Critical incidents of nonadherence with standard precautions guidelines among community hospital-based health care workers

Kristi J. Ferguson, Howard Waitzkin, Susan E. Beekmann, Bradley Doebbeling

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

43 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify, categorize, and assess critical incidents of nonadherence to standard precautions. DESIGN: Qualitative and quantitative analysis of a written. mail-out survey. SETTING: Community hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Statewide stratified random sample of community hospital-based health care workers at risk for blood exposure. MAIN VARIABLE: Responses to the question: "Think of an incident during the past year when you didn't adhere to universal precautions. Please describe the situation and why you didn't adhere." RESULTS: Reasons given for not using precautions included: belief that stopping to use standard precautions would have put the patient at risk (22%); using precautions would have interfered with patieat care (20%); precautions were not warranted in a specific situation (14%); did not anticipate the potential for exposure (14%); and high job demands that had caused respondent to be in a hurry (11%). Less often, equipment was not available (7%), respondent forgot (6%), respondent thought that the patient did not pose a risk (4%), or the available equipment was not effective (3%). In terms of overall exposure rates, 34% of those who described an incident had experienced a sharps injury during the previous 3 months and 42% had experienced a mucocutaneous exposure. In terms of overall nonadherence, 44% wore gloves less than 100% of the time, while 61% washed their hands less than 100% of the time. Needlestick injuries were lowest among those who had forgotten to use precautions, while mucocutaneous exposures were highest among those who had not anticipated potential exposure while performing the task. Failure to wear gloves routinely was highest among those who said that following precautions interfered with their ability to provide care and among those who believed a particular patient to be low risk; failure to wash hands routinely was also highest among the latter group and lowest among those who said necessary equipment was not available. CONCLUSIONS: Using specific information about local incidents of nonadherence to standard precautions may enhance training, especially if the program identifies incidents of unanticipated exposure and helps workers plan for them in the future. Closer examination of job demands and responsibilities that interfere with standard precautions may increase the likelihood of adherence.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)726-731
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of General Internal Medicine
Volume19
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Community Hospital
Guidelines
Needlestick Injuries
Delivery of Health Care
Equipment and Supplies
Hand
Universal Precautions
Postal Service
Education
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • Blood-borne pathogens
  • Inservice training
  • Needlestick injuries
  • Standard precautions

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Critical incidents of nonadherence with standard precautions guidelines among community hospital-based health care workers. / Ferguson, Kristi J.; Waitzkin, Howard; Beekmann, Susan E.; Doebbeling, Bradley.

In: Journal of General Internal Medicine, Vol. 19, No. 7, 07.2004, p. 726-731.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4489d3f4bcb54da1a55c2038ff52601a,
title = "Critical incidents of nonadherence with standard precautions guidelines among community hospital-based health care workers",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To identify, categorize, and assess critical incidents of nonadherence to standard precautions. DESIGN: Qualitative and quantitative analysis of a written. mail-out survey. SETTING: Community hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Statewide stratified random sample of community hospital-based health care workers at risk for blood exposure. MAIN VARIABLE: Responses to the question: {"}Think of an incident during the past year when you didn't adhere to universal precautions. Please describe the situation and why you didn't adhere.{"} RESULTS: Reasons given for not using precautions included: belief that stopping to use standard precautions would have put the patient at risk (22{\%}); using precautions would have interfered with patieat care (20{\%}); precautions were not warranted in a specific situation (14{\%}); did not anticipate the potential for exposure (14{\%}); and high job demands that had caused respondent to be in a hurry (11{\%}). Less often, equipment was not available (7{\%}), respondent forgot (6{\%}), respondent thought that the patient did not pose a risk (4{\%}), or the available equipment was not effective (3{\%}). In terms of overall exposure rates, 34{\%} of those who described an incident had experienced a sharps injury during the previous 3 months and 42{\%} had experienced a mucocutaneous exposure. In terms of overall nonadherence, 44{\%} wore gloves less than 100{\%} of the time, while 61{\%} washed their hands less than 100{\%} of the time. Needlestick injuries were lowest among those who had forgotten to use precautions, while mucocutaneous exposures were highest among those who had not anticipated potential exposure while performing the task. Failure to wear gloves routinely was highest among those who said that following precautions interfered with their ability to provide care and among those who believed a particular patient to be low risk; failure to wash hands routinely was also highest among the latter group and lowest among those who said necessary equipment was not available. CONCLUSIONS: Using specific information about local incidents of nonadherence to standard precautions may enhance training, especially if the program identifies incidents of unanticipated exposure and helps workers plan for them in the future. Closer examination of job demands and responsibilities that interfere with standard precautions may increase the likelihood of adherence.",
keywords = "Blood-borne pathogens, Inservice training, Needlestick injuries, Standard precautions",
author = "Ferguson, {Kristi J.} and Howard Waitzkin and Beekmann, {Susan E.} and Bradley Doebbeling",
year = "2004",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.20424.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "726--731",
journal = "Journal of General Internal Medicine",
issn = "0884-8734",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Critical incidents of nonadherence with standard precautions guidelines among community hospital-based health care workers

AU - Ferguson, Kristi J.

