Peta-Anne Zimmerman , Jacqueline H. Byrne , Brigid M. Gillespie , Deborough Macbeth
{"title":"Investigation of the selection and use of “other” personal protective equipment to prevent mucous membrane exposure in nurses: A cross-sectional study","authors":"Peta-Anne Zimmerman , Jacqueline H. Byrne , Brigid M. Gillespie , Deborough Macbeth","doi":"10.1016/j.idh.2023.03.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Selection and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) to prevent non-percutaneous body fluid exposure (NP BFE) is determined by a clinical assessment of risk. The aim of this study was to explore the selection and use of PPE, particularly masks and eye protection to prevent NP BFE, by nurses.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This quantitative single-site two-phased study was guided by the Health Belief Model (HBM). Phase 1 was a retrospective electronic database audit of body fluid exposure surveillance data. Phase 2 included a cross-sectional survey.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The highest incidence of reported NP BFE to non-intact skin and mucous membranes during the study period were identified in the emergency department (ED) at 51.3% (20/39), intensive care unit (ICU) at 30.8% (12/39), operating theatre (OT) with 12.9% (5/39), and inpatient renal ward with 5.1% (2/39). Reported PPE use during NP BFE was: 0% face shields or masks, 10% gown/apron, and 15% goggles.</p><p>Survey results related to <em>Prevention of mucocutaneous exposures</em> were similar across all high-risk units, though ED nurses reported poorer compliance with the use of PPE to prevent exposure. Risk assessment for prevention of NP BFE was reported, yet there was a lack of compliance. The ICU results indicated a positive safety culture in contrast to the ED.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The findings are consistent with research identifying inadequate prevention of NP BFE, although nurses are aware of the importance of risk assessment. The HBM has the potential to increase understanding of the differences in nurses’ perceptions of risk in safety culture.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":45006,"journal":{"name":"Infection Disease & Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infection Disease & Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468045123000160","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Selection and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) to prevent non-percutaneous body fluid exposure (NP BFE) is determined by a clinical assessment of risk. The aim of this study was to explore the selection and use of PPE, particularly masks and eye protection to prevent NP BFE, by nurses.
Methods
This quantitative single-site two-phased study was guided by the Health Belief Model (HBM). Phase 1 was a retrospective electronic database audit of body fluid exposure surveillance data. Phase 2 included a cross-sectional survey.
Results
The highest incidence of reported NP BFE to non-intact skin and mucous membranes during the study period were identified in the emergency department (ED) at 51.3% (20/39), intensive care unit (ICU) at 30.8% (12/39), operating theatre (OT) with 12.9% (5/39), and inpatient renal ward with 5.1% (2/39). Reported PPE use during NP BFE was: 0% face shields or masks, 10% gown/apron, and 15% goggles.
Survey results related to Prevention of mucocutaneous exposures were similar across all high-risk units, though ED nurses reported poorer compliance with the use of PPE to prevent exposure. Risk assessment for prevention of NP BFE was reported, yet there was a lack of compliance. The ICU results indicated a positive safety culture in contrast to the ED.
Conclusion
The findings are consistent with research identifying inadequate prevention of NP BFE, although nurses are aware of the importance of risk assessment. The HBM has the potential to increase understanding of the differences in nurses’ perceptions of risk in safety culture.
期刊介绍:
The journal aims to be a platform for the publication and dissemination of knowledge in the area of infection and disease causing infection in humans. The journal is quarterly and publishes research, reviews, concise communications, commentary and other articles concerned with infection and disease affecting the health of an individual, organisation or population. The original and important articles in the journal investigate, report or discuss infection prevention and control; clinical, social, epidemiological or public health aspects of infectious disease; policy and planning for the control of infections; zoonoses; and vaccination related to disease in human health. Infection, Disease & Health provides a platform for the publication and dissemination of original knowledge at the nexus of the areas infection, Disease and health in a One Health context. One Health recognizes that the health of people is connected to the health of animals and the environment. One Health encourages and advances the collaborative efforts of multiple disciplines-working locally, nationally, and globally-to achieve the best health for people, animals, and our environment. This approach is fundamental because 6 out of every 10 infectious diseases in humans are zoonotic, or spread from animals. We would be expected to report or discuss infection prevention and control; clinical, social, epidemiological or public health aspects of infectious disease; policy and planning for the control of infections; zoonosis; and vaccination related to disease in human health. The Journal seeks to bring together knowledge from all specialties involved in infection research and clinical practice, and present the best work in this ever-changing field. The audience of the journal includes researchers, clinicians, health workers and public policy professionals concerned with infection, disease and health.