Knowledge, awareness, and risk practices related to bacterial contamination of antiseptics, disinfectants, and hand hygiene products among healthcare workers in sub-saharan Africa: a cross-sectional survey in three tertiary care hospitals (Benin, Burkina Faso, and DR Congo)

Palpouguini Lompo, Anne-Sophie Heroes, Kadija Ouédraogo, Patient Okitale, Abel Wakpo, Jocelyne Kalema, Octavie Lunguya, Halidou Tinto, Dissou Affolabi, Lassana Sangaré, Jan Jacobs
{"title":"Knowledge, awareness, and risk practices related to bacterial contamination of antiseptics, disinfectants, and hand hygiene products among healthcare workers in sub-saharan Africa: a cross-sectional survey in three tertiary care hospitals (Benin, Burkina Faso, and DR Congo)","authors":"Palpouguini Lompo, Anne-Sophie Heroes, Kadija Ouédraogo, Patient Okitale, Abel Wakpo, Jocelyne Kalema, Octavie Lunguya, Halidou Tinto, Dissou Affolabi, Lassana Sangaré, Jan Jacobs","doi":"10.1186/s13756-024-01396-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Antiseptics, disinfectants, and hand hygiene products can be contaminated with bacteria and cause healthcare-associated infections, which are underreported from low- and middle-income countries. To better understand the user-related risk factors, we conducted a knowledge, awareness, and practice survey among hospital staff in sub-Saharan Africa. Self-administered questionnaire distributed among healthcare workers in three tertiary care hospitals (Burkina Faso, Benin, Democratic Republic of the Congo). 617 healthcare workers (85.3% (para)medical and 14.7% auxiliary staff) participated. Less than half (45.5%) had been trained in Infection Prevention & Control (IPC), and only 15.7% were trained < 1 year ago. Near two-thirds (64.2%) preferred liquid soap for hand hygiene, versus 33.1% for alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR). Most (58.3%) expressed confidence in the locally available products. Knowledge of product categories, storage conditions and shelf-life was inadequate: eosin was considered as an antiseptic (47.5% of (para)medical staff), the shelf life and storage conditions (non-transparent container) of freshly prepared chlorine 0.5% were known by only 42.6% and 34.8% of participants, respectively. Approximately one-third of participants approved using tap water for preparation of chlorine 0.5% and liquid soap. Most participants (> 80%) disapproved recycling soft-drink bottles as liquid soap containers. Nearly two-thirds (65.0%) declared that bacteria may be resistant to and survive in ABHR, versus 51.0% and 37.4% for povidone iodine and chlorine 0.5%, respectively. Depicted risk practices (n = 4) were ignored by 30 to 40% of participants: they included touching the rim or content of stock containers with compresses or small containers, storing of cotton balls soaked in an antiseptic, and hand-touching the spout of pump dispenser. Filling containers by topping-up was considered good practice by 18.3% of participants. Half (52.1%) of participants acknowledged indefinite reuse of containers. Besides small differences, the findings were similar across the study sites and professional groups. Among IPC-trained staff, proportions recognizing all 4 risk practices were higher compared to non-trained staff (35.9% versus 23.8%, p < 0.0001). The present findings can guide tailored training and IPC implementation at the healthcare facility and national levels, and sensitize stakeholders’ and funders’ interest.","PeriodicalId":501612,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-024-01396-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Antiseptics, disinfectants, and hand hygiene products can be contaminated with bacteria and cause healthcare-associated infections, which are underreported from low- and middle-income countries. To better understand the user-related risk factors, we conducted a knowledge, awareness, and practice survey among hospital staff in sub-Saharan Africa. Self-administered questionnaire distributed among healthcare workers in three tertiary care hospitals (Burkina Faso, Benin, Democratic Republic of the Congo). 