Contamination by Site
While the previous data set is useful in showing the overall prevalence of pathogenic microbes on computers, it may be useful to further examine variations in contamination levels between different departments. This would allow one to determine which departments face the most risk and require the most changes. In the study conducted by Po-Liang et al. (2009), no significant differences in pathogenic contamination rates between ICU workstations and non-ICU workstations (7.4% vs. 5% respectively) was found. The findings were consistent to those reported by Engelhart et al. (2008) in that few differences were detected for the incidence of pathogens between room type; contamination rates for patient room, nurse’ stations, …show more content…
By maintaining hand hygiene, clinicians can prevent pathogens from reaching computer terminals before it becomes a reservoir. Both methods are proven to advance infection control rates (Achieng & Nkechi, 2010).
The baseline for hand hygiene compliance often varies greatly in the literature depending on which healthcare worker population is being looked at and where (Kosucu, Goktas, & Yildiz, 2015). The mean compliance rate according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention was at approximately 40% (Rutala, White, Gergen, & Weber, 2006). It was relatively high in critical care units, high in operating rooms, and highest in pediatric wards (59%) but low amongst nurses on weekends and lowest in intensive care units (36%) (Achieng & Nkechi, 2010). Improving hand hygiene compliance in healthcare workers continues to be a challenge; clinicians cite skin irritation from cleansing agents, inaccessibility of supplies, insufficient time/understaffed, forgetfulness, lack of information/guidelines and the use of gloves as reasons for low adherence (Achieng & Nkechi, 2010). Potential solutions for these problems include: continued education/training in existing healthcare workers, increased emphasis and practice for new medical students, rearrangement of hand sanitizer dispensers, and potentially hiring more staff to reduce workload (using savings …show more content…
Molecular Analyst Fingerprinting), there is a lack of clear definitions for some components of the methodology. For example, the study by Srikanth et al. (2012) reported a range of 15% to 50% for hand hygiene but failed to mention what they defined hand hygiene to consist of (e.g. what products were used to clean the hands, for how long, and what periods of time). Other data such as how often computers were used, how long they were used for, or how proximal computers are to patients were also missing. Few articles also address the issue of cracks and gaps in keyboards in mice (Achieng & Nkechi, 2010). Most only tested microbes on the surface and suggested cleaning the surface but gaps between keys may also harbor pathogens. Some studies such as the one done by Bures et al., (2000) did analyze and compare the bacterial DNA sequences found in the environment with the bacterial DNA found on infected patients, but the majority of the studies observed did not perform these steps to prove that the presence of pathogens on equipment directly lead to cross contamination or subsequent infections. As noted by Achieng and Nkechi (2010), it is rarely disputed in the literature that computer and other devices act as reservoirs for pathogens, but more research needs to be done to discover the actual risk it poses to
While the previous data set is useful in showing the overall prevalence of pathogenic microbes on computers, it may be useful to further examine variations in contamination levels between different departments. This would allow one to determine which departments face the most risk and require the most changes. In the study conducted by Po-Liang et al. (2009), no significant differences in pathogenic contamination rates between ICU workstations and non-ICU workstations (7.4% vs. 5% respectively) was found. The findings were consistent to those reported by Engelhart et al. (2008) in that few differences were detected for the incidence of pathogens between room type; contamination rates for patient room, nurse’ stations, …show more content…
By maintaining hand hygiene, clinicians can prevent pathogens from reaching computer terminals before it becomes a reservoir. Both methods are proven to advance infection control rates (Achieng & Nkechi, 2010).
The baseline for hand hygiene compliance often varies greatly in the literature depending on which healthcare worker population is being looked at and where (Kosucu, Goktas, & Yildiz, 2015). The mean compliance rate according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention was at approximately 40% (Rutala, White, Gergen, & Weber, 2006). It was relatively high in critical care units, high in operating rooms, and highest in pediatric wards (59%) but low amongst nurses on weekends and lowest in intensive care units (36%) (Achieng & Nkechi, 2010). Improving hand hygiene compliance in healthcare workers continues to be a challenge; clinicians cite skin irritation from cleansing agents, inaccessibility of supplies, insufficient time/understaffed, forgetfulness, lack of information/guidelines and the use of gloves as reasons for low adherence (Achieng & Nkechi, 2010). Potential solutions for these problems include: continued education/training in existing healthcare workers, increased emphasis and practice for new medical students, rearrangement of hand sanitizer dispensers, and potentially hiring more staff to reduce workload (using savings …show more content…
Molecular Analyst Fingerprinting), there is a lack of clear definitions for some components of the methodology. For example, the study by Srikanth et al. (2012) reported a range of 15% to 50% for hand hygiene but failed to mention what they defined hand hygiene to consist of (e.g. what products were used to clean the hands, for how long, and what periods of time). Other data such as how often computers were used, how long they were used for, or how proximal computers are to patients were also missing. Few articles also address the issue of cracks and gaps in keyboards in mice (Achieng & Nkechi, 2010). Most only tested microbes on the surface and suggested cleaning the surface but gaps between keys may also harbor pathogens. Some studies such as the one done by Bures et al., (2000) did analyze and compare the bacterial DNA sequences found in the environment with the bacterial DNA found on infected patients, but the majority of the studies observed did not perform these steps to prove that the presence of pathogens on equipment directly lead to cross contamination or subsequent infections. As noted by Achieng and Nkechi (2010), it is rarely disputed in the literature that computer and other devices act as reservoirs for pathogens, but more research needs to be done to discover the actual risk it poses to