RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends implementing Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for all nursing home (NH) residents known to be colonized with targeted multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs), wounds, or medical devices. Differences in health care personnel (HCP) and resident interactions between units may affect risk of acquiring and transmitting MDROs, affecting EBP implementation. We studied HCP-resident interactions across a variety of NHs to characterize MDRO transmission opportunities. DESIGN: 2 cross-sectional visits. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Four CDC Epicenter sites and CDC Emerging Infection Program sites in 7 states recruited NHs with a mix of unit care types (≥30 beds or ≥2 units). HCP were observed providing resident care. METHODS: Room-based observations and HCP interviews assessed HCP-resident interactions, care type provided, and equipment use. Observations and interviews were conducted for 7-8 hours in 3-6-month intervals per unit. Chart reviews collected deidentified resident demographics and MDRO risk factors (eg, indwelling devices, pressure injuries, and antibiotic use). RESULTS: We recruited 25 NHs (49 units) with no loss to follow-up, conducted 2540 room-based observations (total duration: 405 hours), and 924 HCP interviews. HCP averaged 2.5 interactions per resident per hour (long-term care units) to 3.4 per resident per hour (ventilator care units). Nurses provided care to more residents (n = 12) than certified nursing assistants (CNAs) and respiratory therapists (RTs) (CNA: 9.8 and RT: 9) but nurses performed significantly fewer task types per interaction compared to CNAs (incidence rate ratio (IRR): 0.61, P < .05). Short-stay (IRR: 0.89) and ventilator-capable (IRR: 0.94) units had less varied care compared with long-term care units (P < .05), although HCP visited residents in these units at similar rates. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Resident-HCP interaction rates are similar across NH unit types, differing primarily in types of care provided. Current and future interventions such as EBP, care bundling, or targeted infection prevention education should consider unit-specific HCP-resident interaction patterns.
Asunto(s)
Control de Infecciones , Casas de Salud , Humanos , Estudios Transversales , Personal de Salud , AntibacterianosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In healthcare, the goal of personal protective equipment (PPE) is to protect healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients from body fluids and infectious organisms via contact, droplet, or airborne transmission. The critical importance of using PPE properly is highlighted by 2 potentially fatal viral infections, severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus and Ebola virus, where HCP became infected while caring for patients due to errors in the use of PPE. However, PPE in dealing with less dangerous, but highly infectious organisms is important as well. This work proposes a framework to test and evaluate PPE with a focus on gown design. METHODS: An observational study identified issues with potential for contamination related to gown use. After redesigning the existing gown, a high-fidelity patient simulator study with 40 HCP as participants evaluated the gown redesign using 2 commonly performed tasks. Variables of interest were nonadherence to procedural standards, use problems with the gown during task performance, and usability and cognitive task load ratings of the standard and redesigned gowns. RESULTS: While no differences were found in terms of nonadherence and use problems between the current and the redesigned gown, differences in usability and task load ratings suggested that the redesigned gown is perceived more favorably by HCP. CONCLUSIONS: This work proposes a framework to guide the evaluation of PPE. The results suggest that the current design of the PPE gown can be improved in usability and user satisfaction. Although our data did not find an increase in adherence to protocol when using the redesigned gown, it is likely that higher usability and lower task load could result in higher adherence over longer periods of use.
Asunto(s)
Infección Hospitalaria/prevención & control , Personal de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Transmisión de Enfermedad Infecciosa de Paciente a Profesional/prevención & control , Equipo de Protección Personal/normas , Ropa de Protección/normas , Virosis/prevención & control , Infección Hospitalaria/transmisión , Estudios de Evaluación como Asunto , Fiebre Hemorrágica Ebola/prevención & control , Fiebre Hemorrágica Ebola/transmisión , Humanos , Síndrome Respiratorio Agudo Grave/prevención & control , Síndrome Respiratorio Agudo Grave/transmisión , Virosis/transmisiónRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Determine the effectiveness of a personal protective equipment (PPE)-free zone intervention on healthcare personnel (HCP) entry hand hygiene (HH) and PPE donning compliance in rooms of patients in contact precautions. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental, multicenter intervention, before-and-after study with concurrent controls. SETTING: All patient rooms on contact precautions on 16 units (5 medical-surgical, 6 intensive care, 5 specialty care units) at 3 acute-care facilities (2 academic medical centers, 1 Veterans Affairs hospital). Observations of PPE donning and entry HH compliance by HCP were conducted during both study phases. Surveys of HCP perceptions of the PPE-free zone were distributed in both study phases. INTERVENTION: A PPE-free zone, where a low-risk area inside door thresholds of contact precautions rooms was demarcated by red tape on the floor. Inside this area, HCP were not required to wear PPE. RESULTS: We observed 3,970 room entries. HH compliance did not change between study phases among intervention units (relative risk [RR], 0.92; P = .29) and declined in control units (RR, 0.70; P = .005); however, the PPE-free zone did not significantly affect compliance (P = .07). The PPE-free zone effect on HH was significant only for rooms on enteric precautions (P = .008). PPE use was not significantly different before versus after the intervention (P = .15). HCP perceived the zone positively; 65% agreed that it facilitated communication and 66.8% agreed that it permitted checking on patients more frequently. CONCLUSIONS: HCP viewed the PPE-free zone favorably and it did not adversely affect PPE or HH compliance. Future infection prevention interventions should consider the complex sociotechnical system factors influencing behavior change.
Asunto(s)
Infección Hospitalaria/prevención & control , Higiene de las Manos , Personal de Salud , Equipo de Protección Personal/estadística & datos numéricos , Estudios Controlados Antes y Después , Cuidados Críticos , Guantes Protectores , Humanos , Control de Infecciones/métodos , Habitaciones de PacientesRESUMEN
Personal protective equipment (PPE) training aims to reinforce the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for donning and doffing; however, many health care and ancillary personnel use non-guideline methods to don and doff their PPE gowns and gloves. We found that hospital personnel commonly deviated from the guidelines, increasing the likelihood of self-contamination. Furthermore, securing the gown ties inappropriately was an especially common problem that consequently increased doffing missteps.