RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Studies have found that inappropriate use of non-sterile gloves (NSG) can affect hand hygiene compliance; the main risks are missing opportunities for hand hygiene and gloves being a vector for microbial transmission. AIM: The aims of this study were to explore the accuracy of healthcare worker (HCW) risk assessment and decision making regarding the use of NSG. METHODS: The study was conducted in two acute NHS Trusts and a community social enterprise. A cross-sectional survey was carried out, followed by qualitative semi-structured interviews. FINDINGS: There were highly significant differences at the 95% probability level between staff groups, unqualified staff being significantly more likely than qualified staff to report NSG use when not indicated (P < 0.0001). The primary motivating factor for staff to wear NSG was for personal protection; the secondary factor being the protection of patients. Staff were also motivated by a desire to create an image of professionalism. Respondents were more likely to follow the lead of seniors in their own profession. DISCUSSION: The results suggest a necessity for change interventions aimed at unqualified staff such as healthcare assistants (HCAs). It would be beneficial to review the indications for glove use and amend organisational policies accordingly. Leaders in each professional staff group would be required to influence practice across organisations, taking into account motivating factors, and in association with multi-modal interventions to improve practice.
RESUMEN
Aim To develop, implement and evaluate a collaborative intervention in care homes seeking to increase the confidence and competence of staff in end of life care and enable more people to receive end of life care in their usual place of residence. Method A two-phase exploratory mixed methods design was used, evaluating the effect of an end of life care toolkit and associated training in care homes, facilitated by a specialist palliative care team. Six care homes in England were recruited to the intervention; 24 staff participated in discussion groups; 54 staff attended at least one training session; and pre- and post-intervention questionnaires were completed by 78 and 103 staff respectively. Results Staff confidence in receiving emotional and clinical support and managing end of life care symptoms increased post-intervention, but confidence in discussing death and dying with residents and relatives decreased. Audit data indicate greater reduction in the number of residents from participating care homes dying in hospital than those from comparison homes. Conclusion Collaborative end of life care interventions support care home staff to manage end of life and may enable residents to have choice about their place of death.