Barriers and enablers to the uptake of alcohol-based hand rubs for pre-operative hand antisepsis in the operating room: an Australian perspective
Tracy Sloane A , Ramon Z. Shaban B D and Brigid Gillespie CA Dandenong Hospital, Southern Health, Dandenong, Vic.3175, Australia.
B Griffith Health Institute Research Centre for Clinical and Community Practice Innovation, Griffith University, University Drive, Meadowbrook, Qld 4131, Australia.
C NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Nursing Interventions for Hospitalised Patients, Griffith Health Institute, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Qld 4222, Australia.
D Corresponding author. Email: r.shaban@griffith.edu.au
Submitted: 7 January 2012 Accepted: 28 February 2012 Published: 5 April 2012
Abstract
Background: In 2011, the Therapeutic Goods Administration approved the use of alcohol-based rubs for hand antisepsis in surgical settings in Australia. The purpose of this research was to assess the knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of operating room healthcare professionals with respect to alcohol-based surgical rubs in order to gain insight into the potential barriers and enablers to their uptake.
Methods: A descriptive, two-phase study assessed operating room healthcare professionals’ knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions towards the use of alcohol-based surgical rubs within a large multi-campus public health care service in Melbourne, Australia.
Results: Central to the successful uptake of alcohol-based surgical rubs is the provision of education that emphasises the significant benefits the rubs bring to patient safety and to staff occupational health, specifically with respect to hand skin integrity. Other enablers included distributing international evidence demonstrating their safety and efficacy and the revision to the Australian College of Operating Room Nurses Standard’s other relevant policies, standards, and guidelines within health services. Inclusion of alcohol-based surgical rub protocols in national standards was deemed and important motivator. While most participants welcomed the introduction of alcohol-based surgical rubs, changing tradition and culture were reported as significant barriers to its uptake.
Conclusions: Identifying the likely motivators and barriers to change will assist in the uptake of alcohol-based surgical rubs. Further research should examine the actual barriers and enablers to the uptake of alcohol-based surgical rubs that materialised in organisations following the approval and their introduction into Australian surgical settings.
Additional keywords: alcohol rubs, hand hygiene, operating room.
References
[1] Victorian Department of Human Services. Start clean – Victorian infection control strategy 2007–11. Melbourne: Victorian Government Publishing Service; 2007.[2] World Health Organization. WHO guidelines on hand hygiene in health care - first global patient safety challenge clean care is safer care. Geneva: WHO Press; 2009.
[3] Hand Hygiene Australia. The Five Moments for Hand Hygiene; 2010.
[4] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings: Recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report CDC 2002; 51 RR-16
[5] Marchetti M, Kampf G, Finzi G, Salvatorelli G. Evaluation of the bactericidal effect of five products for surgical hand disinfection according to prEN 12054 and prEN 12791. J Hosp Infect 2003; 54 63–7.
| Evaluation of the bactericidal effect of five products for surgical hand disinfection according to prEN 12054 and prEN 12791.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3s3ksV2muw%3D%3D&md5=459bba6d86dacc27183d6c163e388749CAS |
[6] Pietsch H. Hand antiseptics: rubs versus scrubs, alcoholic solutions versus alcoholic gels. J Hosp Infect 2001; 48 S33–S36.
| Hand antiseptics: rubs versus scrubs, alcoholic solutions versus alcoholic gels.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[7] Tanner J, Swarbrook S, Stuart J. Surgical hand antisepsis to reduce surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; CD004288
| 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1c%2FpsF2gsA%3D%3D&md5=25243c288f939b483dfcf255ec8df636CAS |
[8] Tavolacci M, Pitrou I, Merle V, Haghighat S, Thillard D, Czernichow P. Surgical hand rubbing compared with surgical hand scrubbing: comparison of efficacy and costs. J Hosp Infect 2006; 63 55–9.
| Surgical hand rubbing compared with surgical hand scrubbing: comparison of efficacy and costs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD283isVKiug%3D%3D&md5=6fffd5d35703be8788560d83bb4a6ca8CAS |
[9] Weber WP, Reck S, Neff U, Saccilotto R, Dangel M, Rotter ML, et al Surgical hand antisepsis with alcohol-based hand run: comparion of effectiveness after 1.5 and 3 minutes of application. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009; 30 420–6.
| Surgical hand antisepsis with alcohol-based hand run: comparion of effectiveness after 1.5 and 3 minutes of application.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[10] Weight C, Lee M, Palmer J. Avagard hand antisepsis vs. traditional scrub in 3600 pediatric urologic procedures. J Urol 2010; 76 15–7.
| Avagard hand antisepsis vs. traditional scrub in 3600 pediatric urologic procedures.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[11] Larson E, Aiello A, Heilman J, Lyle C. Comparison of different regimens for surgical hand preparation. AORN J 2001; 73 412–32.
| Comparison of different regimens for surgical hand preparation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M3osFSrtQ%3D%3D&md5=01931f57f382de2ab08dcd16a64c25acCAS |
[12] Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing research: principles and methods. 8th ed: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
[13] Australian College of Operating Room Nurses. ACORN standards for perioperative nursing: including nurses roles, guidelines, and position statements. Adelaide: SA Australian College of Operating Room Nurses; 2010.
[14] National Health and Medical Research Council. Infection control guidelines for the prevention and control of infection in health care. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2010.
[15] Kramer A, Hubner M, Below H, Heidecke CD, Assadian O. Improving adherence to surgical hand preparation. J Hosp Infect 2008; 70 35–43.
| Improving adherence to surgical hand preparation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[16] Woodhead K, Taylor E, Bannister G, Chesworth T, Hoffmane P, Humphreys H. Behaviours and rituals in the operating theatre. J Hosp Infect 2002; 51 241–55.
| Behaviours and rituals in the operating theatre.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD38vis1Glsg%3D%3D&md5=afc892bb9445989ad9acef635cbe91f8CAS |
[17] McShane S, Travaglione T. Organisational Behaviour on the Pacific Rim. 2nd ed. North Ryde: McGraw-Hill Irwin; 2008.
[18] Tanner J, Blunsden C, Fakis A. National survey of hand antisepsis practices. J Perioper Pract 2007; 17 27–37.
[19] Pittet D, Simon A, Hugonnet M, et al Hand hygiene among physicians: performance, beliefs and perceptions. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141 1–8.