Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A Simple Effective Clean Practice Protocol Significantly Improves Hand Decontamination and Infection Control Measures in the Acute Surgical Setting

  • Clinical and Epidemiological Study
  • Published:
Infection Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background:

The Hand Hygiene Liaison Group and Epic Projects (Pratt et al., J Hosp Infect 47[Suppl A], 2001) have asked specifically for further trials of educational interventions to improve hand decontamination compliance and infection control in the hospital setting. This study investigates the efficacy of a ‘clean practice protocol’ (CPP), derived from international guidelines, to improve compliance of infection-control practices by surgical teams in a large UK teaching hospital.

Methods:

The key infection-control activities were summated to form the CPP presented here. An undisclosed infection-control audit of consultant-led ward-rounds from breast, gastrointestinal, vascular, urological, and intensivecare departments was performed. The audit results were presented to the surgical teams, after which an education/awareness program was implemented. A repeat undisclosed audit was performed 3 months later. In both audits, infection-control activities were recorded together with consultation time and any patient infective complications.

Results:

The surgical teams performed as follows in the initial audit: hand decontamination (28% of consultations), correct use of gloves (2%), instrument cleaning (0%), garment contamination (49%), and notes contamination (34%). Introduction of the CPP education program significantly improved hand decontamination to 87% (p < 0.0001), the correct use of gloves/aprons to 50% (p < 0.0001), and overall infection-control practice from 63% to 89% (p < 0.05).

Conclusions:

The introduction of the CPP significantly improved compliance of hand decontamination, correct usage of gloves and aprons, and overall infection-control in a large teaching hospital. The CPP is a highly effective auditing and educational tool that can be readily adapted for use in hospitals globally to monitor and improve infection-control practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Plowman R, Graves N, Griffin M, Roberts J, Swan T, Cookson B, Taylor L: The socio-economic burden of hospital acquired infection. Public Health Laboratory Service, London 2000. ISBN: 0901144487.

  2. Ducel G, Fabry J, Nicolle L: Prevention of hospital acquired infections. A practical guide (2nd edn). World Health Organisation, Geneva 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  3. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology: Resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobial agents. HL paper 81-I, 7th report session, 1997–1998. Stationery Office, London 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hospital Infection Working Group of the Department of Health & Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) Hospital infection control: guidance on the control of infection in hospitals. PHLS 1995; 84: 8.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Pratt RJ, Pellowe C, Liveday HP, Robinson N, Smith GW: The EPIC project: developing national evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare associated infections. J Hosp Infect 2001; 47 [Suppl A].

  6. Pratt RJ, Pellowe CM, Wilson JA, Loveday HP, Harper P, Jones SRLJ, McDougall C, Wilcox MH: EPIC2: national evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in NHS hospitals in England. J Hosp Infect 2007; 65S: S1–S64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wilson J: Infection control in clinical practice. Baillière Tindall, London, 1995, pp 161–162.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Stone SP: Hand hygiene — the case for evidence-based education. J R Soc Med 2001; 94: 278–281.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Pittet D, Hugonnet S, Harbarth S, Mourouga S, Sauvan V, Touveneau S, Perneger T: Effectiveness of a hospital wide programme to improve compliance with hand hygiene: infection control programme. Lancet 2000; 356: 1307–1312.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Larson EL, Early E, Cloonan P, Sugrue S, Parides M: An organizational climate intervention associated with increased handwashing and decreased nosocomial infections. Behav Med 2000; 26: 14–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Eldridge NE, Woods S, Bonello RS, Clutter K, Ellingson L, Harris M, Livingston B, Bagian J, Danko L, Dunn E, Parlier R, Pederson C, Reichling K, Roselle G, Wright S: Using the six sigma process to implement the centers for disease control and prevention guideline for hand hygiene in 4 intensive care units. J Gen Intern Med 2006; 21: S35–S42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Teare EL, Cookson B, French G, Jenner EA, Scott G, Pallett A: UK handwashing initiative. J Hosp Infect 1999; 43: 1–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. National Collaborating Centre for Nursing and Supportive Care: Infection control. Prevention of healthcare-associated infection in primary and community care. NICE guideline. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence 2003, June.

  14. Garner JS: The Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee: guidelines for isolation precautions in hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996; 17: 53–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Cooper BS, Stone SP, Kibbler CC, Cookson B, Roberts J, Medley F, Duckworth G, Lai R, Ebrahim S: Isolation measures in the hospital management of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): systematic review of the literature. Br Med J 2004; 329: 7533.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Johnston P, Norrish AR, Brammar T, Walton N, Hegarty TA, Coleman NP: Reducing methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) patient exposure by infection control measures. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2005; 87: 123–125.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Bebbington A, Parkin I, James PA, Chichester LJ, Kubiak EM: Patients’ case-notes: look but don’t touch. J Hosp Infect 2003; 55: 299–301.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Jones JS, Hoerle D, Riekse R: Stethoscopes: a potential vector of infection? Ann Emerg Med 1995; 26: 296–299.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Parmar RC, Valvi CC, Sira P, Kamat JR: A prospective, randomised, double-blind study of comparative efficacy of immediate versus daily cleaning of stethoscope using 66% ethyl alcohol. Indian J Med Sci 2004; 58: 423–430.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. P. J. Howard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Howard, D.P.J., Williams, C., Sen, S. et al. A Simple Effective Clean Practice Protocol Significantly Improves Hand Decontamination and Infection Control Measures in the Acute Surgical Setting. Infection 37, 34–38 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-008-8005-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-008-8005-3

Keywords

Navigation