19 research outputs found
Assessing the sustainability of daily chlorhexidine bathing in the intensive care unit of a Veteran’s Hospital by examining nurses’ perspectives and experiences
Simulation of Front Instabilities in Density-Driven Flow, Using a Reactive Transport Model for Biogrout Combined with a Randomly Distributed Permeability Field
Implementing daily chlorhexidine gluconate treatment for the prevention of healthcare-associated infections in non-intensive care settings: A multiple case analysis.
IntroductionDaily bathing with chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) in hospitalized patients reduces healthcare-associated bloodstream infections and colonization by multidrug-resistant organisms. Achieving compliance with bathing protocols is challenging. This non-intensive care unit multicenter project evaluated the impact of organizational context on implementation of CHG and assessed compliance with and healthcare workers' perceptions of the intervention.Materials and methodsThis was a multiple case study based on the SEIPS (Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety) model of work system and patient safety. The four sites included an adult cardiovascular unit in a community hospital, a medical-surgical unit in an academic teaching pediatric hospital, an adult medical-surgical acute care unit and an adult neuroscience acute care unit in another academic teaching hospital. Complementary data collection methods included focus groups and interviews with healthcare workers (HCWs) and leaders, and direct observations of the CHG treatment process and skin swabs.ResultsWe collected 389 bathing observations and 110 skin swabs, conducted four focus groups with frontline workers and interviewed leaders. We found variation across cases in CHG compliance, skin swab data and implementation practices. Mean compliance with the bathing process ranged from 64% to 83%. Low detectable CHG on the skin was related to immediate rinsing of CHG from the skin. Variation in the implementation of CHG treatments was related to differences in organizational education and training practices, feedback and monitoring practices, patient education or information about CHG treatments, patient preferences and general unit patient population differences.ConclusionOrganizations planning to implement CHG treatments in non-ICU settings should ensure organizational readiness and buy-in and consider delivering systematic and ongoing training. Clear and systematic implementation policies across patients and units may help reduce potential confusion about treatment practices and variation across HCWs. Patient populations and unit factors need to be carefully considered and procedures developed to manage unique challenges
Recommended from our members
Status of the Prevention of Multidrug-Resistant Organisms in International Settings: A Survey of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America Research Network
OBJECTIVE To examine self-reported practices and policies to reduce infection and transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) in healthcare settings outside the United States. DESIGN Cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS International members of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Research Network. METHODS Electronic survey of infection control and prevention practices, capabilities, and barriers outside the United States and Canada. Participants were stratified according to their country's economic development status as defined by the World Bank as low-income, lower-middle-income, upper-middle-income, and high-income. RESULTS A total of 76 respondents (33%) of 229 SHEA members outside the United States and Canada completed the survey questionnaire, representing 30 countries. Forty (53%) were high-, 33 (43%) were middle-, and 1 (1%) was a low-income country. Country data were missing for 2 respondents (3%). Of the 76 respondents, 64 (84%) reported having a formal or informal antibiotic stewardship program at their institution. High-income countries were more likely than middle-income countries to have existing MDRO policies (39/64 [61%] vs 25/64 [39%], P=.003) and to place patients with MDRO in contact precautions (40/72 [56%] vs 31/72 [44%], P=.05). Major barriers to preventing MDRO transmission included constrained resources (infrastructure, supplies, and trained staff) and challenges in changing provider behavior. CONCLUSIONS In this survey, a substantial proportion of institutions reported encountering barriers to implementing key MDRO prevention strategies. Interventions to address capacity building internationally are urgently needed. Data on the infection prevention practices of low income countries are needed. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016:1-8