PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Antiseptics, disinfectants, and hand hygiene products can be contaminated with bacteria and cause healthcare-associated infections, which are underreported from low- and middle-income countries. To better understand the user-related risk factors, we conducted a knowledge, awareness, and practice survey among hospital staff in sub-Saharan Africa.
METHODS: Self-administered questionnaire distributed among healthcare workers in three tertiary care hospitals (Burkina Faso, Benin, Democratic Republic of the Congo).
RESULTS: 617 healthcare workers (85.3% (para)medical and 14.7% auxiliary staff) participated. Less than half (45.5%) had been trained in Infection Prevention & Control (IPC), and only 15.7% were trained < 1 year ago. Near two-thirds (64.2%) preferred liquid soap for hand hygiene, versus 33.1% for alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR). Most (58.3%) expressed confidence in the locally available products. Knowledge of product categories, storage conditions and shelf-life was inadequate: eosin was considered as an antiseptic (47.5% of (para)medical staff), the shelf life and storage conditions (non-transparent container) of freshly prepared chlorine 0.5% were known by only 42.6% and 34.8% of participants, respectively. Approximately one-third of participants approved using tap water for preparation of chlorine 0.5% and liquid soap. Most participants (> 80%) disapproved recycling soft-drink bottles as liquid soap containers. Nearly two-thirds (65.0%) declared that bacteria may be resistant to and survive in ABHR, versus 51.0% and 37.4% for povidone iodine and chlorine 0.5%, respectively. Depicted risk practices (n = 4) were ignored by 30 to 40% of participants: they included touching the rim or content of stock containers with compresses or small containers, storing of cotton balls soaked in an antiseptic, and hand-touching the spout of pump dispenser. Filling containers by topping-up was considered good practice by 18.3% of participants. Half (52.1%) of participants acknowledged indefinite reuse of containers. Besides small differences, the findings were similar across the study sites and professional groups. Among IPC-trained staff, proportions recognizing all 4 risk practices were higher compared to non-trained staff (35.9% versus 23.8%, p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: The present findings can guide tailored training and IPC implementation at the healthcare facility and national levels, and sensitize stakeholders\' and funders\' interest.
METHODS: Self-administered questionnaire distributed among healthcare workers in three tertiary care hospitals (Burkina Faso, Benin, Democratic Republic of the Congo).
RESULTS: 617 healthcare workers (85.3% (para)medical and 14.7% auxiliary staff) participated. Less than half (45.5%) had been trained in Infection Prevention & Control (IPC), and only 15.7% were trained < 1 year ago. Near two-thirds (64.2%) preferred liquid soap for hand hygiene, versus 33.1% for alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR). Most (58.3%) expressed confidence in the locally available products. Knowledge of product categories, storage conditions and shelf-life was inadequate: eosin was considered as an antiseptic (47.5% of (para)medical staff), the shelf life and storage conditions (non-transparent container) of freshly prepared chlorine 0.5% were known by only 42.6% and 34.8% of participants, respectively. Approximately one-third of participants approved using tap water for preparation of chlorine 0.5% and liquid soap. Most participants (> 80%) disapproved recycling soft-drink bottles as liquid soap containers. Nearly two-thirds (65.0%) declared that bacteria may be resistant to and survive in ABHR, versus 51.0% and 37.4% for povidone iodine and chlorine 0.5%, respectively. Depicted risk practices (n = 4) were ignored by 30 to 40% of participants: they included touching the rim or content of stock containers with compresses or small containers, storing of cotton balls soaked in an antiseptic, and hand-touching the spout of pump dispenser. Filling containers by topping-up was considered good practice by 18.3% of participants. Half (52.1%) of participants acknowledged indefinite reuse of containers. Besides small differences, the findings were similar across the study sites and professional groups. Among IPC-trained staff, proportions recognizing all 4 risk practices were higher compared to non-trained staff (35.9% versus 23.8%, p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: The present findings can guide tailored training and IPC implementation at the healthcare facility and national levels, and sensitize stakeholders\' and funders\' interest.
