Saajida Mahomed1, A Willem Sturm1, Stephen Knight2, Prashini Moodley1. 1. School of Laboratory Medicine and Medical Sciences, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. 2. School of Nursing and Public Health, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Appropriate infection control policies and practices are key to reducing the risk of healthcare-associated infections in patients in intensive care units (ICUs). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate infection control in ICUs using the Infection Control Assessment Tool (ICAT). METHODS: Six public and five private adult ICUs were included. Seven modules from the ICAT were administered including ICU, hand hygiene, and isolation and standard precautions. Modules were scored on a quantitative scale as per the tool guidelines and trained independent nurses observed practices. RESULTS: All ICUs reported to have a 1:1 nurse-to-patient ratio. One public ICU did not have the required 1:2 hand wash basin-to-bed ratio. We observed 100% adherence to handwashing or alcohol rub at each of the five moments of hand hygiene; however, the correct amount of alcohol rub was used in only 2% (n = 2) of the 117 observations. The median score for isolation and standard precautions was 79%. DISCUSSION: There was good infection control practice in ICUs. However, ICUs did not have isolation policies for all the infections listed in the ICAT and did not screen visitors to the ICU. We identified shortcomings in the ICAT and a more suitable tool is required for our healthcare setting.
BACKGROUND: Appropriate infection control policies and practices are key to reducing the risk of healthcare-associated infections in patients in intensive care units (ICUs). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate infection control in ICUs using the Infection Control Assessment Tool (ICAT). METHODS: Six public and five private adult ICUs were included. Seven modules from the ICAT were administered including ICU, hand hygiene, and isolation and standard precautions. Modules were scored on a quantitative scale as per the tool guidelines and trained independent nurses observed practices. RESULTS: All ICUs reported to have a 1:1 nurse-to-patient ratio. One public ICU did not have the required 1:2 hand wash basin-to-bed ratio. We observed 100% adherence to handwashing or alcohol rub at each of the five moments of hand hygiene; however, the correct amount of alcohol rub was used in only 2% (n = 2) of the 117 observations. The median score for isolation and standard precautions was 79%. DISCUSSION: There was good infection control practice in ICUs. However, ICUs did not have isolation policies for all the infections listed in the ICAT and did not screen visitors to the ICU. We identified shortcomings in the ICAT and a more suitable tool is required for our healthcare setting.
Entities:
Keywords:
Hand hygiene; infection control assessment tool; isolation and standard precautions
Authors: Sepideh Bagheri Nejad; Benedetta Allegranzi; Shamsuzzoha B Syed; Benjamin Ellis; Didier Pittet Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2011-07-20 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Vicki Erasmus; Thea J Daha; Hans Brug; Jan Hendrik Richardus; Myra D Behrendt; Margreet C Vos; Ed F van Beeck Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Stefan Hagel; Jana Reischke; Miriam Kesselmeier; Johannes Winning; Petra Gastmeier; Frank M Brunkhorst; André Scherag; Mathias W Pletz Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: H P Loveday; J A Wilson; R J Pratt; M Golsorkhi; A Tingle; A Bak; J Browne; J Prieto; M Wilcox Journal: J Hosp Infect Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 3.926
Authors: R J Pratt; C M Pellowe; J A Wilson; H P Loveday; P J Harper; S R L J Jones; C McDougall; M H Wilcox Journal: J Hosp Infect Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 3.926
Authors: Teresa Gómez-García; María Ruzafa-Martínez; Carmen Fuentelsaz-Gallego; Juan Antonio Madrid; Maria Angeles Rol; María José Martínez-Madrid; Teresa Moreno-Casbas Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-08-05 Impact factor: 2.692