'Clean Care is Safer Care': the Global Patient Safety Challenge 2005–2006

Summary Background Each year the treatment and care of hundreds of millions of patients worldwide is complicated by infections acquired during healthcare. The impact of healthcare-associated infection may imply prolonged stays in hospital, long-term disability, massive additional financial burden, and deaths. Action Patient safety is a global issue that affects both developed and developing countries. In October 2004, the World Health Organization launched the World Alliance for Patient Safety to co-ordinate and accelerate improvements in patient safety internationally. A core element of the Alliance is the identification of a topic to be addressed as a Global Patient Safety Challenge over a two-year cycle. The first topic chosen for 2005–2006 is healthcare-associated infection. Perspectives The Challenge aims at implementing several actions to tackle healthcare-associated infections worldwide, regardless of the level of development of healthcare systems and the availability of resources. Implementation strategies include the integration in different healthcare settings of multiple interventions in the areas of blood safety, injection safety, and clinical procedure safety, as well as water, sanitation, and waste management, with the promotion of hand hygiene in healthcare as the cornerstone

Determinants of Good Adherence to Hand Hygiene Among Healthcare Workers Who Have Extensive Exposure to Hand Hygiene Campaigns

Objective. To quantify the different behavioral components of healthcare workers' motivation to comply with hand hygiene in a healthcare institution with a 10-year history of hand hygiene campaigning. Design. Cross-sectional study, by use of an anonymous, self-administered questionnaire. Setting. A 2,200-bed university teaching hospital. Participants. A stratified random sample of 2,961 medical and nursing staff. Results. A total of 1,042 questionnaires (35.2%) were returned. Of the respondents, 271 (26.0%) were physicians, 629 (60.4%) were nurses, and 141 (13.5%) were nursing assistants. Overall, 1,008 respondents provided information about sex; 718 (71.2%) of these were women. Respondents provided demographic information and data about various behavioral, normative, and control beliefs that determined their intentions with respect to performing hand hygiene. Among behavioral beliefs, the perception that healthcare-associated infections are severe for patients was highly ranked as a determinant of behavior by 331 (32.1%) of the respondents, and the perception that hand hygiene is effective at preventing these infections was ranked highly by 891 respondents (86.0%). Among normative beliefs, perceived social pressure from patients to perform hand hygiene was ranked highly by 760 respondents (73.7%), pressure from superiors was ranked highly by 687 (66.8%), pressure from colleagues was ranked highly by 596 (57.9%), and pressure from the person perceived to be most influential was ranked highly by 687 (68.8%). Among control beliefs, the perception that hand hygiene is relatively easy to perform was rated highly by 670 respondents (65.1%). High self-reported rates of adherence to hand hygiene (defined as performance of proper hand hygiene during 80% or more of hand hygiene opportunities) was independently associated with female sex, receipt of training in hand hygiene, participation in a previous hand hygiene campaign, peer pressure from colleagues, perceived good adherence by colleagues, and the perception that hand hygiene is relatively easy to perform. Conclusions. In a setting with a long tradition of hand hygiene campaigns, behavioral beliefs are strongly in favor of hand hygiene, but adherence is driven by peer pressure and the perception of high self-efficacy, rather than by reasoning about the impact of hand hygiene on patient safety. Female sex, training, and campaign exposure increased the likelihood of compliance with hand hygiene. This additional insight can help to shape future promotional activit

Comparing the effectiveness of hand hygiene techniques in reducing the microbial load and covering hand surfaces in healthcare workers: updated systematic review

Background: This review, commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO), examined the effectiveness of the WHO 6-step hand hygiene (HH) technique in reducing microbial load on hands and covering hand surfaces, and compared its effectiveness to other techniques. Methods: Medline, CINAHL, ProQuest, Web of Science, Mednar, and Google Scholar were searched for primary studies, published in English (1978-February 2021), evaluating the microbiological effectiveness or hand surface coverage of HH techniques in healthcare workers. Reviewers independently performed quality assessment using Cochrane tools. The protocol for the narrative review was registered (PROSPERO 2021: CRD42021236138). Results: Nine studies were included. Evidence demonstrated that the WHO technique reduced microbial load on hands. One study found the WHO technique more effective than the 3-step technique (P = .02), while another found no difference between these 2 techniques (P = .08). An adapted 3-step technique was more effective than the WHO technique in laboratory settings (P = .021), but not in clinical practice (P = .629). One study demonstrated that an adapted 6-step technique was more effective than the WHO technique (P = .001). Evidence was heterogeneous in application time, product, and volume. All studies were high risk of bias. Conclusions: Eight studies found that the WHO 6-step technique reduced microbial load on healthcare workers' hands; but the studies were heterogeneous and further research is required to identify the most effective, yet feasible technique.</p

Implementation of a surgical unit-based safety programme in African hospitals: a multicentre qualitative study.

