Adherence to contact precautions by different types of healthcare workers through video monitoring in a tertiary hospital

Katanami, Yuichi; Hayakawa, Kayoko; Shimazaki, Takeshi; Sugiki, Yuko; Takaya, Saho; Yamamoto, Kei; Kutsuna, Satoshi; Kato, Yasuyuki; Ohmagari, Norio

doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2018.01.001

Cited by 26 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This pattern was observed even when restricted to enteric precautions rooms, where full compliance with contact precautions ranged from 7% to 22% and entry hand hygiene compliance ranged from 18% to 29% 5 . Our observation that HCP were more likely to perform entry hand hygiene for enteric precautions rooms was paralleled by a recent report from Katanami et al, 19 who observed that HCP had 2.5-fold increased odds of PPE donning compliance for toxin-confirmed C. difficile than for all other multidrug-resistant organisms, including S. aureus . HCP may have higher risk perception with pathogens such as C. difficile , which prompts higher compliance through self-protective behavior.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Effectiveness of a multisite personal protective equipment (PPE)–free zone intervention in acute care

Visnovsky

Zhang

Leecaster

et al. 2019

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:Determine the effectiveness of a personal protective equipment (PPE)-free zone intervention on healthcare personnel (HCP) entry hand hygiene (HH) and PPE donning compliance in rooms of patients in contact precautions.Design:Quasi-experimental, multicenter intervention, before-and-after study with concurrent controls.Setting:All patient rooms on contact precautions on 16 units (5 medical-surgical, 6 intensive care, 5 specialty care units) at 3 acute-care facilities (2 academic medical centers, 1 Veterans Affairs hospital). Observations of PPE donning and entry HH compliance by HCP were conducted during both study phases. Surveys of HCP perceptions of the PPE-free zone were distributed in both study phases.Intervention:A PPE-free zone, where a low-risk area inside door thresholds of contact precautions rooms was demarcated by red tape on the floor. Inside this area, HCP were not required to wear PPE.Results:We observed 3,970 room entries. HH compliance did not change between study phases among intervention units (relative risk [RR], 0.92; P = .29) and declined in control units (RR, 0.70; P = .005); however, the PPE-free zone did not significantly affect compliance (P = .07). The PPE-free zone effect on HH was significant only for rooms on enteric precautions (P = .008). PPE use was not significantly different before versus after the intervention (P = .15). HCP perceived the zone positively; 65% agreed that it facilitated communication and 66.8% agreed that it permitted checking on patients more frequently.Conclusions:HCP viewed the PPE-free zone favorably and it did not adversely affect PPE or HH compliance. Future infection prevention interventions should consider the complex sociotechnical system factors influencing behavior change.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Effectiveness of a multisite personal protective equipment (PPE)–free zone intervention in acute care

Visnovsky

Zhang

Leecaster

et al. 2019

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The nurses and the nursing assistant's adherence rate was low compared to infectious disease doctors and cleaning staff (27.9 vs. 100 and 85.7%). This study showed that medical engineering, pharmacists, and other professionals had the lowest adherence (7,7%) (Katanami et al, 2018).…”

Section: Factors That May Influence the Compliance In Using Ppementioning

confidence: 72%

Compliance with personal protective equipment use among non-medical healthcare professionals during Covid-19 pandemic

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-medical healthcare professionals, including pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, nutritionists, and radiographers, have a high risk of COVID-19 infection during work. Personal protective equipment use has shown effective in preventing virus transmission. This study aimed to investigate the compliance with personal protective equipment use and identify the factors that may influence their compliance. The study was designed cross-sectionally, with a self-administered questionnaire. The respondents were non-medical healthcare professionals recruited from covid and non-covid ward at Saiful Anwar General Hospital. The data were collected in November 2020. The questionnaire consists of four questions to assess compliance and eighteen questions to explore the factors that may relate to their compliance. This study used the Chi-square test to differentiate the level of compliance between two groups and binary logistic regression to analyze factors that may influence the compliance. Most participants in this study were female (84.8%), with a median age of 33 (23 – 57) years. More than 80 % of participants worked in the non-covid ward. Only one-fifth of participants had work experience of more than 15 years. The compliance with personal protective equipment was 67.3%. In univariate analysis, factors that influenced the compliance were difficulty using, removing, and disposing of personal protective equipment, lack of training and regular monitoring, unsure about the effectiveness of personal protective equipment, uncomfortable in donning personal protective equipment. Co-workers never reminding themselves to use personal protective equipment also influence compliance. In the multivariate analysis, the difficulty of using, removing and disposing of personal protective equipment (OR 2.83 (0.730 – 3.478), p=0.025) significantly influenced compliance with personal protective equipment use.

show abstract

“…Previous work has documented that HCWs compliance with PPE use is relatively low and that doffing practices are inconsistent, but much of that work involved observations outside of patient rooms, or in the context of simulation. [5][6][7] The contribution of this work is the description of doffing practices following routine patient care among diverse worker types inside the rooms of patients with viral respiratory infections and labeled for transmission-based precautions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Personal protective equipment doffing practices of healthcare workers

Phan

Maita

Mortiz

et al. 2019

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene

136

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adherence to contact precautions by different types of healthcare workers through video monitoring in a tertiary hospital

Cited by 26 publications

References 19 publications

Effectiveness of a multisite personal protective equipment (PPE)–free zone intervention in acute care

Effectiveness of a multisite personal protective equipment (PPE)–free zone intervention in acute care

Compliance with personal protective equipment use among non-medical healthcare professionals during Covid-19 pandemic

Personal protective equipment doffing practices of healthcare workers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About