93%(15)14 out of 15 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 5 - 8 out of 19 pages.
Study FindingsPost intervention of 19 months period showed results of decreased VRE by 70%, MRSA by 63%, and C. difficile rates increased 31% (Haverstick, 2017). The staff surveys results in 97% during pre-intervention period, believing patients were encouraged to use hand hygiene. The hand hygiene awareness by the staff included signs, pictures, reminder, own hand sanitizer supplies
NR505 RESEARCH SUMMARY TEMPLATE6(sanitizer, wipes), and verbal (Haverstick, 2017).The patient survey resulted in pre-intervention was 75% that increased to 94% three months after the intervention that included the hospital staff’s encouragement (Haverstick, 2017).Limitations (State whythe limitations)The testing group was in one unit in a hospital with no comparison to other facilities. Patient education was based on verbal and written that may affect the learning barriers of some patients. The study also required budget that some facilities may not be able to utilize (Haverstick, 2017). Relevance to PICOTThe importance of patient teaching is very important, make education understandable by assessing best learning mechanism to teach and evaluate. Article 3Full reference for article (APA Format)Reddy, S. (2016, April 19). The Right Way to Wash Your Hands. Wall Street Journal - Online Editip. 1. Retrieved from ?direct=true&db=n5h&AN=114593470&site=eds-live&scope=sitePurposeComparing the World Health Organization (WHO) six step hand washing guidelines to U.S. Centefor Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) three step hand washing guideline for effectiveness andreduced infection rates (Reddy, 2016). Research MethodThe research method direct observation of hospital staff on hand hygiene techniques (Reddy, 2016)Either the staff used hand sanitizer, hand washing technique recommended by World Health Organization, hand washing technique by U.S. Center to Disease and Prevention, or reminding stafParticipantsThe hospital staff at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, including nurses and doctors, totaling 1staff were observed for hand washing techniques (Reddy, 2016). Data CollectionThe data was collected from 250 trained observer on 120 participants who specified type of hand washing method, either six-step by WHO that took 42.5 seconds compared to three-step by U.S.
NR505 RESEARCH SUMMARY TEMPLATE7Centers of Disease and Prevention (Reddy, 2016). Study FindingsWHO six step technique provides more effective hand washing as it covers more area such as fingefingertips, crevices, and palm. The staff resulted in 65% on effective six step washing, compared to100% on three step washing method. The results of six step hand washing killed more bacteria (Reddy, 2016).Limitations(State why the limitations)No limitation provided by the article. Relevance to PICOTThe importance of hand hygiene compliance refers back to CDC and WHO guidelines, and it is important as a health care provider to know correct mechanism of hand hygiene to teach proper guideline.