摘要：
背景：防腐剂，消毒剂,和手卫生产品可能被细菌污染，并导致医疗保健相关的感染，低收入和中等收入国家报告不足。为了更好地了解与用户相关的风险因素，我们进行了知识，意识,撒哈拉以南非洲医院工作人员的实践调查。
方法：在三家三级医院的医护人员中分发了自我管理问卷（布基纳法索，贝宁,刚果民主共和国）。
结果：617名医护人员（85.3％（医疗）和14.7％的辅助人员）参加了。不到一半(45.5%)接受过感染预防和控制(IPC)培训，只有15.7%的人在1年前接受过培训。近三分之二(64.2%)的人首选液体肥皂用于手部卫生，与以酒精为基础的手擦（ABHR）的33.1％。大多数（58.3％）对当地可用的产品表示信心。了解产品类别，储存条件和保质期不足:伊红被认为是一种防腐剂(47.5%的(准)医务人员),仅有42.6％和34.8％的参与者知道新鲜制备的0.5％氯的保质期和储存条件（不透明容器），分别。大约三分之一的参与者批准使用自来水制备0.5％的氯和液体肥皂。大多数参与者（>80％）不赞成回收软饮料瓶作为液体肥皂容器。近三分之二(65.0%)的人表示，细菌可能对ABHR耐药并存活。聚维酮碘和氯的51.0%和37.4%为0.5%，分别。30％至40％的参与者忽略了描述的风险做法（n=4）：它们包括用压缩物或小容器接触库存容器的边缘或内容物，存放浸泡在防腐剂中的棉球，用手触摸泵分配器的喷口。18.3％的参与者认为通过加满填充容器是良好的做法。一半（52.1％）的参与者承认无限期重复使用容器。除了微小的差异，研究中心和专业团体的研究结果相似.在经过IPC培训的员工中，与未经培训的员工相比，认可所有4种风险做法的比例更高(35.9%对23.8%，p<0.0001)。
结论：本研究结果可以指导医疗机构和国家层面的定制培训和IPC实施。并提高利益相关者和资助者的兴趣。
方法：在三家三级医院的医护人员中分发了自我管理问卷（布基纳法索，贝宁,刚果民主共和国）。
结果：617名医护人员（85.3％（医疗）和14.7％的辅助人员）参加了。不到一半(45.5%)接受过感染预防和控制(IPC)培训，只有15.7%的人在1年前接受过培训。近三分之二(64.2%)的人首选液体肥皂用于手部卫生，与以酒精为基础的手擦（ABHR）的33.1％。大多数（58.3％）对当地可用的产品表示信心。了解产品类别，储存条件和保质期不足:伊红被认为是一种防腐剂(47.5%的(准)医务人员),仅有42.6％和34.8％的参与者知道新鲜制备的0.5％氯的保质期和储存条件（不透明容器），分别。大约三分之一的参与者批准使用自来水制备0.5％的氯和液体肥皂。大多数参与者（>80％）不赞成回收软饮料瓶作为液体肥皂容器。近三分之二(65.0%)的人表示，细菌可能对ABHR耐药并存活。聚维酮碘和氯的51.0%和37.4%为0.5%，分别。30％至40％的参与者忽略了描述的风险做法（n=4）：它们包括用压缩物或小容器接触库存容器的边缘或内容物，存放浸泡在防腐剂中的棉球，用手触摸泵分配器的喷口。18.3％的参与者认为通过加满填充容器是良好的做法。一半（52.1％）的参与者承认无限期重复使用容器。除了微小的差异，研究中心和专业团体的研究结果相似.在经过IPC培训的员工中，与未经培训的员工相比，认可所有4种风险做法的比例更高(35.9%对23.8%，p<0.0001)。
结论：本研究结果可以指导医疗机构和国家层面的定制培训和IPC实施。并提高利益相关者和资助者的兴趣。
