Eric Yanke1, Caroline Zellmer2, Sarah Van Hoof3, Helene Moriarty4, Pascale Carayon5, Nasia Safdar6. 1. Department of Medicine, William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, WI. 2. College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI. 3. Department of Infection Control, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, WI. 4. Villanova University College of Nursing, Villanova, PA; Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA. 5. Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Center for Quality and Productivity Improvement, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI. 6. William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, WI; Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin Medical School, Madison, WI; Infection Control Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI. Electronic address: ns2@medicine.wisc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Achieving and sustaining high levels of health care worker (HCW) compliance with contact isolation precautions is challenging. The aim of this study was to determine HCW work system barriers to and facilitators of adherence to contact isolation for patients with suspected or confirmed Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) using a human factors and systems engineering approach. METHODS: This prospective cohort study took place between September 2013 and November 2013 at a large academic medical center (hospital A) and an affiliated Veterans Administration hospital (hospital B). A human factors engineering (HFE) model for patient safety, the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety model, was used to guide work system analysis and direct observation data collection. There were 288 observations conducted. HCWs and visitors were assessed for compliance with all components of contact isolation precautions (hand hygiene, gowning, and gloving) before and after patient contact. Time required to complete contact isolation precautions was measured, and adequacy of contact isolation supplies was assessed. RESULTS: Full compliance with contact isolation precautions was low at both hospitals A (7%) and B (22%). Lack of appropriate hand hygiene prior to room entry (compliance for hospital A: 18%; compliance for hospital B: 29%) was the most common reason for lack of full compliance. More time was required for full compliance compared with compliance with no components of contact isolation precautions before patient room entry, inside patient room, and after patient room exit (59.9 vs 3.2 seconds, P < .001; 507.3 vs 149.7 seconds, P = .006; 15.2 vs 1.3 seconds, P < .001, respectively). Compliance was lower when contact isolation supplies were inadequate (4% vs 16%, P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to contact isolation precautions for CDI is a complex, time-consuming process. HFE analysis indicates that multiple work system components serve as barriers and facilitators to full compliance with contact isolation precautions and should be addressed further to prevent CDI. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: Achieving and sustaining high levels of health care worker (HCW) compliance with contact isolation precautions is challenging. The aim of this study was to determine HCW work system barriers to and facilitators of adherence to contact isolation for patients with suspected or confirmed Clostridium difficileinfection (CDI) using a human factors and systems engineering approach. METHODS: This prospective cohort study took place between September 2013 and November 2013 at a large academic medical center (hospital A) and an affiliated Veterans Administration hospital (hospital B). A human factors engineering (HFE) model for patient safety, the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety model, was used to guide work system analysis and direct observation data collection. There were 288 observations conducted. HCWs and visitors were assessed for compliance with all components of contact isolation precautions (hand hygiene, gowning, and gloving) before and after patient contact. Time required to complete contact isolation precautions was measured, and adequacy of contact isolation supplies was assessed. RESULTS: Full compliance with contact isolation precautions was low at both hospitals A (7%) and B (22%). Lack of appropriate hand hygiene prior to room entry (compliance for hospital A: 18%; compliance for hospital B: 29%) was the most common reason for lack of full compliance. More time was required for full compliance compared with compliance with no components of contact isolation precautions before patient room entry, inside patient room, and after patient room exit (59.9 vs 3.2 seconds, P < .001; 507.3 vs 149.7 seconds, P = .006; 15.2 vs 1.3 seconds, P < .001, respectively). Compliance was lower when contact isolation supplies were inadequate (4% vs 16%, P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to contact isolation precautions for CDI is a complex, time-consuming process. HFE analysis indicates that multiple work system components serve as barriers and facilitators to full compliance with contact isolation precautions and should be addressed further to prevent CDI. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
Clostridium difficile; Contact precautions; Human factors; Infection control; Systems engineering
Authors: David J Weber; Emily E Sickbert-Bennett; Vickie M Brown; Rebecca H Brooks; Irene P Kittrell; Brenda J Featherstone; Tina L Adams; William A Rutala Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2007-02-05 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Vivian G Loo; Louise Poirier; Mark A Miller; Matthew Oughton; Michael D Libman; Sophie Michaud; Anne-Marie Bourgault; Tuyen Nguyen; Charles Frenette; Mirabelle Kelly; Anne Vibien; Paul Brassard; Susan Fenn; Ken Dewar; Thomas J Hudson; Ruth Horn; Pierre René; Yury Monczak; André Dascal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-12-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Erik R Dubberke; Kimberly A Reske; Judith Noble-Wang; Angela Thompson; George Killgore; Jennie Mayfield; Bernard Camins; Keith Woeltje; Jay R McDonald; L Clifford McDonald; Victoria J Fraser Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: R-P Vonberg; E J Kuijper; M H Wilcox; F Barbut; P Tüll; P Gastmeier; P J van den Broek; A Colville; B Coignard; T Daha; S Debast; B I Duerden; S van den Hof; T van der Kooi; H J H Maarleveld; E Nagy; D W Notermans; J O'Driscoll; B Patel; S Stone; C Wiuff Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 8.067
Authors: Sarah L Krein; Jeanmarie Mayer; Molly Harrod; Lauren E Weston; Lynn Gregory; Laura Petersen; Matthew H Samore; Frank A Drews Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Christos A Grigoras; Fainareti N Zervou; Ioannis M Zacharioudakis; Constantinos I Siettos; Eleftherios Mylonakis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kaitlin F Mitchell; Anna K Barker; Cybele L Abad; Nasia Safdar Journal: Antimicrob Resist Infect Control Date: 2017-09-02 Impact factor: 4.887