AU - Waitzkin, Howard

AU - Beekmann, Susan E.

AU - Doebbeling, Bradley

PY - 2004/7

Y1 - 2004/7

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To identify, categorize, and assess critical incidents of nonadherence to standard precautions. DESIGN: Qualitative and quantitative analysis of a written. mail-out survey. SETTING: Community hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Statewide stratified random sample of community hospital-based health care workers at risk for blood exposure. MAIN VARIABLE: Responses to the question: "Think of an incident during the past year when you didn't adhere to universal precautions. Please describe the situation and why you didn't adhere." RESULTS: Reasons given for not using precautions included: belief that stopping to use standard precautions would have put the patient at risk (22%); using precautions would have interfered with patieat care (20%); precautions were not warranted in a specific situation (14%); did not anticipate the potential for exposure (14%); and high job demands that had caused respondent to be in a hurry (11%). Less often, equipment was not available (7%), respondent forgot (6%), respondent thought that the patient did not pose a risk (4%), or the available equipment was not effective (3%). In terms of overall exposure rates, 34% of those who described an incident had experienced a sharps injury during the previous 3 months and 42% had experienced a mucocutaneous exposure. In terms of overall nonadherence, 44% wore gloves less than 100% of the time, while 61% washed their hands less than 100% of the time. Needlestick injuries were lowest among those who had forgotten to use precautions, while mucocutaneous exposures were highest among those who had not anticipated potential exposure while performing the task. Failure to wear gloves routinely was highest among those who said that following precautions interfered with their ability to provide care and among those who believed a particular patient to be low risk; failure to wash hands routinely was also highest among the latter group and lowest among those who said necessary equipment was not available. CONCLUSIONS: Using specific information about local incidents of nonadherence to standard precautions may enhance training, especially if the program identifies incidents of unanticipated exposure and helps workers plan for them in the future. Closer examination of job demands and responsibilities that interfere with standard precautions may increase the likelihood of adherence.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To identify, categorize, and assess critical incidents of nonadherence to standard precautions. DESIGN: Qualitative and quantitative analysis of a written. mail-out survey. SETTING: Community hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Statewide stratified random sample of community hospital-based health care workers at risk for blood exposure. MAIN VARIABLE: Responses to the question: "Think of an incident during the past year when you didn't adhere to universal precautions. Please describe the situation and why you didn't adhere." RESULTS: Reasons given for not using precautions included: belief that stopping to use standard precautions would have put the patient at risk (22%); using precautions would have interfered with patieat care (20%); precautions were not warranted in a specific situation (14%); did not anticipate the potential for exposure (14%); and high job demands that had caused respondent to be in a hurry (11%). Less often, equipment was not available (7%), respondent forgot (6%), respondent thought that the patient did not pose a risk (4%), or the available equipment was not effective (3%). In terms of overall exposure rates, 34% of those who described an incident had experienced a sharps injury during the previous 3 months and 42% had experienced a mucocutaneous exposure. In terms of overall nonadherence, 44% wore gloves less than 100% of the time, while 61% washed their hands less than 100% of the time. Needlestick injuries were lowest among those who had forgotten to use precautions, while mucocutaneous exposures were highest among those who had not anticipated potential exposure while performing the task. Failure to wear gloves routinely was highest among those who said that following precautions interfered with their ability to provide care and among those who believed a particular patient to be low risk; failure to wash hands routinely was also highest among the latter group and lowest among those who said necessary equipment was not available. CONCLUSIONS: Using specific information about local incidents of nonadherence to standard precautions may enhance training, especially if the program identifies incidents of unanticipated exposure and helps workers plan for them in the future. Closer examination of job demands and responsibilities that interfere with standard precautions may increase the likelihood of adherence.

KW - Blood-borne pathogens

KW - Inservice training

KW - Needlestick injuries

KW - Standard precautions

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=3242683983&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=3242683983&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.20424.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.20424.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 15209585

AN - SCOPUS:3242683983

VL - 19

SP - 726

EP - 731

JO - Journal of General Internal Medicine

JF - Journal of General Internal Medicine

SN - 0884-8734

IS - 7

ER -