新冠肺炎大流行期间,在重症监护室使用短袖的长袍和手/手臂卫生减少患者和工作人员之间的微生物转移:一项基于模拟的随机试验。

IF 2.1 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Journal of the Intensive Care Society Pub Date : 2023-08-01 Epub Date: 2022-08-16 DOI:10.1177/17511437221116472
Laura Vincent, Mudathir Ibrahim, Joanne Kitchin, Claire Pickering, Jennie Wilson, Enrico Sorrentino, Claudia Salvagno, Laurie Earl, Louise Ma, Kathryn Simpson, Rose Baker, Peter McCulloch
{"title":"新冠肺炎大流行期间,在重症监护室使用短袖的长袍和手/手臂卫生减少患者和工作人员之间的微生物转移:一项基于模拟的随机试验。","authors":"Laura Vincent,&nbsp;Mudathir Ibrahim,&nbsp;Joanne Kitchin,&nbsp;Claire Pickering,&nbsp;Jennie Wilson,&nbsp;Enrico Sorrentino,&nbsp;Claudia Salvagno,&nbsp;Laurie Earl,&nbsp;Louise Ma,&nbsp;Kathryn Simpson,&nbsp;Rose Baker,&nbsp;Peter McCulloch","doi":"10.1177/17511437221116472","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Current personal protective equipment (PPE) practices in UK intensive care units involve \"sessional\" use of long-sleeved gowns, risking nosocomial infection transmitted via gown sleeves. Data from the first wave of the COVID19 pandemic demonstrated that these changes in infection prevention and control protocols were associated with an increase in healthcare associated bloodstream infections. We therefore explored the use of a protocol using short-sleeved gowns with hand and arm hygiene to reduce this risk.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>ICU staff were trained in wearing short-sleeved gowns and using a specific hand and arm washing technique between patients (experimental protocol). They then underwent simulation training, performing COVID-19 intubation and proning tasks using either experimental protocol or the standard (long-sleeved) control protocol. Fluorescent powder was used to simulate microbial contamination, detected using photographs under ultraviolet light. Teams were randomised to use control or experimental PPE first. During the simulation, staff were questioned on their feelings about personal safety, comfort and patient safety.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-eight staff and 17 proning volunteers were studied. Experimental PPE completely prevented staff contamination during COVID-19 intubation, whereas this occurred in 30/67 staff wearing control PPE (<i>p</i> = .003, McNemar). Proning volunteers were contaminated by staff in 15/17 control sessions and in 1/17 with experimental PPE (<i>p</i> = .023 McNemar). Staff comfort was superior with experimental PPE (<i>p</i>< .001, Wilcoxon). Their personal safety perception was initially higher with control PPE, but changed towards neutrality during sessions (<i>p</i> < .001 start, 0.068 end). Their impressions of patient safety were initially similar (<i>p</i> = .87), but finished strongly in favour of experimental PPE (<i>p</i> < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Short-sleeved gowns with hand and forearm cleansing appear superior to sessional long-sleeved gowns in preventing cross-contamination between staff and patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":39161,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Intensive Care Society","volume":"24 3","pages":"265-276"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10515327/pdf/10.1177_17511437221116472.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reduction in transfer of micro-organisms between patients and staff using short-sleeved gowns and hand/arm hygiene in intensive care during the COVID-19 pandemic: A simulation-based randomised trial.\",\"authors\":\"Laura Vincent,&nbsp;Mudathir Ibrahim,&nbsp;Joanne Kitchin,&nbsp;Claire Pickering,&nbsp;Jennie Wilson,&nbsp;Enrico Sorrentino,&nbsp;Claudia Salvagno,&nbsp;Laurie Earl,&nbsp;Louise Ma,&nbsp;Kathryn Simpson,&nbsp;Rose Baker,&nbsp;Peter McCulloch\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17511437221116472\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Current personal protective equipment (PPE) practices in UK intensive care units involve \\\"sessional\\\" use of long-sleeved gowns, risking nosocomial infection transmitted via gown sleeves. Data from the first wave of the COVID19 pandemic demonstrated that these changes in infection prevention and control protocols were associated with an increase in healthcare associated bloodstream infections. We therefore explored the use of a protocol using short-sleeved gowns with hand and arm hygiene to reduce this risk.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>ICU staff were trained in wearing short-sleeved gowns and using a specific hand and arm washing technique between patients (experimental protocol). They then underwent simulation training, performing COVID-19 intubation and proning tasks using either experimental protocol or the standard (long-sleeved) control protocol. Fluorescent powder was used to simulate microbial contamination, detected using photographs under ultraviolet light. Teams were randomised to use control or experimental PPE first. During the simulation, staff were questioned on their feelings about personal safety, comfort and patient safety.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-eight staff and 17 proning volunteers were studied. Experimental PPE completely prevented staff contamination during COVID-19 intubation, whereas this occurred in 30/67 staff wearing control PPE (<i>p</i> = .003, McNemar). Proning volunteers were contaminated by staff in 15/17 control sessions and in 1/17 with experimental PPE (<i>p</i> = .023 McNemar). Staff comfort was superior with experimental PPE (<i>p</i>< .001, Wilcoxon). Their personal safety perception was initially higher with control PPE, but changed towards neutrality during sessions (<i>p</i> < .001 start, 0.068 end). Their impressions of patient safety were initially similar (<i>p</i> = .87), but finished strongly in favour of experimental PPE (<i>p</i> < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Short-sleeved gowns with hand and forearm cleansing appear superior to sessional long-sleeved gowns in preventing cross-contamination between staff and patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39161,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Intensive Care Society\",\"volume\":\"24 3\",\"pages\":\"265-276\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10515327/pdf/10.1177_17511437221116472.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Intensive Care Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17511437221116472\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/8/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Intensive Care Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17511437221116472","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:目前英国重症监护室的个人防护装备(PPE)做法涉及“会期”使用长袖长袍,有通过长袍袖子传播医院感染的风险。第一波新冠肺炎疫情的数据表明,感染预防和控制方案的这些变化与医疗保健相关血液感染的增加有关。因此,我们探索了使用短袖的长袍并保持手和手臂卫生的方案来降低这种风险。方法:对ICU工作人员进行了穿着短袖的长袍和在患者之间使用特定洗手和手臂清洗技术的培训(实验方案)。然后,他们接受了模拟训练,使用实验方案或标准(长袖)对照方案执行新冠肺炎插管和俯卧任务。荧光粉末被用来模拟微生物污染,用紫外线下的照片进行检测。小组被随机分组,首先使用对照或实验PPE。在模拟过程中,工作人员被问及他们对人身安全、舒适度和患者安全的感受。结果:68名工作人员和17名俯卧志愿者接受了研究。实验PPE完全防止了新冠肺炎插管期间的工作人员污染,而这发生在30/67名佩戴对照PPE的工作人员中(p=.003,McNemar)。在15/17的对照组和1/17的实验性PPE中,俯卧的志愿者受到工作人员的污染(p=0.023 McNemar)。工作人员的舒适度优于实验性PPE(p<.001,Wilcoxon)。他们的人身安全感知最初在使用对照PPE时更高,但在训练期间转向中立(开始时p<0.001,结束时p<0.068)。他们对患者安全的印象最初相似(p=.87),但最终强烈支持实验性PPE(p<.001)。结论:在防止工作人员和患者之间的交叉污染方面,带有手和前臂清洁功能的短袖的长袍似乎优于会期长袖长袍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Reduction in transfer of micro-organisms between patients and staff using short-sleeved gowns and hand/arm hygiene in intensive care during the COVID-19 pandemic: A simulation-based randomised trial.

