| Literature DB >> 34094747 |
Rakesh Sharma1, Aroop Mohanty2, Vanya Singh3, Vishwas A S1, Puneet K Gupta4, Prasuna Jelly1, Pratima Gupta5, Shalinee Rao6.
Abstract
Purpose Amidst the current COVID-19 pandemic, traditional teaching methodology took a back foot. However, an urgent need for training health care worker (HCW) on preventive measures for COVID-19 infection was the need of the hour. Keeping in mind the precautionary measures required to combat COVID-19 infection, the only promising option for training was by adopting an online learning method. This study was undertaken to determine the effectiveness of video-based training using online platforms for infection prevention and control (IPC) training during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods A quasi-experimental study, with only one experimental group comprising of HCWs, was undertaken to assess the effect of intervention which included video-assisted teaching-learning regarding IPC measures with a special focus on COVID-19 at a tertiary care Institute in North India. Online sessions were conducted on Do's and Don'ts, Hand Hygiene, donning and doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE), cleaning and disinfection, and bio-medical waste (BMW) management with the help of pre-recorded videos which was pre-validated. The session was followed by online interaction with participants by a single resource person. Pre-test and post-test were conducted through google forms before commencement and at the end of the online session respectively. The data were analyzed in terms of descriptive frequencies and percentages of different domains to describe the pre- and post-test knowledge. Results A total of 576 participants were included in the study. There was a statistically significant gain in scores of all questions related to cleaning and disinfection; and BMW. No significant change was observed in knowledge regarding the sequence of doffing (p-value: 0.94). The result of pairwise comparisons pre-test and post-test scores showed that intervention through video-assisted teaching-learning resulted in improvement of knowledge which was found to be statistically significant (p-value < 0.001). Conclusion Video-assisted teaching-learning through virtual platforms effectively trained health personnel on infection prevention and control practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Video-assisted training can successfully be handled by a single resource person to impart the knowledge and skill to the trainee. Virtual teaching and learning is a feasible and efficient method to deliver training to HCWs on infection control practices and this methodology may be adopted in the future for several other training in manpower crunch situations, similar restrictive circumstances as posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.Entities:
Keywords: covid-19; health care workers; infection control practices; training; virtual
Year: 2021 PMID: 34094747 PMCID: PMC8169096 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.14785
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cureus ISSN: 2168-8184
Youtube link of video modules used for training.
| S. No. | Video content | Link |
| 1. | General instructions for healthcare workers | |
| 2. | Do’s & Don’t’s | |
| 3. | Donning & doffing | |
| 4. | Cleaning & disinfection |
Demographic variables of the participants in frequency (N) and percentage (%).
HCW: health care worker.
| Frequency (N) | Percentage (%) | ||
| Age (mean 27.14, SD 3.07) | <=25 | 189 | 32.9 |
| 26-30 | 322 | 56.0 | |
| 31-35 | 56 | 9.7 | |
| >35 | 8 | 1.4 | |
| Gender | Male | 317 | 55.1 |
| Female | 258 | 44.9 | |
| Designation | Nursing Officer | 570 | 99.1 |
| Residents | 2 | .3 | |
| Technician | 3 | .5 | |
| Years of experience working as HCW | < 1 | 90 | 15.7 |
| 1-5 | 402 | 69.9 | |
| >5-10 | 71 | 12.3 | |
| >10 | 12 | 2.1 | |
| Previous training regarding standard precautions for infection control | Yes | 352 | 61.2 |
| No | 164 | 28.5 | |
| May be | 59 | 10.3 | |
| Knowledge of standard precaution prior to training | Yes | 470 | 81.7 |
| No | 105 | 18.3 | |
| Have you ever used a virtual platform for training purpose | Yes | 231 | 40.2 |
| No | 344 | 59.8 |
Figure 1Pre- and post-training level of knowledge of participants.
HCW: health care worker.
Pre-test and post-test response rate in various segments.
