DESIGN: Randomized-controlled study.
SETTING: Two internal medicine wards of a public, university-affiliated, tertiary-care hospital in Malaysia.
METHODS: We randomly allocated 2 wards to hand hygiene promotion delivered either by PICAs (study arm 1) or by MSCAs (study arm 2). The primary outcome was hand hygiene compliance using direct observation by validated auditors. Secondary outcomes were hand hygiene knowledge and observations from ward tours.
RESULTS: Mean hand hygiene compliance in study arm 1 and study arm 2 improved from 48% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44%-53%) and 50% (95% CI, 44%-55%) in the preintervention period to 66% (63%-69%) and 65% (60%-69%) in the intervention period, respectively. We detected no statistically significant difference in hand hygiene improvement between the 2 study arms. Knowledge scores on hand hygiene in study arm 1 and study arm 2 improved from 60% and 63% to 98% and 93%, respectively. Staff in study arm 1 improved hand hygiene because they did not want to disappoint the efforts taken by the PICAs. Staff in study arm 2 felt pressured by the MSCAs to comply with hand hygiene to obtain good overall performance appraisals.
CONCLUSION: Although the attitude of PICAs and MSCAs in terms of leadership, mode of action and perception of their task by staff were very different, or even opposed, both PICAs and MSCAs effectively changed behavior of staff toward improved hand hygiene to comparable levels.
Methods: This study, stratified in pre-, during, and post-intervention periods, was conducted between February 2017 and March 2018 in two wards at a tertiary care hospital in Malaysia. Hand hygiene promotion was facilitated either by PICAs (study arm 1) or MSCAs (study arm 2), and the two wards were randomly allocated to one of the two interventions. Outcomes were: 1) perceived leadership styles of PICAs and MSCAs by staff, vocalised during question and answer sessions; 2) the social network connectedness and communication patterns between HCWs and change agents by applying social network analysis; and 3) hand hygiene leadership attributes obtained from HCWs in the post-intervention period by questionnaires.
Results: Hand hygiene compliance in study arm 1 and study arm 2 improved by from 48% (95% CI: 44-53%) to 66% (63-69%), and from 50% (44-55%) to 65% (60-69%), respectively. There was no significant difference between the two arms. Healthcare workers perceived that PICAs lead by example, while MSCAs applied an authoritarian top-down leadership style. The organisational culture of both wards was hierarchical, with little social interaction, but strong team cohesion. Position and networks of both PICAs and MSCAs were similar and generally weaker compared to the leaders who were nominated by HCWs in the post-intervention period. Healthcare workers on both wards perceived authoritative leadership to be the most desirable attribute for hand hygiene improvement.
Conclusion: Despite experiencing successful hand hygiene improvement from PICAs, HCWs expressed a preference for the existing top-down leadership structure. This highlights the limits of applying leadership models that are not supported by the local organisational culture.
METHODS: This study used a qualitative approach with purposive sampling. Seven in depth interviews and six focus group discussions were conducted with 35 healthcare professionals (policy makers, doctors, pharmacists and nurses) at a teaching hospital in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, between February and June 2013. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and checked. Thematic approach was used to analyse the data.
RESULTS: Two main themes and three sub-themes emerged from this study. The main themes were (1) variation in the use of CPG and (2) barriers to adherence to CPG. The three sub-themes for barriers were issues inherent to the CPG, systems and policy that is not supportive of CPG use, and attitudes and behaviour of stakeholders. The main users of the CPG were the primary care doctors. Pharmacists only partially use the guidelines, while nurses and policy makers were not using the CPG at all. Participants had suggested few strategies to improve usage and adherence to CPG. First, update the CPG regularly and keep its content simple with specific sections for allied health workers. Second, use technology to facilitate CPG accessibility and provide protected time for implementation of CPG recommendations. Third, incorporate local CPG in professional training, link CPG adherence to key performance indicators and provide incentives for its use.
CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to the use of CPG hypertension management span across all stakeholders. The development and implementation of CPG focused mainly on doctors with lack of involvement of other healthcare stakeholders. Guidelines should be made simple, current, reliable, accessible, inclusive of all stakeholders and with good policy support.
METHODS: Patient-level data from two all-comers observational studies (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02629575 and NCT02905214) were pooled and analyzed in terms of their primary endpoint. During the data verification process, we observed substantial deviations from DAPT guideline recommendations. To illuminate this gap between clinical practice and guideline recommendations, we conducted a post hoc analysis of DAPT regimens and clinical event rates for which we defined the net adverse event rate (NACE) consisting of target lesion revascularization (TLR, primary endpoint of all-comers observational studies) all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), and bleeding events. A logistic regression was utilized to determine predictors why ticagrelor was used in stable coronary artery disease (CAD) patients instead of the guideline-recommended clopidogrel.
