A Hand Hygiene Education and Training Improvement Strategy in an Acute Hospital Setting

The aim of this organisational development (O.D.) project was to improve Hand Hygiene education and training compliance in an acute Hospital setting and by extension, improve hand hygiene compliance. Hand Hygiene is identified as the single most important intervention in reducing the transmission of Healthcare Associated Infections (HCAIs). In 2009, the World Health Organisation published comprehensive evidence-based guidelines on Hand Hygiene in healthcare, which introduced a standardised approach to Hand Hygiene practices; ‘The Five Moments for Hand Hygiene’. These guidelines have been adopted by the acute hospital and are core to our education and training programme. The Health Service Executive (HSE) Change model was used to guide this O.D project. Kirkpatrick\u27s model was employed to evaluate the Hand Hygiene education and training. A pilot class completed a pre and post education, knowledge survey. It was found that 10% of attendees had not previously received hand hygiene education and training despite it being mandated. The post education assessments pointed to a modest improvement in knowledge. Pre training assessment responses showed that 17% of participants did not routinely use hand-rub. A second (knowledge and perception) survey was circulated to a stratified purposeful cohort (10%) of employees in order to assess the attitudes and perceptions of Healthcare Workers (HCWs) with regard to hand hygiene. It was found that 8% of staff had not received mandatory training and 6% did not routinely use alcohol-based hand-rub. Results show that the education and training compliance rate at the start of the project in September 2014 was 73% and this had improved to 83% by April 2015, following the education programme .The hand hygiene compliance rate was unchanged. Continued re-enforcement of this quality and patient safety indicator will remain a key deliverable for each manager through 2015

Differential diagnosis of illness in travelers arriving from sierra Leone, Liberia, or guinea: A cross-sectional study from the Geosentinel surveillance network

Background: The largest-ever outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD), ongoing in West Africa since late 2013, has led to export of cases to Europe and North America. Clinicians encountering ill travelers arriving from countries with widespread Ebola virus transmission must be aware of alternate diagnoses associated with fever and other nonspecific symptoms. Objective: To define the spectrum of illness observed in persons returning from areas of West Africa where EVD transmission has been widespread. Design: Descriptive, using GeoSentinel records. Setting: 57 travel or tropical medicine clinics in 25 countries. Patients: 805 ill returned travelers and new mmigrants from Sierra Leone, Liberia, or Guinea seen between September 2009 and August 2014. Measurements: Frequencies of demographic and travelrelated characteristics and illnesses reported. Results: The most common specific diagnosis among 770 nonimmigrant travelers was malaria (n = 310 [40.3%]), with Plasmodium falciparum or severe malaria in 267 (86%) and non–P. falciparum malaria in 43 (14%). Acute diarrhea was the second most common diagnosis among nonimmigrant travelers (n= 95 [12.3%]). Such common diagnoses as upper respiratory tract infection, urinary tract infection, and influenza-like illness occurred in only 26, 9, and 7 returning travelers, respectively. Few instances of typhoid fever (n = 8), acute HIV infection (n = 5), and dengue (n = 2) were encountered. Limitation: Surveillance data collected by specialist clinics may not be representative of all ill returned travelers. Conclusion: Although EVD may currently drive clinical evaluation of ill travelers arriving from Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea, clinicians must be aware of other more common, potentially fatal diseases. Malaria remains a common diagnosis among travelers seen at GeoSentinel sites. Prompt exclusion of malaria and other life-threatening conditions is critical to limiting morbidity and mortality

Transition to the new race/ethnicity data collection standards in the Department of Veterans Affairs

BACKGROUND: Patient race in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) information system was previously recorded based on an administrative or clinical employee's observation. Since 2003, the VA started to collect self-reported race in compliance with a new federal guideline. We investigated the implications of this transition for using race/ethnicity data in multi-year trends in the VA and in other healthcare data systems that make the transition. METHODS: All unique users of VA healthcare services with self-reported race/ethnicity data in 2004 were compared with their prior observer-recorded race/ethnicity data from 1997 – 2002 (N = 988,277). RESULTS: In 2004, only about 39% of all VA healthcare users reported race/ethnicity values other than "unknown" or "declined." Females reported race/ethnicity at a lower rate than males (27% vs. 40%; p < 0.001). Over 95% of observer-recorded data agreed with self-reported data. Compared with the patient self-reported data, the observer-recorded White and African American races were accurate for 98% (kappa = 0.89) and 94% (kappa = 0.93) individuals, respectively. Accuracy of observer-recorded races was much worse for other minority groups with kappa coefficients ranging between 0.38 for American Indian or Alaskan Natives and 0.79 for Hispanic Whites. When observer-recorded race/ethnicity values were reclassified into non-African American groups, they agreed with the self-reported data for 98% of all individuals (kappa = 0.93). CONCLUSION: For overall VA healthcare users, the agreement between observer-recorded and self-reported race/ethnicity was excellent and observer-recorded and self-reported data can be used together for multi-year trends without creating serious bias. However, this study also showed that observation was not a reliable method of race/ethnicity data collection for non-African American minorities and racial disparity might be underestimated if observer-recorded data are used due to systematic patterns of inaccurate race/ethnicity assignments

Leptospirosis among Returned Travelers: A GeoSentinel Site Survey and Multicenter Analysis-1997-2016.

Leptospirosis is a potentially fatal emerging zoonosis with worldwide distribution and a broad range of clinical presentations and exposure risks. It typically affects vulnerable populations in (sub)tropical countries but is increasingly reported in travelers as well. Diagnostic methods are cumbersome and require further improvement. Here, we describe leptospirosis among travelers presenting to the GeoSentinel Global Surveillance Network. We performed a descriptive analysis of leptospirosis cases reported in GeoSentinel from January 1997 through December 2016. We included 180 travelers with leptospirosis (mostly male; 74%; mostly tourists; 81%). The most frequent region of infection was Southeast Asia (52%); the most common source countries were Thailand (N = 52), Costa Rica (N = 13), Indonesia, and Laos (N = 11 each). Fifty-nine percent were hospitalized; one fatality was reported. We also distributed a supplemental survey to GeoSentinel sites to assess clinical and diagnostic practices. Of 56 GeoSentinel sites, three-quarters responded to the survey. Leptospirosis was reported to have been most frequently considered in febrile travelers with hepatic and renal abnormalities and a history of freshwater exposure. Serology was the most commonly used diagnostic method, although convalescent samples were reported to have been collected infrequently. Within GeoSentinel, leptospirosis was diagnosed mostly among international tourists and caused serious illness. Clinical suspicion and diagnostic workup among surveyed GeoSentinel clinicians were mainly triggered by a classical presentation and exposure history, possibly resulting in underdiagnosis. Suboptimal usage of available diagnostic methods may have resulted in additional missed, or misdiagnosed, cases