Evaluating spill kits in infection control: perspectives of nurses and health professionals.

Fiona Je Smith, Kirstie Ferrie, William G Mackay
{"title":"Evaluating spill kits in infection control: perspectives of nurses and health professionals.","authors":"Fiona Je Smith, Kirstie Ferrie, William G Mackay","doi":"10.12968/bjon.2024.0120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The burden of hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) equates to 3.5 million cases, resulting in more than 90 000 deaths and 2.5 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) across Europe. Biological spills pose infection and safety risks for both patients and staff, so spill management is of strategic importance for containment. There is limited evidence as to the efficacy of spill kits currently in use with regard to infection control management.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To understand the perceptions of health professionals when using different spill kit systems. Data collection involved videos and interviews with simulated patients and health professionals (<i>n</i>=24). Simulated spills/scenarios were used to compare the use of both two standard (incumbent) and BIOPERL+ spill kit interventions. Data analysis was iterative and informed by the Framework Method of Analysis.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The BIOPERL+ kit facilitates rapid identification of the appropriate spill kit to use; locating and understanding instructions in both kit types highlight how individuals learn and absorb information; there were positive views on the efficacy of the granules to absorb blood, urine, faeces and vomit of both kit types; the larger scoop of the BIOPERL+ kit was seen as a benefit, facilitating ease of use; concerns were raised over potential cross-contamination and the environmental impact of plastic components used in the kits.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The 'one size fits all' of the BIOPERL+ kit identified it as the spill kit to use for all biological spills, whereas choice of the two incumbent kits depended on spill type. Locating and understanding instructions in both kit types highlighted how individuals learn and absorb information differently, which may have implications for clinical practice. Participants perceived that all kits had minimal to strong odour, yet the incumbent kits emitted a chlorine-type odour, potentially posing a health risk. The BIOPERL+ large scoop size was seen as more efficacious for spillage containment compared with the smaller plastic scoop of the incumbent kits. Participants also perceived that the incumbent kits could be a source of potential cross-contamination when reusing component parts. The cardboard materials used in the BIOPERL+ kit were perceived as a benefit, potentially having less of an impact on the environment. The study identified that the BIOPERL+ kit is an effective, safe novel intervention that is both appropriate for managing human spills and environmentally friendly.</p>","PeriodicalId":520014,"journal":{"name":"British journal of nursing (Mark Allen Publishing)","volume":"34 2","pages":"84-94"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of nursing (Mark Allen Publishing)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2024.0120","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

Background: The burden of hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) equates to 3.5 million cases, resulting in more than 90 000 deaths and 2.5 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) across Europe. Biological spills pose infection and safety risks for both patients and staff, so spill management is of strategic importance for containment. There is limited evidence as to the efficacy of spill kits currently in use with regard to infection control management.

Aim: To understand the perceptions of health professionals when using different spill kit systems. Data collection involved videos and interviews with simulated patients and health professionals (n=24). Simulated spills/scenarios were used to compare the use of both two standard (incumbent) and BIOPERL+ spill kit interventions. Data analysis was iterative and informed by the Framework Method of Analysis.

Findings: The BIOPERL+ kit facilitates rapid identification of the appropriate spill kit to use; locating and understanding instructions in both kit types highlight how individuals learn and absorb information; there were positive views on the efficacy of the granules to absorb blood, urine, faeces and vomit of both kit types; the larger scoop of the BIOPERL+ kit was seen as a benefit, facilitating ease of use; concerns were raised over potential cross-contamination and the environmental impact of plastic components used in the kits.

Conclusion: The 'one size fits all' of the BIOPERL+ kit identified it as the spill kit to use for all biological spills, whereas choice of the two incumbent kits depended on spill type. Locating and understanding instructions in both kit types highlighted how individuals learn and absorb information differently, which may have implications for clinical practice. Participants perceived that all kits had minimal to strong odour, yet the incumbent kits emitted a chlorine-type odour, potentially posing a health risk. The BIOPERL+ large scoop size was seen as more efficacious for spillage containment compared with the smaller plastic scoop of the incumbent kits. Participants also perceived that the incumbent kits could be a source of potential cross-contamination when reusing component parts. The cardboard materials used in the BIOPERL+ kit were perceived as a benefit, potentially having less of an impact on the environment. The study identified that the BIOPERL+ kit is an effective, safe novel intervention that is both appropriate for managing human spills and environmentally friendly.

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
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
Are child field student nurses psychologically prepared for their first-year clinical placements? Assessment of the diabetic foot in inpatients. Clinical reasoning and decision making within the role of a palliative care advanced clinical practitioner. Clinicians' experiences of using a sterile non-woven surgical dressing on 394 patients. Critical work to grow the nursing workforce.
×
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