Individual, work-related and organizational factors influencing adherence to standard precautions

Abstract

Introduction: Standard Precautions (SP) are a set of prevention practices that should be applied to all patients. Aim: To identify individual, work-related and organizational factors that influence adherence to SP among nursing professionals in a hospital in Minas Gerais. Outlining: Cross-sectional, quantitative study using the instrument Psychosocial and Organizational Factors that Influence Adherence to PP with 10 psychometric scales Likert type. Descriptive and correlational analyses were performed. Results: The consistency of the instrument was 0.86. The scales presented means with intermediate score. The highest average was the scale “Training in prevention of occupational exposure to HIV” (4.6) and the lowest were “Obstacles to follow SP” (3.9) and “Availability of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)” (3.8). There was a strong correlation between “Safety Climate” and “Availability of PPE” (r = 0.719). Implications: Training is essential for adherence to SP; however, it is necessary to identify the other factors that influence this practice.

Multimodal Educational Intervention for Adherence to Standard Precautions in the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Nursing Professionals: A Quasi-Experimental Study

“…This figure increased to 84.8% following the intervention. The data of the present study are supported by previous studies that have also highlighted the effectiveness of multimodal interventions in enhancing the proper disposal of PPE (22,26,28). Such interventions, which incorporate various educational tools, have proven more effective in addressing specific knowledge gaps previously identified during the baseline phase, thereby facilitating more effective learning.…”

“…Generally, the prevalence of needle recapping among nursing professionals ranges from 27.5% (24) to 41% (25). Factors such as study location, workload, and the classification of nursing professionals influence this prevalence, explaining the difference between the findings of the present study and the literature (26,27).…”