Page 286 - Encyclopedia of Nursing Research
P. 286

InFeCTIon ConTRoL  n  253



             This represented the fifth highest rate of con-  studies only consider two opportunities for
             cern  expressed  by  participants  across  the   hand hygiene, that is, before and after patient
             27 member states. Greeks scored the risk of   contact (Rosenthal et al., 2005; Swoboda et al.,   I
             acquiring a HCaI highest at 81% and austria   2007), whereas others base their indications
             lowest at 18% (european Commission, 2010)  for hand hygiene on published sets of hand
                 The  provision  of  quality  patient  care   hygiene  guidelines,  for  example,  the  CDC
             is  not  simply  about  exhorting  individu-  incorporating  nine  different  opportunities
             als  within  hospital  settings  to  change  their   (Larson, Quiros, Giblin, & Lin, 2007) or five
             own  practices;  the  environment  in  which   sequential steps (Pittet et al., 2006). Methods
             health care workers’ work in must be consid-  of quantifying hand hygiene compliance dif-
             ered as well (Buetow & Roland, 1999; West,   fer, for example, self-reported, direct obser-
             2001).  The  importance  of  considering  the   vation,  or  proxy  measurement,  that  is,  the
             environment that health care workers’ prac-  use of hand hygiene agent (Boyce, 2008).
             tice in was emphasized in a seminal report   Seminal publications on the most prom-
             by  the  Institute  of  Medicine  in  the  United   ising ways to address health care workers’
             States in 2004. Serious concerns were raised   noncompliance  with  hand  hygiene  guide-
             about  health  care  workers’  work  environ-  lines focus on the importance of addressing
             ments, particularly nurses, and their impact   personal variables that may influence behav-
             on patient outcomes. The authors noted that   ior (Gould, Moralejo, & Drey, 2007; naikoba &
             typical nursing work environments are char-  Hayward,  2001;  Pittet,  2004).  a  variety  of
             acterized by many serious threats to patient   perspectives  have  been  used  to  examine
             safety (Page, 2004) and suggested that these   hand  hygiene  behavior  and  how  it  can  be
             threats  may  be  caused  by  organizational   promoted. The World Health organization
             management  practices,  work  design  issues,   (2009, pp. 87–88) emphasizes the role of edu-
             and organizational culture.              cation,  motivation,  cues  to  action,  patient
                 The report First Do No Harm concluded   empowerment, and the need for structural
             that  it  is  not  acceptable  for  patients  to  be   and philosophical change to health care sys-
             harmed  by  the  health  care  system  that  is   tems.  Some  authors  highlight  the  possible
             supposed to offer healing and comfort. one   effect of hospital organizational features on
             of  the  report’s  main  conclusions  is  that  the   health care workers’ hand hygiene behavior
             majority  of  adverse  patient  outcomes  result   and resultant acquisition of HCaIs (Larson,
             from  faulty  systems,  processes,  and  condi-  Cloonan, Sugrue, & Parides, M, 2000; Pittet,
             tions  that  lead  people  to  make  mistakes  or   2000; Whitby, Slater, Tong, & Johnson, 2008).
             engage in suboptimal practices, that is, it is   others focus on the role of social cognitive
             not  a  “bad  apple”  problem.  The  impact  of   models,  such  as  the  health  belief  model,
             health  care  workers’  work  environment  on   health  locus  of  control,  protection  motiva-
             health care workers hand hygiene behavior   tion  theory,  theory  of  planned  behavior,
             is a poorly studied area.                and  the  self-efficacy  model  (World  Health
                 Hand  hygiene  research  varies  enor-  organization,  2009).  additionally,  the-
             mously in terms of methods and interventions.   oretical  perspectives  such  as  PReCeDe
             Some studies focus on a particular occupa-  (Creedon, 2005) and the importance of role
             tional  group  only  (Gould  &  Chamberlain,   modeling  (Lankford  et  al.,  2003)  deserve
             1997;  Rosenthal,  McCormick,  Guzman,   mentioning.
             Villamayor, & orellano, 2003; Van de Mortel &     none of the theoretical approaches have
             Heyman,  1995),  whereas  others  include  all   yet  made  a  cogent  contribution  to  provid-
             health care workers’ involved in patient care   ing an answer to understanding why health
             (Creedon,  2005;  Swoboda,  earsing,  Strauss,   care hand hygiene behavior is clearly a prob-
             Lane, & Lipsett, 2007; Trick et al., 2007). Some   lem  and  it  is  telling  that  the  World  Health
   281   282   283   284   285   286   287   288   289   290   291