A kézhigiénés technika vizsgálata elektronikus                     ellenőrző berendezés segítségével 26 magyarországi betegellátó                     intézményben

Lehotsky, Ákos; Morvai, Júlia; Szilágyi, László; Bánsághi, Száva; Benkó, Alíz; Haidegger, Tamás

doi:10.1556/650.2017.30792

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on observations of future schoolbased health and hygiene education programs should include strategies for involving family members, particularly mothers and siblings. This is in accordance with research conducted by (Lehotsky Á, 2017) which states that the results of the study at the average age of participants were 13.4 years, only 3% of students met the requirements for washing hands. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition, which includes always washing your hands for at least 20 seconds when entering someone's home and after blowing your nose, coughing, and other critical episodes of germ contamination.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Factors Influencing Behavior of Six-Steps Handwash With Soap Among Children With Special Needs

Mariyana¹,

Febrina²

2020

Asian Community Health Nurs. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background – Children with special needs are at risk for chronic diseases. Information regarding children with special needs are limited thereby making them vulnerable to the diseases. Disease occurs because children do not wash their hands. Efforts are made to prevent children from disease, including explaining to the children about how to wash their hands properly. Purpose: This study aimed to examine knowledge, attitude, behavior, and infrastructure supporting handwash behavior among children with special needs in Bukittinggi in 2020. Design/methodology/approach – The type of research was descriptive study. Populations of this study were children with special needs, 34 children were chosen as samples. Data were analyzed by univispaate analysis. Findings : Results show that knowledge of handwash among children is low among 25 children (73.5%), attitude is less good among 27 children (79.4%), action is less good among 29 children (85.3%), and infrastructure is less supporting among 22 children (64.7%). Research limitation–This research was conducted during the Covid pandemic period so that data was collected through questionnaire and google form. Originality/value - This research was conducted by using interviews with children use quesionaire.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Factors Influencing Behavior of Six-Steps Handwash With Soap Among Children With Special Needs

Mariyana¹,

Febrina²

2020

Asian Community Health Nurs. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Typically missed areas (thumbs and dorsum) were not different when using the two formulations, suggesting that the same hand hygiene technique was followed in both cases. Several previous studies also found that thumbs and fingertips are the most frequently missed areas , [31,32], which suggests that the personal hand hygiene technique may be inappropriate in many cases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Evidence-based hand hygiene: Liquid or gel handrub, does it matter?

Voniatis

Bánsághi

Veres

et al. 2023

Antimicrob Resist Infect Control

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Recent studies put under scrutiny the prevailing hand hygiene guidelines, which incorporate quantitative parameters regarding handrub volume and hand size. Understanding the criticality of complete (i.e., efficient) hand hygiene in healthcare, objectivization of hand hygiene related parameters are paramount, including the formulation of the ABHR. Complete coverage can be achieved with optimal Alcohol-Based Hand Rub (ABHR) provided. The literature is limited regarding ABHR formulation variances to antimicrobial efficiency and healthcare workers’ preference, while public data on clinically relevant typical application differences is not available. This study was designed and performed to compare gel and liquid format ABHRs (the two most popular types in Europe) by measuring several parameters, including application time, spillage and coverage. Methodology Senior medical students were invited, and randomly assigned to receive pre-determined ABHR volumes (1.5 or 3 ml). All the 340 participants were given equal amounts of gel and liquid on two separate hand hygiene occasions, which occurred two weeks apart. During the hand hygiene events, by employing a digital, fully automated system paired with fluorescent-traced ABHRs, disinfectant hand coverage was objectively investigated. Furthermore, hand coverage in relation to the participants’ hand sizes was also calculated. Additional data collection was performed regarding volume differences and their effect on application time, participants’ volume awareness (consciousness) and disinfectant spillage during the hand hygiene events. Results The 1.5 ml ABHR volume (commonly applied in healthcare settings) is insufficient in either formulation, as the non-covered areas exceeded significant (5%+) of the total hand surface area. 3 ml, on the contrary, resulted in almost complete coverage (uncovered areas remained below 1.5%). Participants typically underestimated the volume which they needed to apply. While the liquid ABHR spreads better in the lower, 1.5 ml volume compared to the gel, the latter was easier handled at larger volume. Drying times were 30/32 s (gel and liquid formats, respectively) when 1.5 ml handrub was applied, and 40/42 s when 3 ml was used. As the evaporation rates of the ABHR used in the study are similar to those available on the market, one can presume that the results presented in the study apply for most WHO conform ABHRs. Conclusion The results show that applying 1.5 ml volume was insufficient, as large part of the hand surface remained uncovered (7.0 ± 0.7% and 5.8 ± 1.0% of the hand surface in the case of gel and liquid, respectively) When 3 ml handrub was applied drying times were 40 and 42 s (gel and liquid, respectively), which is a very long time in daily clinical practice. It looks like we cannot find a volume that fits for everyone. Personalized, hand size based ABHR volumes may be the solution to find an optimal balance between maximize coverage and minimise spillage and drying time. 3 ml can be a good volume for those who have medium size hands. Large handed people should use more handrub to reach appropriate coverage, while small-handed ones may apply less to avoid massive spillage and not to take unrealistically long to dry.

show abstract

“…Even with training, the correct HH technique is a common problem in several scenarios. A study conducted with 1269 professionals showed that 33% of them performed the procedure incorrectly ( 25 ) . The results of present study show an even greater deficit regarding the technique, in which 23% to 46% of the observed HH were not performed with the correct technique, reinforcing the deficiency and showing the need to improve this practice.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of the Hawthorne effect during central venous catheter manipulation

Lobo

Oliveira

Colella

et al. 2022

Rev. esc. enferm. USP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To describe the compliance to the practices of hand hygiene and hub disinfection before manipulation of the central venous catheter in two moments: before and after educational intervention. Adherence to hand hygiene was assessed with two methods: direct observation and video camera. Methods: Before and after study conducted with the nursing team in an adult intensive care unit, in São Paulo, Brazil, including 180 observations using video cameras and direct observation. Hand hygiene compliance before catheter manipulation and compliance with the correct technique and the hub disinfection for five seconds were observed. Results: When video cameras recording was observed, hand hygiene compliance increased from 46% to 66% and the use of the proper technique increased from 23% to 46% (p < 0.05). Regarding hub disinfection compliance, no difference was observed between the periods. Hand hygiene compliance in direct observation increased from 83% to 87% and in indirect observation, from 46% to 66% after the intervention. Conclusion: After the educational intervention, hand hygiene compliance before CVC manipulation and the use of the correct technique improved. When observed indirectly, the adherence to these practices was lower, reinforcing the Hawthorne effect.

show abstract

A kézhigiénés technika vizsgálata elektronikus ellenőrző berendezés segítségével 26 magyarországi betegellátó intézményben

Cited by 8 publications

References 16 publications

Factors Influencing Behavior of Six-Steps Handwash With Soap Among Children With Special Needs

Factors Influencing Behavior of Six-Steps Handwash With Soap Among Children With Special Needs

Evidence-based hand hygiene: Liquid or gel handrub, does it matter?

Assessment of the Hawthorne effect during central venous catheter manipulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About