WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care - Safe Care ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

APPENDICES Risk communication Inform patients that they are in so much risk in medical care (survey respondent, Republic of Moldova). Building on this series of questions, the second stage of the survey attempted to explore in more detail some of the issues around risk communication with respondents asked for their views on eight possible methods (Table 5). Table 5. How useful do you think the following methods are for encouraging patient participation in hand hygiene improvement? (Figures for respondents who replied “useful” or “very useful”, and percentages of those from each region who were asked the question) Methods to encourage patient participation Open verbal dialogue between patients and health-care providers on the real risk to patients caused by poor hand hygiene Open verbal dialogue, as described above, and a clear invitation to patients to remind health-care providers to, for example, clean their hands The provision of written information to patients describing the evidence linking low levels of hand hygiene with the development of HCAI The provision of written information as described above and a clear invitation to patients to remind health-care providers to, for example, clean their hands Explicit communication, including campaigns, describing the risk and the harm (including the risk of mortality) that HCAI can cause, and explaining the role of hand hygiene as an important preventive measure Explicit communication, as described above, and a clear invitation to patients to remind health-care providers to, for example, clean their hands Providing HCWs with formal training in patient–HCW risk communication to ensure they are receptive to the needs of patients in relation to the prevention of HCAI Providing HCWs with formal training in patient–HCW risk communication, as described above, and instructing HCWs to invite patients to ask them to clean their hands. Total AMR EUR SEAR/WPR AFR/EMR 176 (79%) 77 (83%) 87 (78%) 7 (78%) 5 (63%) 168 (76%) 81 (87%) 77 (69%) 6 (67%) 4 (50%) 173 (78%) 77 (83%) 85 (76%) 6 (67%) 5 (63%) 170 (77%) 78 (84%) 82 (73%) 6 (67%) 4 (50%) 187 (84%) 83 (89%) 92 (82%) 7 (78%) 5 (63%) 168 (76%) 79 (85%) 78 (70%) 7 (78%) 4 (50%) 184 (83%) 83 (89%) 89 (79%) 7 (78%) 5 (63%) 179 (81%) 83 (89%) 84 (75%) 7 (78%) 5 (63%) 255
<strong>WHO</strong> GUIDELINES ON HAND HYGIENE IN HEALTH CARE Does experience of health care-associated infection influence behaviour? My family members who have been hospitalized have acquired nosocomial infections – this is a very serious problem in my country (survey respondent, Mexico). People who had direct experience of an HCAI were more likely to question the HCW; 37% among those who had direct experience vs 17% among those who did not. Among respondents who identified themselves as not working in any aspect of health care, this is more pronounced: 31% of patients who had had a direct experience of an HCAI had previously asked their HCW to wash/handrub, while only 4% of those who did not have a direct experience had done so (Figure 4). Figure 4. Does having a direct experience of a health care-associated infection influence the likelihood that a patient will ask their health-care workers to clean their hands (wash/handrub)? Percentage 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 No 10 Comparison of the study with previous work 0 Patients who have direct experience of a HAI Patients who do NOT have direct experience of a HAI Yes Data comparing the results of this study with four other studies/ surveys asking for a patients’ preference for involvement are shown in Table 6. Table 6. Comparison with other studies Study Yes, patients should be involved Would you ask? HCW permission England and Wales NPSA (2004) 1 71% 26% NA Ontario (Canada) 2 32% 42% NA USA consumer survey 3 NA NA 80% USA web survey 4 NA 60% (20) NA Current study NA 52% (29% had actually asked in this survey) 86% Patient narratives On the high dependency ward where we had to request that the nursing staff washed their hands, wore aprons and gloves, their attitude was that we were ove reacting (narrative, United Kingdom). Respondents who indicated a personal experience of HCAI were asked for their willingness to be contacted. Of these, 123 respondents (27%) stated that they were willing to be contacted; 110 respondents were successfully contacted and a total of 11 completed standard narrative forms were received. At the time the HCAI developed, the patients had been admitted because of a range of underlying medical conditions. Four respondents specifically identified methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) as the HCAI. The remaining descriptions included urinary tract infection, wound infection, septicemia, and C. difficile, and one patient acquired HIV infection. 256
Page 1 and 2:
WHO Guidel
Page 3 and 4:
WHO Guidel
Page 5 and 6:
WHO GUIDELINES ON
Page 7 and 8:
WHO GUIDELINES ON
Page 9 and 10:
PART I. REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC DATA R
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
PART II. CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
PART III. PROCESS AND OUTCOME MEASU
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
PART IV. TOWARDS A GENERAL MODEL OF
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
PART V. PATIENT INVOLVEMENT IN HAND
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
PART VI. COMPARISON OF NATIONAL AND
Page 209 and 210:
PART VI. COMPARISON OF NATIONAL AND
Page 211 and 212: PART VI. COMPARISON OF NATIONAL AND
Page 213 and 214: PART VI. COMPARISON OF NATIONAL AND
Page 215 and 216: REFERENCES 35. Jroundi I et al. Pre
Page 217 and 218: REFERENCES 109. Boyce JM et al. Out
Page 219 and 220: REFERENCES 177. McBryde ES, Pettitt
Page 221 and 222: REFERENCES 250. Squier C, Yu VL, St
Page 223 and 224: REFERENCES 327. Rotter ML, Koller W
Page 225 and 226: REFERENCES 400. McMurry LM, McDermo
Page 227 and 228: REFERENCES 468. Martin LS, McDougal
Page 229 and 230: REFERENCES 542. Wheelock SM, Lookin
Page 231 and 232: REFERENCES 615. Voss A, Widmer AF.
Page 233 and 234: REFERENCES 690. Saba R et al. Hand
Page 235 and 236: REFERENCES 765. Lee B, Newberg A. R
Page 237 and 238: REFERENCES 841. Gillet P. Construir
Page 239 and 240: REFERENCES 915. De Groot-Kosolcharo
Page 241 and 242: REFERENCES 986. Kinsella G, Thomas
Page 243 and 244: REFERENCES 1062. Runciman WB, Molle
Page 245 and 246: REFERENCES 1138. Chen YC, Chiang LC
Page 247 and 248: WHO GUIDELINES ON
Page 261: WHO GUIDELINES ON
show all

WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care - Safe Care ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?