Comparing surgeons' skin tolerance and acceptability to alcohol-based surgical hand preparation vs traditional surgical scrub: A matched quasi-experimental study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare the tolerance and acceptability of alcohol-based surgical hand preparation versus handscrubbing with antimicrobial soap and water by surgeons. METHODS: Matched quasi-experimental trial in an academic quaternary care hospital in Ribeirão Preto, Brazil, from April 1 to October, 31, 2017. Participants were cardiac and orthopedics surgeons from the study facility. In the first study phase, they performed handscrubbing with either 2% chlorhexidine (CHG) or 10% iodopovidone (PVP-I) and, in the second phase, they performed handrubbing with alcohol-based handrub (ABHR). Surgeons' skin tolerance and acceptability were evaluated using WHO-validated tools. Data were analyzed using the MacNemar's test within STATA. RESULTS: A total of 33 surgeons participated to the "per protocol" population; the majority were male (94%); mean age of 35 years (SD, 8.5). On product tolerance, there was a minimal variation in redness, scaliness, fissures, and visual evaluation of the skin when handrubbing with ABHR was compared to handscrubbing with either PVP-I or CHX. Regarding acceptability, participants rated better handrubbing with ABHR than handscrubbing with PVP-I when assessing product smell (66.6% vs 0%, p=0.002), color (73.3% vs 0%, p=0.001), product texture (60% vs 0%, p=0.004), skin dryness (60% vs 0%, p=0.004), ease of application (66.6% vs 0%, p=0.002) and overall satisfaction (66.6% vs 6.7% p=0.011). Participants rated similarly handrubbing with ABHR and handscrubbing with CHX, except for product texture, where handrubbing rated better (71,4% vs. 0%, p=0.002). Handrubbing with ABHR was preferred by 73.3%. CONCLUSION: Although handrubbing and handscrubbing were equally well tolerated by surgeons, alcohol-based surgical hand preparation fell into the personal preference for most of them. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (ReBEC), RBR-8ym9yj.

Impact of replacing powdered gloves with powder-free gloves on hand-hygiene compliance among healthcare workers of an intensive care unit: a quasi-experimental study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: After wearing powdered gloves, healthcare workers (HCW) are supposed to wash their hands instead of using alcohol-based hand-rub (ABHR). Washing hands takes longer than using ABHR, and the use of powdered gloves may be an obstacle to hand-hygiene compliance. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of replacing powdered gloves with powder-free gloves on hand-hygiene compliance among HCW of an intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: A quasi-experimental study was conducted in a general ICU of a tertiary care university hospital in Brazil. From June 1st to July 15th, 2017, all HCW were provided with powdered latex gloves only for all clinical procedures. From July 15th to August 31st, 2017, HCW were provided with nitrile powder-free gloves only. Hand-hygiene compliance was assessed through direct observation, and evaluated according to the World Health Organization Hand Hygiene guidelines. We calculated that a sample size of 544 hand hygiene opportunities needed to be observed per period. Data analysis were performed using the STATA SE® version 14, and we compared the individual's percentage of compliance using the t test for paired data before and after the intervention. RESULTS: Overall, 40 HCW were assessed before and after the introduction of nitrile powder-free gloves, with 1114 and 1139 observations of hand hygiene opportunities, respectively. The proportion of compliance with hand hygiene was 55% (95% confidence interval [CI] 51-59%) using powdered latex gloves and 60% (95% CI 57-63%) using powder-free gloves. The difference in proportions between the two types of gloves was 5.1% (95% CI 2.5-7.6%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our data indicate that replacing powdered gloves with powder-free gloves positively influenced hand-hygiene compliance by HCW in an ICU setting.

Under-reporting of accidents involving biological material by nursing professionals at a Brazilian emergency hospital.

BACKGROUND: Pathogens can be transmitted to health professionals after contact with biological material. The exact number of infections deriving from these events is still unknown, due to the lack of systematic surveillance data and under-reporting. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out, involving 451 nursing professionals from a Brazilian tertiary emergency hospital between April and July 2009. Through an active search, cases of under-reporting of occupational accidents with biological material by the nursing team were identified by means of individual interviews. The Institutional Review Board approved the research project. RESULTS: Over half of the professionals (237) had been victims of one or more accidents (425 in total) involving biological material, and 23.76% of the accidents had not been officially reported using an occupational accident report. Among the underreported accidents, 53.47% were percutaneous and 67.33% were bloodborne. The main reason for nonreporting was that the accident had been considered low risk. CONCLUSIONS: The under-reporting rate (23.76%) was low in comparison with other studies, but most cases of exposure were high risk.

Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus: knowledge and factors related to the nursing teams adherence to preventive measures.

This study evaluated the knowledge of a nursing team from a public hospital in the state of São Paulo, Brazil concerning preventive measures recommended in the care delivered to patients colonized with Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) and, through the Health Beliefs Model, identified the factors influencing adherence or non-adherence to preventive measures. A total of 318 professionals from different units participated in the study. According to the analysis, the nursing teams knowledge and perception of MRSA susceptibility was limited, which indicates the need for actions to improve the understanding of preventive measures employed in the care delivered to patients colonized or infected by this microorganism.