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
评估感染控制中的溢出包:护士和卫生专业人员的观点。
背景:整个欧洲医院获得性感染(HAIs)的负担相当于350万例,导致9万多例死亡和250万残疾调整生命年(DALYs)。生物泄漏会给患者和工作人员带来感染和安全风险,因此泄漏管理对控制具有战略重要性。关于目前使用的泄漏包在感染控制管理方面的效力,证据有限。目的:了解卫生专业人员在使用不同的泄漏套件系统时的看法。数据收集包括视频和对模拟患者和卫生专业人员的访谈(n=24)。模拟泄漏/场景用于比较两种标准(现有)和BIOPERL+泄漏套件干预措施的使用情况。数据分析是迭代的,并采用框架分析方法。研究结果:BIOPERL+试剂盒有助于快速识别合适的泄漏试剂盒;定位和理解两种工具包类型的说明突出了个人如何学习和吸收信息;对两种试剂盒的血、尿、粪、呕吐物的吸收效果均有积极评价;BIOPERL+试剂盒的大勺被认为是一个好处,便于使用;人们对这些工具包中使用的塑料部件的潜在交叉污染和环境影响表示关注。结论:BIOPERL+试剂盒的“一种尺寸适合所有生物泄漏”,将其确定为用于所有生物泄漏的泄漏试剂盒,而两个现有试剂盒的选择取决于泄漏类型。定位和理解两种试剂盒类型的说明突出了个体如何以不同的方式学习和吸收信息,这可能对临床实践有影响。与会者认为,所有工具包都有轻微到强烈的气味,但现有的工具包散发出氯类气味,可能构成健康风险。与现有套件的小塑料勺相比,BIOPERL+大勺尺寸被认为更有效地遏制泄漏。与会者还认为,在重复使用组件时,现有的工具包可能成为潜在的交叉污染来源。BIOPERL+套件中使用的纸板材料被认为是一种好处,可能对环境的影响较小。研究表明,BIOPERL+试剂盒是一种有效、安全的新型干预手段,既适用于管理人类泄漏,又对环境友好。
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
Adult and perimenopausal acne and the nurse's role in management. Factors contributing to nurses leaving elderly acute care wards: a service evaluation. Clinical and economic impact of wound care in the UK: a critical review of Guest's publications, 2015-2025. Caring for the carers: staff safety is part of patient safety in the NHS. Managing alarm fatigue in critical care nursing.
×
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:604180095
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