M Bauer1,2, S Scheithauer3, O Moerer4, H Pütz5, B Sliwa6, C E Schmidt7, S G Russo4, R M Waeschle4. 1. Klinik für Anästhesiologie, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Göttingen, Deutschland. martin.bauer@med.uni-goettingen.de. 2. Stabsstelle OP Management, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Göttingen, Deutschland. martin.bauer@med.uni-goettingen.de. 3. Stabsstelle Krankenhaushygiene und Infektiologie, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Göttingen, Deutschland. 4. Klinik für Anästhesiologie, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Göttingen, Deutschland. 5. Geschäftseinheit Pflegedienst, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Göttingen, Deutschland. 6. Medizincontrolling, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Göttingen, Deutschland. 7. Vorstand, Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Rostock, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The assurance of high standards of care is a major requirement in German hospitals while cost reduction and efficient use of resources are mandatory. These requirements are particularly evident in the high-risk and cost-intensive operating theatre field with multiple process steps. The cleaning of operating rooms (OR) between surgical procedures is of major relevance for patient safety and requires time and human resources. The hygiene procedure plan for OR cleaning between operations at the university hospital in Göttingen was revised and optimized according to the plan-do-check-act principle due to not clearly defined specifications of responsibilities, use of resources, prolonged process times and increased staff engagement. METHODS: The current status was evaluated in 2012 as part of the first step "plan". The subsequent step "do" included an expert symposium with external consultants, interdisciplinary consensus conferences with an actualization of the former hygiene procedure plan and the implementation process. All staff members involved were integrated into this management change process. The penetration rate of the training and information measures as well as the acceptance and compliance with the new hygiene procedure plan were reviewed within step "check". The rates of positive swabs and air sampling as well as of postoperative wound infections were analyzed for quality control and no evidence for a reduced effectiveness of the new hygiene plan was found. After the successful implementation of these measures the next improvement cycle ("act") was performed in 2014 which led to a simplification of the hygiene plan by reduction of the number of defined cleaning and disinfection programs for preparation of the OR. RESULTS: The reorganization measures described led to a comprehensive commitment of the hygiene procedure plan by distinct specifications for responsibilities, for the course of action and for the use of resources. Furthermore, a simplification of the plan, a rational staff assignment and reduced process times were accomplished. Finally, potential conflicts due to an insufficient evidence-based knowledge of personnel was reduced. CONCLUSION: This present project description can be used by other hospitals as a guideline for similar changes in management processes.
BACKGROUND: The assurance of high standards of care is a major requirement in German hospitals while cost reduction and efficient use of resources are mandatory. These requirements are particularly evident in the high-risk and cost-intensive operating theatre field with multiple process steps. The cleaning of operating rooms (OR) between surgical procedures is of major relevance for patient safety and requires time and human resources. The hygiene procedure plan for OR cleaning between operations at the university hospital in Göttingen was revised and optimized according to the plan-do-check-act principle due to not clearly defined specifications of responsibilities, use of resources, prolonged process times and increased staff engagement. METHODS: The current status was evaluated in 2012 as part of the first step "plan". The subsequent step "do" included an expert symposium with external consultants, interdisciplinary consensus conferences with an actualization of the former hygiene procedure plan and the implementation process. All staff members involved were integrated into this management change process. The penetration rate of the training and information measures as well as the acceptance and compliance with the new hygiene procedure plan were reviewed within step "check". The rates of positive swabs and air sampling as well as of postoperative wound infections were analyzed for quality control and no evidence for a reduced effectiveness of the new hygiene plan was found. After the successful implementation of these measures the next improvement cycle ("act") was performed in 2014 which led to a simplification of the hygiene plan by reduction of the number of defined cleaning and disinfection programs for preparation of the OR. RESULTS: The reorganization measures described led to a comprehensive commitment of the hygiene procedure plan by distinct specifications for responsibilities, for the course of action and for the use of resources. Furthermore, a simplification of the plan, a rational staff assignment and reduced process times were accomplished. Finally, potential conflicts due to an insufficient evidence-based knowledge of personnel was reduced. CONCLUSION: This present project description can be used by other hospitals as a guideline for similar changes in management processes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Hospitals; Operating room disinfection; Patients; Postoperative wound infection; Quality of care
Authors: Rogier M P H Crolla; Lijckle van der Laan; Eelco J Veen; Yvonne Hendriks; Caroline van Schendel; Jan Kluytmans Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-09-04 Impact factor: 3.240