RESULTS: For stable CAD, the composite endpoint of clinical, bleeding, and stent thrombosis, i.e., NACE, between the clopidogrel and ticagrelor treatment groups was not different (5.4% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.745). Likewise, in the acute coronary syndrome (ACS) cohort, the NACE rates were not different between both DAPT strategies (9.2% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.927). There were also no differences in the accumulated rates for TLR, myocardial infarction ([MI], mortality, bleeding events, and stent thrombosis in elective and ACS patients. The main predictors for ticagrelor use in stable CAD patients were age
STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional, web-based survey administered between May and June, 2020.
RESULTS: Of 189 invited participants in 69 LMICs, we received 145 (77%) responses from 58 (84%) countries. The pandemic provides significant challenges to neonatal care, particularly in low-income countries. Respondents noted exacerbations of preexisting shortages in staffing, equipment, and isolation capabilities. In Sub-Saharan Africa, 9/35 (26%) respondents noted increased mortality in non-COVID-19-infected infants. Clinical practices on cord clamping, isolation, and breastfeeding varied widely, often not in line with World Health Organization guidelines. Most respondents noted family access restrictions, and limited shared decision-making.
CONCLUSIONS: Many LMICs face an exacerbation of preexisting resource challenges for neonatal care during the pandemic. Variable approaches to care delivery and deviations from guidelines provide opportunities for international collaborative improvement.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective interventional study with a before and after design requested a single group of 96 nurses in 15 wards actively providing chemotherapy to answer a self-administered questionnaire. A performance checklist was then used to determine the compliance of all these wards with the recommended safety measures. The first and second assessments took 2 months respectively with a 9-month intervention period. Pharmacist-based interventions included a series of technical, educational and administrative support measures consisting of the initiation of closed-system cytotoxic drug reconstitution (CDR) services, courses, training workshops and guideline updates.
RESULTS: The mean age of nurses was 32.2∓6.19 years. Most of them were female (93.8%) and married (72.9%). The mean knowledge score of nurses was significantly increased from 45.5∓10.52 to 73.4∓8.88 out of 100 (p<0.001) at the end of the second assessment. Overall, the mean practice score among the wards was improved from 7.6∓5.51 to 15.3∓2.55 out of 20 (p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacist-based interventions improved the knowledge, attitude and safe practices of nurses in cytotoxic drug handling. Further assessment may help to confirm the sustainability of the improved practices.
METHODOLOGY: Staff members were observed during patient contacts, and their hand washing techniques and hand hygiene practices were monitored. Five contact periods were observed for staff members while they cared for their assigned patients. Hand hygiene practices before and after patient contacts were categorized as clean uncontaminated, clean recontaminated, new gloves, and unchanged contaminated gloves. Compliance to hand-washing steps and time taken for hand washing were analyzed. Appropriate use of gloves based on CDC criteria also was assessed.
RESULTS: Compliance to hand hygiene practices was 70% before each patient contact. Staff members did not completely adhere to the hand-washing steps. The average time taken to wash hands was 20 seconds, and the necessary steps (rubbing palm over dorsum; rubbing fingers interlaced, and rotational rubbing of thumbs) were practiced minimally by all staff. Hand washing protocol was generally followed by all staff (100%). Alcohol hand rubs were available but were used moderately (60%); when used, staff members did not wait for the alcohol to dry. Only 4% of staff changed contaminated gloves between patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Hand hygiene compliance by ICU staff members needs to be improved. Improving adherence to correct hand hygiene techniques will require effective education programs and behavioral modification techniques. Moreover, hand hygiene guidelines must be incorporated into new staff orientation programs and the continuing education curriculum in the two hospitals studied.
METHODOLOGY: We retrospectively reviewed computerized medical records of adults with suspected UTI between July-December 2016. Excluded were consultations misclassified by the search engine, duplicated records of the same patient, consultations for follow-up of suspected UTI, patients who were pregnant, catheterised, or who had a renal transplant. Records were reviewed by two primary care physicians and a clinical microbiologist.
RESULTS: From 852 records, 366 consultations were a fresh episode of possible UTI. Most subjects were female (78.2%) with median age of 61.5 years. The major co-morbidities were hypertension (37.1%), prostatic enlargement in males (35.5%) and impaired renal function (31.1%). Symptoms were reported in 349 (95.4%) consultations. Antibiotics were prescribed in 307 (83.9%) consultations, which was appropriate in 227/307 (73.9%), where the subject had at least one symptom, and leucocytes were raised in urine full examination and microscopic examination (UFEME). In 73 (23.8%) consultations antibiotics were prescribed inappropriately, as the subjects were asymptomatic (14,4.6%), urine was clear (17,5.5%), or UFEME did not show raised leucocytes (42,13.7%). In 7 (2.3%) consultations appropriateness of antibiotics could not be determined as UFEME was not available.
CONCLUSION: Several pitfalls contributed to suboptimal adherence to guidelines for diagnosis and management of suspected UTI. This illustrates the complexity of managing suspected UTI in older subjects with multiple co-morbidities.