Direct observation cannot be considered the gold standard for assessing hand hygiene, because there was no relationship between the observed adherence and the number of dispensing episodes or the volume of product used. Other means to monitor hand hygiene adherence, such as electronic devices and measurement of product usage, should be considered.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Although the introduction of alcohol based products have increased compliance with hand hygiene in intensive care units (ICU), no comparative studies with other products in the same unit and in the same period have been conducted. We performed a two-month-observational prospective study comparing three units in an adult ICU, according to hand hygiene practices (chlorhexidine alone-unit A, both chlorhexidine and alcohol gel-unit B, and alcohol gel alone-unit C, respectively). Opportunities for hand hygiene were considered according to an institutional guideline. Patients were randomly allocated in the 3 units and data on hand hygiene compliance was collected without the knowledge of the health care staff. TISS score (used for measuring patient complexity) was similar between the three different units. Overall compliance with hand hygiene was 46.7% (659/1410). Compliance was significantly higher after patient care in unit A when compared to units B and C. On the other hand, compliance was significantly higher only between units A (32.1%) and C (23.1%) before patient care (p=0.02). Higher compliance rates were observed for general opportunities for hand hygiene (patient bathing, vital sign controls, etc), while very low compliance rates were observed for opportunities related to skin and gastroenteral care. One of the reasons for not using alcohol gel according to health care workers was the necessity for water contact (35.3%, 12/20). Although the use of alcohol based products is now the standard practice for hand hygiene the abrupt abolition of hand hygiene with traditional products may not be recommended for specific services.

Intensive insulin treatment is associated with an increased risk of hypoglycaemia. The purpose of this study was to evaluate two different strategies: tight glucose control (TGC) versus intermediate glucose control (IGC). In this quasi-experimental study, 130 critically ill patients were assigned to receive either the TGC protocol (n=65), according to which blood glucose levels were maintained between 4.4 and 6.1 mmol/l, or the IGC protocol (n=65), according to which blood glucose levels were maintained between 4.4 and 8.0 mmol/l. A total of 52 subjects (40%) were diabetic and 63 (49%) were septic. In the IGC group, glucose levels were stabilised in the target range for a longer period of time when compared to the TGC group (63 vs 41%, P <0.001). The median capillary blood glucose level was 6.7 mmol/l in the TGC group (6.2 to 7.2) and 7.9 mmol/l (7.0 to 8.5) in the IGC group (P <0.001). The incidence of hypoglyacemia less than 2.2 mmol/l was 21.5% in the TGC group and 1.5% in the IGC group (P <0.001), and the incidence of hypoglycaemia less than 3.3 mmol/l was 67.7 and 26.2% (P <0.001) in the two groups, respectively. Diabetes (odds ratio 2.88, CI 1.22 to 6.84) and the TGC protocol (odds ratio 7.39, CI 3.15 to 17.35) were identified as independent risk factors for hypoglycaemia less than 3.3 mmol/l. Mechanical ventilation (odds ratio 4.33, CI 1.16 to 16.13), medical illness (odds ratio 2.88, CI 1.20 to 6.99) and hypoglycaemia (<3.3 mmol/l) (odds ratio 2.99, CI 1.21 to 7.41) were independent factors associated with mortality. TGC is difficult to accomplish in routine intensive care unit settings and is associated with a significant increase in the incidence of hypoglycaemia. Hypoglycaemia <3.3 mmol/l is an independent risk factor for in-hospital mortality.