Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Long-term effectiveness evaluation of an action-research intervention to improve hand hygiene in an intensive care unit
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Long-term effectiveness evaluation of an action-research intervention to improve hand hygiene in an intensive care unit
Do you wish to request the book?
Long-term effectiveness evaluation of an action-research intervention to improve hand hygiene in an intensive care unit
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Long-term effectiveness evaluation of an action-research intervention to improve hand hygiene in an intensive care unit
2022
Overview
To evaluate the long-term effectiveness of an action research intervention aimed at improving hand hygiene in an intensive care unit of a public hospital in Italy.
An observational, prospective before-after study was carried out.Compliance with hand hygiene was estimated by measuring the utilization of hand hygiene products before the intervention and four years after the end of the project. Products used were the following: detergent liquid soap, antiseptic liquid soap and alcohol-based hand gel. Endpoints were quantity consumed (in grams) for each product category. Quantitative consumptions per workshift were compared.
In 2017 the median consumption of antiseptic liquid soap and alcohol-based hand gel per workshift was significantly higher than in 2012 (111.5 g vs 72.5 g, p = 0.014, and 18.0 g vs 5.0 g, p < 0.001). Odds in favour of a higher value in 2017 were 1.99:1 (CI95%: 1.19:1 to 3.73:1) for antiseptic solution, and 5.39:1 (CI95%: 3.09:1 to 13.61:1) for antiseptic gel. Covariates were not associated with consumption of products, and this made it possible to compare the measurements in the two data collections.
Results of this study support the long-term effectiveness of the action research intervention to improve practices of hand hygiene in an intensive care setting.
