100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
Positive Deviance and Hand Hygiene: More Questions than Answers $10.99   Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. Positive Deviance And Hand Hygiene
  4.  
  5. Positive Deviance and Hand Hygiene

Exam (elaborations)

Positive Deviance and Hand Hygiene: More Questions than Answers
 5 views  0 purchase
  • Course
  • Positive Deviance and Hand Hygiene
  • Institution
  • Positive Deviance And Hand Hygiene

To the Editor—Optimizing adherence to hand hygiene rec ommendations has been problematic in many healthcare set tings. We read with interest the article by Marra et al1 relating their experience with a positive deviance (PD) approach to improving hand hygiene adherence. The authors should b...

[Show more]

Preview 1 out of 2  pages

Document information

  • August 4, 2024
  • 2
  • 2024/2025
  • Exam (elaborations)
  • Questions & answers

Subjects

  • positive deviance and hand hygiene more question

Written for

  • Positive Deviance and Hand Hygiene
  • Positive Deviance and Hand Hygiene

Seller

avatar-seller
StudyCenter1

Reviews received

Content preview

978 I N F E C T I O N CONTROL AND H O S P I T A L E P I D E M I O L O G Y S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 0 , VOL. 3 1 , N O . 9




Positive Deviance and Hand Hygiene: to have a statistical comparison of the device-associated-in-
fection and the healthcare-associated-infection incidence
More Questions than Answers density changes in the second and third phases, separately,
compared with the first phase (baseline infection rate). We
should expect significant infection incidence density changes
in the east SDU in the second phase and in both SDUs in
To the Editor—Optimizing adherence to hand hygiene rec- the third phase, but no difference between units when com-
ommendations has been problematic in many healthcare set- paring first and third phases.
tings. We read with interest the article by Marra et al1 relating It is not clear whether PD results in a sustained effect. An
their experience with a positive deviance (PD) approach to observation period of only 3-6 months is simply not long
improving hand hygiene adherence. The authors should be enough to judge. As the authors note, the generalizability of
commended for adding to our understanding of hand hygiene this approach is unknown.
and the PD strategy for improving adherence, but a number An extensive list of potential confounders should be noted.
of limitations should be noted and several questions should The overall antibiotic use (number of defined daily doses per
be addressed. 1,000 patient-days) in the first unit to undergo PD interven-
Because actual opportunities for hand hygiene were not tion increased dramatically (by 52%), even though the num-
monitored (use of alcohol-based gel was measured), the level ber of healthcare-associated infections decreased by almost
of hand hygiene adherence in the study is not known. In the 31%. The authors did not further characterize this counter-
east step-down unit (SDU), the rate of alcohol-based gel use intuitive observation. If anything, one would expect antibiotic
increased from 47 dispensations per patient-day to approx- use to decrease in response to successful prevention of health-
imately 60 dispensations per patient-day, whereas in the west care-associated infection. The length of stay decreased dra-
SDU, the rate of gel use initially decreased (before PD was matically in both units (by more than 20%) during the first
introduced) and then returned to baseline (with PD). In our intervention phase. No explanation for this observation was
own study in a critical care unit, we noted opportunities for offered, and it might indicate other forces at work. Severity
hand hygiene at a rate of 295 opportunities per patient-day,2 of illness is an obvious confounder that may have been in-
and Pittet et al3 noted a rate more than twice as high as ours. directly measured by the nurse activity score. This score dif-
In unpublished observations in our SDU, we noted oppor- fered significantly between units in 2 of the 3 observation
tunities for hand hygiene at a rate of 276 opportunities per periods, decreased steadily by 11% in one unit over the course
patient-day. Thus, the rate of gel use observed by Marra et of the study, and fluctuated in the other unit.
al1 at its highest (62 dispensations per patient-day) may have Thus, as is often the case with even the best studies, we
been woefully inadequate; an explanation by the authors for are left with many questions unanswered. A great deal of
the possible reasons for such a low rate would be welcome. work remains to be done to determine how best to measure
It is not clear whether the PD approach worked. It would hand hygiene rates, to improve adherence to hand hygiene
be of interest to know the change (mean difference and stan- recommendations, and to ascertain what impact hand hygiene
dard deviation) in the number of alcohol-based gel aliquots has on healthcare-associated infection.
dispensed between the first phase and the second phase in
the west and the east SDUs separately; these 2 analyses would ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
provide the "over-time baseline changes" (use of gel without Potential conflicts of interest. Both authors report no conflicts of interest
PD) and the "over-time intervention changes" (use of gel relevant to this article.
with PD), respectively. Then, the over-time baseline changes
in the west SDU should be statistically compared with the Mark E. Rupp, MD; Andre C. Kalil, MD
over-time intervention changes in the east SDU to better
determine whether the effect of PD was confounded by the
From the Department of Internal Medicine, University of Nebraska
expected (natural course) over-time baseline changes in the
Medical Center, Omaha (both authors).
use of gel. Also, a comparison analyzing the changes from Address reprint requests to Mark E. Rupp, MD, 984031 Nebraska Medical
the first phase (baseline) to the third phase (PD in both units) Center, Omaha, NE 68198-4031 (merupp@unmc.edu).
should produce significant changes (increase in gel use) Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010; 31(9):978-979
within each unit but no significant changes between units, © 2010 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights
reserved. 0899-823X/2010/3109-0020$15.00. DOI: 10.1086/656204
because both underwent intervention with PD in the third
phase.
It is not clear what types of healthcare-associated infections
were reduced. The authors showed quite nicely that various REFERENCES
device-associated infections were not significantly impacted, 1. Marra AR, Guastelli LR, Pereira de Araujo CM, et al. Positive deviance:
but they did not relate what types of infections were reduced. a new strategy for improving hand hygiene compliance. Infect Control
Also, similar to our suggestion above, it would be important Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:12-20.

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller StudyCenter1. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $10.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

72042 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now

Start selling

Recently viewed by you

Summary ·

(0)

NST2601 ASSIGNMENT 3 OF 2023 [697799]

Summary ·

(1)

Samenvatting deeltentamen 2

Other ·

(0)

CHEM 120 Week 7 Quiz Assignment

Class notes ·

(0)

Notes week 11

$10.99
  • (0)
  Add to cart