PPE: personal protective equipment; BMW: bio-medical waste.
| Pre-training | Post-training | McNemar’s | ||||
| Question regarding | Correct answer Frequency (%) | Wrong answer Frequency (%) | Correct answer Frequency (%) | Wrong answer Frequency (%) | p-value | |
| Do’s & Don’ts | Good ‘cough etiquette’ | 447 (77.7) | 128 (22.3) | 491 (85.4) | 84 (14.6) | <0.001* |
| Measures to prevent the spread of virus | 540 (93.9) | 35 (6.1) | 550 (95.7) | 25 (4.3) | 0.100 | |
| Hand hygiene | Moments of hand hygiene | 391 (68) | 184 (32) | 468 (81.4) | 107 (18.6) | <0.001* |
| Hand hygiene for unsoiled hands | 254 (44.2) | 321 (55.8) | 347 (60.3) | 228 (39.7) | <0.001* | |
| Sequence of hand hygiene | 385 (67) | 190 (33) | 446 (77.6) | 129 (22.4) | <0.001* | |
| Duration of hand rub | 413 (71.8) | 162 (28.2) | 491 (85.4) | 84 (14.6) | <0.001* | |
| Duration of hand wash | 309 (53.7) | 266 (46.3) | 438 (76.2) | 137 (23.8) | <0.001* | |
| Hand hygiene for visibly dirty hands | 527 (91.7) | 48 (8.3) | 530 (92.2) | 45 (7.8) | 0.770 | |
| Personal protective equipment | Correct sequence of donning | 327 (56.9) | 248 ( 43.1) | 430 (74.8) | 145 (25.2) | <0.001* |
| Correct sequence of doffing | 428 (74.4) | 147 (25.6) | 496 (86.3) | 79 (13.7) | 0.941 | |
| Removal of PPE | 344 (59.8) | 231 (40.2) | 426 (74.1) | 149 (25.9) | <0.001* | |
| Most critical step in PPE in donning/doffing | 449 (78.1) | 126 (21.9) | 502 (87.3) | 73 (12.7) | <0.001* | |
| Cleaning and disinfection | Disinfectant for floor cleaning in COVID areas | 271 (47.1) | 304 (52.9) | 362 (63) | 213 (37) | <0.001* |
| Responsibility for cleaning | 336 (58.4) | 239 (41.6) | 430 (74.8) | 145 (25.2) | <0.001* | |
| Disinfection of stethoscope | 446 (77.6) | 129 ( 22.4) | 487 (84.7) | 88 (15.3) | <0.001* | |
| Frequently touched non-metallic surfaces | 202 (35.1) | 371 (64.5) | 241 (41.9) | 334 (58.1) | 0.007* | |
| BMW | Discard of gloves | 443 (77.0) | 132 (23.0) | 501 (87.1) | 74 (12.9) | <0.001* |
| BMW discard in quarantine | 526 (91.5) | 49 (8.5) | 545 (94.8) | 30 (5.2) | 0.009* | |
| Body fluids/sputum disinfection | 309 (53.7) | 266 (46.3) | 384 (66.8) | 191 (33.2) | <0.001* | |
Comparison of mean pre-test and post-test knowledge scores for different segments among HCWs.
*Wilcoxon signed ranks rest applied.
PPE: personal protective equipment; BMW: bio-medical waste; HCW: health care worker.
| Pre-test score | post-test score | Paired sample t-test | ||
| Segments | Maximum score | Mean ±SD | Mean ±SD | p-value (two-tailed) |
| Do and don't | 2 | 1.72 ± 0.49 | 1.81 ± 0.41 | < 0.001* |
| Hand hygiene | 6 | 3.96 ± 1.41 | 4.73 ± 1.38 | < 0.001* |
| PPE | 4 | 2.69 ± 1.12 | 3.22 ± 0.99 | < 0.001* |
| Cleaning and disinfection | 4 | 2.18 ± 1.11 | 2.64 ± 1.14 | < 0.001* |
| BMW | 3 | 2.22 ± 0.73 | 2.49 ± 0.69 | < 0.001* |
| Total | 19 | 12.78 ± 3.13 | 14.89 ± 3.32 | < 0.001* |
Figure 2Relative gain (%) in knowledge scores in various segments.
PPE: personal protective equipment; BMW: bio-medical waste.
Figure 3Distribution of feedback questions with each Likert scale of disagree, neutral and agree in number and percentages among HCWs.
HCW: health care worker.