remains low, even when easy access to hand cleaning agents is provided. Formulation of alcohol-based hand rub (ABHRs) may influence staff compliance to hand hygiene. The aim of this prospective longitudinal study (1 week) was to investigate possible differences of 4 different gel or liquid ABHR formulations, with or without virucidal claim among dental students. Participants were randomly assigned to dental treatment cubicles, equipped with either a gel or a liquid based ABHRs, with our without a virucidal claim. Participants assessed the subjective acceptability and the tolerability of test formulations on their hands over a period of 1 week using the 14 item, 7-point Lickert scale World Health Organization questionnaire. All tested ABHRs passed the subjective acceptability criteria of ≥50% above 4 for the items "color and fragrance" and for all other items of >75% above 4 and may be regarded as "good." Significant differences were observed between the 2 gels but not between the 2 liquid ABHRs. For subjective skin tolerability, no significant difference was observed between the liquid formulations after 1 consecutive week of application. However, the difference between the 2 gels was highly significant. Virucidal ABHR formulations may be better accepted and tolerated over prolonged periods by dental students than anticipated. The user acceptability of ABHRs depend more on the specific product's formula than its general category.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Health care-associated infection remains a significant hazard for hospitalized patients. Hand hygiene is a fundamental action for ensuring patient safety. To promote adoption of World Health Organization Hand Hygiene Guidelines to enhance compliance among doctors and nurses and improve patient safety. The study design was a cross sectional intervention in a Federal Teaching Hospital South-eastern Nigeria. Interventions involved training/education; introduction of hand rub; and hand hygiene reminders. The impact of interventions and hand hygiene compliance were evaluated using World Health Organization direct observation technique. The post-intervention hand hygiene compliance rate was 65.3%. Hand hygiene indications showed highest compliance rate 'after body fluid exposure' (75.3%) and 'after touching a patient' (73.6%) while the least compliance rate was recorded 'before touching a patient' (58.0%). Hand hygiene compliance rate was significantly higher among nurses (72.9%) compared to doctors (59.7%) (χ(2)=23.8, p<0.05). Hand hygiene indication with significantly higher compliance rate was "before clean/aseptic procedure" (84.4%) (χ(2)=80.74, p<0.05). Out of the 815 hand hygiene practices recorded 550 (67.5%) were hand rub action. hand hygiene campaigns using the World Health Organization tools and methodology can be successfully executed in a tertiary health facility of a low-income setting with far reaching improvements in compliance.