Survey for “iCarePATH”: Improving Caregivers’ Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Hand Washing
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Hand hygiene (HH) is the most effective means of preventing healthcare-associated infections (HAI). HH improvement strategies primarily focus on healthcare staff, often overlooking the significant contribution of caregivers to HAI risk. We sought to understand caregivers’ HH knowledge and practices to identify improvement opportunities. Methods: A self-administered survey was developed and distributed to families from June to August 2019; open-ended questions and Likert scales assessed caregivers’ perceptions and practices regarding HH at home and in hospital. HH compliance audits of caregivers entering and exiting inpatient rooms were performed in the same time period. Results: Among 81 caregivers surveyed, median patient age was 4.0 (IQR, 0.9–13.0) years. This was the first admission for 42 patients (53.8%). During this admission, 22 (27.2%) patients had been admitted for ≤1 day and 45 (55.6%) for >3 days. Caregivers reported good knowledge of HH practice, with strongly positive responses to knowledge of HH moments (94%) and proper technique (96%). Caregivers recognized that HH is required of hospital visitors (96%) to protect others (99%) and prevent illness in hospital (93%). Responses were less consistent for performing HH before entering a hospital room (83%), after exiting the room (70%), or after coughing or sneezing (65%). The attitudes of caregivers of children above 2 years were equivocal regarding expectations of their child to wash hands upon entering (40%), or exiting (41%) the hospital room. Multivariable modeling identified higher self-reported HH compliance in caregivers during first admission to hospital, compared to subsequent admissions (OR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.11–9.65). Reported barriers to HH included hand irritation (27.2%) and perceived HH frequency (18.5%). At the time of survey completion, 62 caregivers (77%) reported not having received HH information during their child’s admission from a healthcare provider or volunteer. Information was most commonly gained from posters (75%) and information in the room (31%). Most caregivers (58.0%) reported that they would prefer to receive HH information in the first 24 hours of admission. Among 200 audits, overall caregiver compliance with HH was 9%; HH before entering the room was 7.2% compared to 11.2% after exiting ( P = .33). Conclusions: Reported caregiver knowledge of HH was not reflected in audited practice. Fewer than 1 in 4 had received HH information from healthcare staff. HH education in the hospital environment within the first day of admission provides an opportunity for caregivers to improve compliance as partners in HAI prevention and safer pediatric care. Funding: None Disclosures: None
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».