title: Hand disinfectant practice: the impact of an education intervention.
abstract: The primary hypothesis of this study was that a lecture on basic hygiene routines could be associated with an increase in the use of disinfectant for hand hygiene. A secondary hypothesis was that the lecture could positively affect the staff's knowledge of and attitudes toward basic hygiene routines.A quasi-experimental design including one ward of the department of orthopedics in a Swedish university hospital was adopted.During the pre-intervention test period the consumption of hand disinfectant was measured for 30 days and a questionnaire was distributed to all staff. The hospital hygiene nurse subsequently provided a lecture on basic hygiene routines to all employees on the ward. During the post-intervention test period the hand disinfectant consumption was measured for another 30 days, and the questionnaire was distributed once again. A follow-up measurement was performed 9 months after the intervention.After the lecture on hygiene routines, the consumption of hand disinfectant increased by 93%. Nine months after the intervention, the consumption was still 21% higher than before the intervention. The result of the questionnaire showed that the employees considered themselves applying the disinfectant more thoroughly after the intervention. Some employees changed their perspective on basic hygiene routines after the lecture and stopped using watches and private clothes at work.Our findings suggest that a single education session, a hygiene lecture, could be a simple and cost-effective method to increase the use of hand disinfectant, thereby reducing the number of nosocomial infections on the wards.
authors.affiliation: Clinic of Infectious Diseases, Orebro University Hospital, Sweden.
authors.forename: Maria
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Sjöberg
authors.forename: Mats
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Eriksson
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Oct 17;(4):CD000409
references.pmid: 17943742
references.citation: Am J Infect Control. 2005 Sep;33(7):392-7
references.pmid: 16153485
references.citation: JAMA. 1999 Sep 1;282(9):867-74
references.pmid: 10478694
references.citation: J Clin Nurs. 2009 Mar;18(6):786-90
references.pmid: 19239662
references.citation: Euro Surveill. 2007 Mar 01;12(3):225
references.pmid: 17439810
references.citation: J Hosp Infect. 2004 Apr;56 Suppl 2:S6-9
references.pmid: 15110115
references.citation: Appl Nurs Res. 2008 Nov;21(4):207-11
references.pmid: 18995162
references.citation: J Adv Nurs. 2006 Jan;53(1):46-50; discussion 50-3
references.pmid: 16422683
references.citation: J Hosp Infect. 1995 Jun;30 Suppl:88-106
references.pmid: 7561001
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 1999 Jan 19;130(2):126-30
references.pmid: 10068358
references.citation: Clin Nurs Res. 2006 Feb;15(1):6-26
references.pmid: 16410620
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2003 Feb 13;348(7):651-6
references.pmid: 12584377
references.citation: Lancet. 2000 Oct 14;356(9238):1307-12
references.pmid: 11073019
references.citation: Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2007 Mar 29;127(7):861-3
references.pmid: 17435805