617 healthcare workers (85.3% (para)medical and 14.7% auxiliary staff) participated. Less than half (45.5%) had been trained in Infection Prevention & Control (IPC), and only 15.7% were trained < 1 year ago. Near two-thirds (64.2%) preferred liquid soap for hand hygiene, versus 33.1% for alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR). Most (58.3%) expressed confidence in the locally available products. Knowledge of product categories, storage conditions and shelf-life was inadequate: eosin was considered as an antiseptic (47.5% of (para)medical staff), the shelf life and storage conditions (non-transparent container) of freshly prepared chlorine 0.5% were known by only 42.6% and 34.8% of participants, respectively. Approximately one-third of participants approved using tap water for preparation of chlorine 0.5% and liquid soap. Most participants (> 80%) disapproved recycling soft-drink bottles as liquid soap containers. Nearly two-thirds (65.0%) declared that bacteria may be resistant to and survive in ABHR, versus 51.0% and 37.4% for povidone iodine and chlorine 0.5%, respectively. Depicted risk practices (n = 4) were ignored by 30 to 40% of participants: they included touching the rim or content of stock containers with compresses or small containers, storing of cotton balls soaked in an antiseptic, and hand-touching the spout of pump dispenser. Filling containers by topping-up was considered good practice by 18.3% of participants. Half (52.1%) of participants acknowledged indefinite reuse of containers. Besides small differences, the findings were similar across the study sites and professional groups. Among IPC-trained staff, proportions recognizing all 4 risk practices were higher compared to non-trained staff (35.9% versus 23.8%, p < 0.0001). The present findings can guide tailored training and IPC implementation at the healthcare facility and national levels, and sensitize stakeholders’ and funders’ interest.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
撒哈拉以南非洲地区医护人员对杀菌剂、消毒剂和手部卫生用品细菌污染的相关知识、认识和风险做法:在三家三级医院(贝宁、布基纳法索和刚果民主共和国)进行的横断面调查
抗菌剂、消毒剂和手部卫生用品可能会被细菌污染并导致医疗相关性感染,而中低收入国家对这类感染的报告不足。为了更好地了解与使用者相关的风险因素,我们在撒哈拉以南非洲的医院员工中开展了一项知识、意识和实践调查。我们向三家三级医院(布基纳法索、贝宁、刚果民主共和国)的医护人员发放了自填问卷。617 名医护人员(85.3%(准)医务人员和 14.7%辅助人员)参与了问卷调查。不到一半(45.5%)的医护人员接受过感染预防与控制(IPC)培训,只有 15.7% 的医护人员接受过培训(80%)不赞成回收软饮料瓶作为肥皂液容器。近三分之二(65.0%)的人表示,细菌可能对 ABHR 产生耐药性并在 ABHR 中存活,而对聚维酮碘和 0.5% 氯的认可度分别为 51.0% 和 37.4%。30% 至 40% 的参与者忽视了所描述的风险做法(n = 4):包括用敷料或小容器接触容器边缘或内容物、存放浸泡在消毒剂中的棉球,以及用手接触泵式分配器的出水口。18.3% 的参与者认为用加满的方式给容器加水是良好做法。半数(52.1%)参与者承认容器可以无限期重复使用。除细微差别外,各研究地点和各专业组的调查结果相似。在接受过 IPC 培训的员工中,承认所有 4 种风险做法的比例高于未接受过培训的员工(35.9% 对 23.8%,p < 0.0001)。本研究结果可指导医疗机构和国家层面有针对性地开展培训和实施 IPC,并提高利益相关者和资助者的关注度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Should my child be given antibiotics? A systematic review of parental decision making in rural and remote locations Pharmacies and use of antibiotics: a cross sectional study in 19 Arab countries Assessing infection prevention and control structures in German hospitals after the COVID-19 pandemic using the WHO infection prevention and control assessment framework (IPCAF): results from 660 hospitals and comparison with a pre-pandemic survey One decade of point-prevalence surveys for carriage of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing enterobacterales: whole genome sequencing based prevalence and genetic characterization in a large Dutch teaching hospital from 2013 to 2022 Surveillance of antimicrobial utilization in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prescription rates, indications, and quality of use from point prevalence surveys
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1