Background: A Surgical Unit-based Safety Programme (SUSP) has been shown to improve perioperative prevention practices and to reduce surgical site infections (SSI). It is critical to understand the factors influencing the successful implementation of the SUSP approach in low- and middle-income settings. We undertook a qualitative study to assess viability, and understand facilitators and barriers to implementing the SUSP approach in 5 African hospitals. Methods: Qualitative study based on interviews with individuals from all hospitals participating in a WHO-coordinated before-after SUSP study. The SUSP intervention consisted of a multimodal strategy including multiple SSI prevention measures combined with an adaptive approach aimed at improving teamwork and safety culture. Results: Thirteen interviews (5 head surgeons, 3 surgeons, 5 nurses) were conducted with staff from five hospital sites. Identified facilitators included influential individuals (intrinsic motivation of local SUSP teams, boundary spanners, multidisciplinary engagement, active leadership support), peer-to-peer learning (hospital networking and positive deviance, benchmarking), implementation fitness (enabling infrastructures, momentum from previous projects), and timely feedback of infection rates and process indicators. Barriers (organisational 'constipators', workload, mistrust, turnover) and local solutions to these were also identified. Conclusions: Participating hospitals benefitted from the SUSP programme structures (e.g. surveillance, hospital networks, formation of multidisciplinary teams) and adaptive tools (e.g. learning from defects, executive rounds guide) to change perceptions around patient safety and improve behaviours to prevent SSI. The combination of technical and adaptive elements represents a promising approach to facilitate the introduction of evidence-based best practices and to improve safety culture through local team engagement in resource-limited settings

Effectiveness of 80% vs 30–35% fraction of inspired oxygen in patients undergoing surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Background In 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) strongly recommended the use of a high fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) in adult patients undergoing general anaesthesia to reduce the risk of surgical site infection (SSI). Since then, further trials have been published, trials included previously have come under scrutiny, and one article was retracted. We updated the systematic review on which the recommendation was based. Methods We performed a systematic literature search from January 1990 to April 2018 for RCTs comparing the effect of high (80%) vs standard (30–35%) FiO2 on the incidence of SSI. Studies retracted or under investigation were excluded. A random effects model was used for meta-analyses; the sources of heterogeneity were explored using meta-regression. Results Of 21 RCTs included, six were newly identified since the publication of the WHO guideline review; 17 could be included in the final analyses. Overall, no evidence for a reduction of SSI after the use of high FiO2 was found [relative risk (RR): 0.89; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73–1.07]. There was evidence that high FiO2 was beneficial in intubated patients [RR: 0.80 (95% CI: 0.64–0.99)], but not in non-intubated patients [RR: 1.20 (95% CI: 0.91–1.58); test of interaction; P=0.048]. Conclusions The WHO updated analyses did not show definite beneficial effect of the use of high perioperative FiO2, overall, but there was evidence of effect of reducing the SSI risk in surgical patients under general anaesthesia with tracheal intubation. However, the evidence for this beneficial effect has become weaker and the strength of the recommendation needs to be reconsidered

Implementation of hand hygiene in health-care facilities: results from the WHO Hand Hygiene Self-Assessment Framework global survey 2019

Background Hand hygiene is at the core of effective infection prevention and control (IPC) programmes. 10 years after the development of the WHO Multimodal Hand Hygiene Improvement Strategy, we aimed to ascertain the level of hand hygiene implementation and its drivers in health-care facilities through a global WHO survey. Methods From Jan 16 to Dec 31, 2019, IPC professionals were invited through email and campaigns to complete the online Hand Hygiene Self-Assessment Framework (HHSAF). A geospatial clustering algorithm selected unique health-care facilities responses and post-stratification weighting was applied to improve representativeness. Weighted median HHSAF scores and IQR were reported. Drivers of the HHSAF score were determined through a generalised estimation equation. Findings 3206 unique responses from 90 countries (46% WHO Member States) were included. The HHSAF score indicated an intermediate hand hygiene implementation level (350 points, IQR 248–430), which was positively associated with country income level and health-care facility funding structure. System Change had the highest score (85 points, IQR 55–100), whereby alcohol-based hand rub at the point of care has become standard practice in many health-care facilities, especially in high-income countries. Institutional Safety Climate had the lowest score (55 points, IQR 35–75). From 2015 to 2019, the median HHSAF score in health-care facilities participating in both HHSAF surveys (n=190) stagnated. Interpretation Most health-care facilities had an intermediate level of hand hygiene implementation or higher, for which health-care facility funding and country income level were important drivers. Availability of resources, leadership, and organisational support are key elements to further improve quality of care and provide access to safe care for all.Peer Reviewe