Dissemination of the CDC's Hand Hygiene Guideline and impact on infection rates.

BACKGROUND: The diffusion of national evidence-based practice guidelines and their impact on patient outcomes often go unmeasured. METHODS: Our objectives were to (1) evaluate implementation and compliance with clinical practices recommended in the new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hand Hygiene Guideline, (2) compare rates of health care-associated infections (HAI) before and after implementation of the Guideline recommendations, and (3) examine the patterns and correlates of changes in rates of HAI. We used pre- and post-Guideline implementation site visits and surveys in the setting of 40 US hospitals--members of the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System--and measured HAI rates 1 year before and after publication of the CDC Guideline and used direct observation of hand hygiene compliance and Guideline implementation scores. RESULTS: All study hospitals had changed their policies and procedures and provided products in compliance with Guideline recommendations; 89.8% of 1359 staff members surveyed anonymously reported that they were familiar with the Guideline. However, in 44.2% of the hospitals (19/40), there was no evidence of a multidisciplinary program to improve compliance. Hand hygiene rates remained low (mean, 56.6%). Rates of central line-associated bloodstream infections were significantly lower in hospitals with higher rates of hand hygiene (P < .001). No impact of Guideline implementation or hand hygiene compliance on other HAI rates was identified. Other factors occurring over time could affect rates of HAI. Observed hand hygiene compliance rates were likely to overestimate rates in actual practice. The study may have been of too short duration to detect the impact of a practice guideline. CONCLUSION: Wide dissemination of this Guideline was not sufficient to change practice. Only some hospitals had initiated multidisciplinary programs; practice change is unlikely without such multidisciplinary efforts and explicit administrative support.

Effect of guideline implementation on costs of hand hygiene.

Hands of health care personnel frequently serve as vectors for the transmission of organisms between patients and are also a major reservoir for pathogens with antimicrobial resistance. Hand hygiene is one effective strategy to reduce health care associated infections. The purposes of this study were to (a) compare the costs of hand hygiene in hospitals with high and low hand hygiene compliance as well as high and low frequency of alcohol hand rub use; and (b) examine associations between hospital characteristics and hand hygiene compliance as well as frequency of alcohol hand rub use. Nursing and health care policy leaders should look for ways to promote sustained adherence to hand hygiene recommendations.

Attitudes toward practice guidelines among intensive care unit personnel: a cross-sectional anonymous survey.

OBJECTIVES: The study assessed attitudes of intensive care unit (ICU) staff members toward practice guidelines in general and toward a specific guideline, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Healthcare Settings; correlated these attitudes with staff and hospital characteristics; and examined the impact of staff attitudes toward the Hand Hygiene Guideline on self-reported implementation of the Guideline. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional survey of staff in 70 ICUs in 39 U.S. hospitals, members of The National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance System. A survey, "Attitudes Regarding Practice Guidelines," was administered anonymously to all willing staff during a site visit at each hospital. A total of 1359 ICU personnel responded: 1003 nurses (74%), 228 physicians (17%), and 128 others (10%). RESULTS: Significantly more positive attitudes toward practice guidelines were found among staff in pediatric compared with adult ICUs (P < .001). Nurses and other staff when compared with physicians had more positive attitudes toward guidelines in general but not toward the specific Hand Hygiene Guideline. Those with more positive attitudes were significantly more likely to report that they had implemented recommendations of the Guideline (P < .001) and used an alcohol product for hand hygiene (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of staff members were familiar with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Hand Hygiene Guideline. Staff attitudes toward practice guidelines varied by type of ICU and by profession, and more positive attitudes were associated with significantly better self-reported guideline implementation. Because differences in staff attitudes might hinder or facilitate their acceptance and adoption of evidence-based practice guidelines, these results may have important implications for the education and/or socialization of ICU staff.

Relationship of antimicrobial control policies and hospital and infection control characteristics to antimicrobial resistance rates.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic misuse and noncompliance with infection control precautions have contributed to increasing levels of antimicrobial resistance in hospitals. OBJECTIVES: To assess the extent to which resistance is monitored in infection control programs and to correlate resistance rates with characteristics of antimicrobial control policies, provider attitudes and practices, and systems-level indicators of implementation of the hand hygiene guideline of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. METHODS: An on-site survey of intensive care unit staff and infection control directors of 33 hospitals in the United States was conducted. The following data were collected: antimicrobial control policies; rates during the previous 12 months of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant enterococci, and ceftazidime-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae; an implementation score of systems-level efforts to implement the guideline; staff attitudes toward practice guidelines; and observations of staff hand hygiene. Variables associated with resistance rates were examined for independent effects by using logistic regression. RESULTS: Resistance rates for S aureus, enterococci, and K pneumoniae were 52.5%, 18.2%, and 16.0%, respectively. Ten (30.3%) hospitals had an antibiotic control policy. No statistically significant correlation was observed between staff attitudes toward practice guidelines, observed hand hygiene behavior, or having an antibiotic use policy and resistance rates. In logistic regression analysis, higher scores on measures of systems-level efforts to implement the guideline were associated with lower rates of resistant S aureus and enterococci (P=.046). CONCLUSIONS: Organizational-level factors independent of the practices of individual clinicians may be associated with rates of antimicrobial resistance.

Effectiveness of barrier precautions and surveillance cultures to control transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Despite the priority placed on preventing transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) in health care facilities, there is a lack of consensus among recommended infection control guidelines. We focused on control measures that have a great potential to affect patient care, patient services, and hospital cost/resources: barrier precautions/patient isolation and surveillance cultures. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature and published English-language guidelines pertaining to the use of barrier precautions/patient isolation and surveillance cultures to prevent the transmission of MDROs. The recommendations made by the published guidelines were summarized and compared. The primary research studies identified through our literature search were evaluated for study quality. We then summarized the outcomes of the studies with the highest quality scores and made recommendations for future work. RESULTS: A total of 29 studies were included in our assessment of study quality; of those, 7 studies were of high quality. CONCLUSION: This systematic review identified key gaps in the literature including a need for greater monitoring of implementation of the interventions, more cost analyses of interventions, determining the independent contribution of specific interventions, and identifying the minimum interventions needed to reduce transmission.