Adoption of hand hygiene practices among health care providers

Archanalakshmi, P. A.; Stanly, A Meriton; Paul, Christina Mary P.

doi:10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20150686

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hand hygiene includes 3 components namely when to wash hands, how to wash hands and how to dry hands. 3 All of them washed their hands after handling blood and body fluids but only 94.9% washed after handling contaminated items. The overall hand hygiene was satisfactory among 35.6% only (Table 2).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 Proper hand hygiene is cheap, most effective, easiest and foremost method of reducing health care associated infections. 3 Personal protective equipment is designed to protect the skin and the mucous membranes of the eyes, nose, and mouth of healthcare personnel thus reducing the risk of exposure to blood borne pathogens. 4 According to World Health Organization, 35.7 million health care workers in the world are exposed to the risk of needle stick injuries, 2 million experience percutaneous exposures to infectious diseases each year and 4 needle stick injuries per worker within year in African, Mediterranean and Asian populations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A cross sectional study on adoption of standard precautions among sanitary workers, Tamil Nadu

Lakshmi¹,

Paul²,

Thirunaaukarasu³

et al. 2019

Int J Community Med Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Hospital waste is a potential reservoir of pathogenic micro-organism and requires appropriate, safe handling. Sanitary workers entail to do waste collection, handling, storage and disposal. Hence they have higher chances of exposure to numerous risk factors. The objective of the study was to assess the adoption of ‘standard precautions’ among sanitary workers pertaining to hand hygiene, use of personal protective equipment (PPE), prevention of needle stick/sharp injuries, handling of soiled linen and finding out the reasons for non-adoption.Methods: A cross sectional study was done in two health care institutions in Chennai and Madurai, Tamil Nadu during January to May 2018. Institutional ethics committee approval was obtained. All sanitary workers willing to participate in the study were included. After getting informed consent, data was collected using structured questionnaire and analyzed with SPSS 20.0. Mean, frequency and percentages were calculated.Results: Sanitary workers included in the study were 118. The overall hand hygiene was satisfactory among 35.6%. Only 62.7% were using gloves while handling waste. 54(45.8%) had NSI in last one year. Immersing soiled linen in hot water was done only by 15 (12.7%) before washing with disinfectant and autoclaving.Conclusions: The adoption of ‘standard precautions’ among sanitary workers is inadequate due to lack of proper orientation.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A cross sectional study on adoption of standard precautions among sanitary workers, Tamil Nadu

Lakshmi¹,

Paul²,

Thirunaaukarasu³

et al. 2019

Int J Community Med Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarities were noted in Ehlert and Naude’s (2014) and Burco’s (2007) studies, which indicated that 84% of respondents from Burco’s study and 82% from Ehlert and Naude’s study recognised the significance of handwashing. Results from a study by Archanalakshmi, Stanly and Paul (2015) revealed that when individuals worked for 30 h – 40 h, only 62% indicated that they would wash hands. However, only 22% of individuals who worked for 40 h – 50 h would wash hands.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, only 22% of individuals who worked for 40 h – 50 h would wash hands. This indicates that when HCPs work for longer hours, the chances of washing hands decrease (Archanalakshmi et al, 2015). Gloves can be used to reduce hand contamination from blood and other infectious agents, but cannot prevent injury from sharp objects or instruments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Infection prevention and control measures in audiology practice within public healthcare facilities in KwaZulu-Natal province, South Africa

Khan

Charles

Naidoo

et al. 2019

South African Journal of Communication Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAudiologists have a clinical and ethical responsibility to create a working environment, designed to reduce the potential for cross-contamination or transmission of infections.ObjectivesTo describe the infection prevention and control (IPC) measures utilised and the opinions of audiologists and speech therapists, and audiologists (A/STAs) towards IPC in public healthcare facilities in KwaZulu-Natal province, South Africa.MethodA quantitative, descriptive survey was utilised and entailed completing an online questionnaire. The Cronbach’s alpha (0.82) indicated good internal consistency of the tool. Forty-nine A/STAs from 29 public healthcare facilities responded.ResultsMost participants (82%) followed a generic Department of Health policy on IPC, while 67% alluded to a discipline-specific policy. Participants had received training in infection control but indicated that further instruction was required for audiology-specific infection control procedures. Only 57% indicated that they ‘sometimes’ wore gloves with every patient during direct clinical contact. An association between the healthcare facility level and the wearing of gloves was found to be statistically significant (p = 0.025). Participants at regional and tertiary levels contended that gloves should be worn during most procedures versus those at district levels of care. While 96% washed their hands after each patient, only 76% washed their hands before each patient. Twenty-nine per cent indicated that they only ‘sometimes’ wore masks when in contact with patients with communicable diseases. Approximately one-third disinfected touch surfaces and toys, based on the clinician’s discretion. The majority (86%) of participants, however, always followed the correct protocol for medical waste disposal. Despite training and the availability of policies, some practitioners displayed poor IPC practices in terms of universal precautions, personal protective equipment, handwashing and sterilisation.ConclusionFurther education, training and awareness related to appropriate IPC measures are recommended for audiologists. It is envisaged that this will lead to more effective IPC measures in audiology practice thereby reducing the risk of infection transmission.

show abstract

Adoption of hand hygiene practices among health care providers

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

A cross sectional study on adoption of standard precautions among sanitary workers, Tamil Nadu

A cross sectional study on adoption of standard precautions among sanitary workers, Tamil Nadu

Infection prevention and control measures in audiology practice within public healthcare facilities in KwaZulu-Natal province, South Africa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About