Background: Current personal protective equipment (PPE) practices in UK intensive care units involve "sessional" use of long-sleeved gowns, risking nosocomial infection transmitted via gown sleeves. Data from the first wave of the COVID19 pandemic demonstrated that these changes in infection prevention and control protocols were associated with an increase in healthcare associated bloodstream infections. We therefore explored the use of a protocol using short-sleeved gowns with hand and arm hygiene to reduce this risk.

Methods: ICU staff were trained in wearing short-sleeved gowns and using a specific hand and arm washing technique between patients (experimental protocol). They then underwent simulation training, performing COVID-19 intubation and proning tasks using either experimental protocol or the standard (long-sleeved) control protocol. Fluorescent powder was used to simulate microbial contamination, detected using photographs under ultraviolet light. Teams were randomised to use control or experimental PPE first. During the simulation, staff were questioned on their feelings about personal safety, comfort and patient safety.

Results: Sixty-eight staff and 17 proning volunteers were studied. Experimental PPE completely prevented staff contamination during COVID-19 intubation, whereas this occurred in 30/67 staff wearing control PPE (p = .003, McNemar). Proning volunteers were contaminated by staff in 15/17 control sessions and in 1/17 with experimental PPE (p = .023 McNemar). Staff comfort was superior with experimental PPE (p< .001, Wilcoxon). Their personal safety perception was initially higher with control PPE, but changed towards neutrality during sessions (p < .001 start, 0.068 end). Their impressions of patient safety were initially similar (p = .87), but finished strongly in favour of experimental PPE (p < .001).

Conclusions: Short-sleeved gowns with hand and forearm cleansing appear superior to sessional long-sleeved gowns in preventing cross-contamination between staff and patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of the Intensive Care Society
Journal of the Intensive Care Society Nursing-Critical Care Nursing
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Intensive Care Society (JICS) is an international, peer-reviewed journal that strives to disseminate clinically and scientifically relevant peer-reviewed research, evaluation, experience and opinion to all staff working in the field of intensive care medicine. Our aim is to inform clinicians on the provision of best practice and provide direction for innovative scientific research in what is one of the broadest and most multi-disciplinary healthcare specialties. While original articles and systematic reviews lie at the heart of the Journal, we also value and recognise the need for opinion articles, case reports and correspondence to guide clinically and scientifically important areas in which conclusive evidence is lacking. The style of the Journal is based on its founding mission statement to ‘instruct, inform and entertain by encompassing the best aspects of both tabloid and broadsheet''.
期刊最新文献
Delivery of evidence-based critical care practices across the United Kingdom: A UK-wide multi-site service evaluation in adult units. In vivo assessment of a modification of a domiciliary ventilator which reduces oxygen consumption in mechanically ventilated patients. Management of adult mechanically ventilated patients: A UK-wide survey. Small volume fluid resuscitation and supplementation with 20% albumin versus buffered crystalloids in adults with septic shock: A protocol for a randomised feasibility trial. Should viscoelastic testing be a standard point-of-care test on all intensive care units?
×
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