Measurement of hand hygiene compliance and gloving practices in different settings for the elderly considering the location of hand hygiene opportunities during patient care.

We monitored hand hygiene and gloving practices by direct observation in 8 health care settings for elderly persons in western France. Compliance with hand hygiene was better than that reported by previous studies, was better for single contacts and before or after a series of successive contacts than inside series, and was closely related to gloving practices. Practices differed among the settings.

Impact of improving glove usage on the hand hygiene compliance.

We assessed the impact of improving glove using on the hand hygiene (HH) compliance in a multicenter study including 9 chronic care settings. If gloves had been used correctly during the evaluation, the overall compliance with HH measured after contacts with patients or environment would have only increased from 66.3% to 68.7%. This weak impact suggests that improving glove usage is not in itself an alternative strategy to improve HH compliance.

Impact of a multi-faceted training intervention on the improvement of hand hygiene and gloving practices in four healthcare settings including nursing homes, acute-care geriatric wards and physical rehabilitation units.

AIMS: To assess the impact of a multi-faceted training program on the compliance with hand hygiene and gloving practices. BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene is considered as the cornerstone of the prevention of hospital-acquired infections. Several studies have enhanced the poor effectiveness of training programs in improving hand hygiene compliance. DESIGN: A before-after evaluation study. METHODS: The study was conducted in four healthcare settings before and after an intervention program which included the performance feedback of the first evaluation phase, three six-h training sessions, the assessment of hand hygiene performance with teaching boxes and the organisation of one full-day session devoted to institutional communication around hand hygiene in each setting. Hand hygiene compliance and quality of hand rubbing were evaluated. Hand hygiene opportunities were differentiated into extra-series opportunities (before or after a single contact and before the first contact or after the last contact of a series of consecutive contacts) and intra-series opportunities (from the opportunity following the first contact to the opportunity preceding the last in the same series). RESULTS: Overall, 969 contacts corresponding to 1,470 hand hygiene opportunities (760 during the first phase and 710 during the second) were observed. A significant improvement of observed practices was recorded for the hand hygiene compliance in intra-series opportunities (39·0% vs. 19·0%; p < 10(-5) ), the proportion of gloves worn if indicated (71·4% vs. 52·0%; p < 0·001) and the quality of hand rubbing (85·0% vs. 71·9%; p < 10(-5) ). CONCLUSIONS: Some of the performances measured for both hand hygiene and gloving practices were improved. We plan to extend this investigation by performing a qualitative study with experts in behavioural sciences to try improving practices for which adherence was still weak after the training program such as hand hygiene in intra-series opportunities. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study underscored the usefulness of implementing contextualised training programs, while more traditional courses have shown little impact.

Lipoprotein(a) in the nephrotic syndrome: molecular analysis of lipoprotein(a) and apolipoprotein(a) fragments in plasma and urine.

Plasma levels of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)), an atherogenic particle, are elevated in kidney disease, which suggests a role of this organ in the metabolism of Lp(a). Additional evidence for a role of the kidney in the clearance of Lp(a) is provided by the fact that circulating N-terminal fragments of apolipoprotein(a) (apo(a)) are processed and eliminated by the renal route. To further understand the mechanism underlying such renal excretion, the levels of apo(a) fragments in plasma and urine relative to plasma Lp(a) levels were determined in patients with nephrotic syndrome (n = 15). In plasma, the absolute (24.7 +/- 20.4 versus 2.16 +/- 2.99 microg/ml, P < 0.0001) as well as the relative amounts of apo(a) fragments (4.6 +/-3.4% versus 2.1 +/- 3.3% of total Lp(a), P < 0.0001) were significantly elevated in nephrotic patients compared with a control, normolipidemic population. In addition, urinary apo(a) excretion in patients with nephrotic syndrome was markedly elevated compared with that in control subjects (578 +/- 622 versus 27.7 +/- 44 ng/ml per mg creatinine, P < 0.001). However, the fractional catabolic rates of apo(a) fragments were similar in both groups (0.68 +/- 0.67% and 0.62 +/- 0.47% in nephrotic and control subjects, respectively), suggesting that increased plasma concentrations of apo(a) fragments in nephrotic subjects are more dependent on the rate of synthesis rather than on the catabolic rate. Molecular analysis of apo(a) immunoreactive material in urine revealed that the patterns of apo(a) fragments in nephrotic patients were distinct from those of control subjects. Full-length apo(a), large N-terminal apo(a) fragments similar in size to those present in plasma, as well as C-terminal fragments of apo(a) were detected in urine from nephrotic patients but not in urine from controls. All of these apo(a) forms were in addition to smaller N-terminal apo(a) fragments present in normal urine. This study also demonstrated the presence of Lp(a) in urine from nephrotic patients by ultracentrifugal fractionation. These data suggest that in nephrotic syndrome, Lp(a) and large fragments of apo(a) are passively filtered by the kidney through the glomerulus, whereas smaller apo(a) fragments are secreted into the urine.