Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T01:37:49.481Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Monitoring Universal Precautions A New Assessment Tool

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Dorothy K. Gauthier ,
Joan G. Turner ,
Lisa G. Langley ,
Clayton J. Neil  and
Patricia L. Rush
Dorothy K. Gauthier*
Affiliation:
University of Alabama School of Nursing, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
Joan G. Turner
Affiliation:
University of Alabama School of Nursing, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
Lisa G. Langley
Affiliation:
University of Alabama School of Nursing, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
Clayton J. Neil
Affiliation:
University of Alabama School of Nursing, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
Patricia L. Rush
Affiliation:
University of Alabama School of Nursing, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
*
University of Alabama School of Nursing, University of Alabama at Birmingham, UAB Station, Birmingham, AL 35294
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

Two pilot studies were conducted to produce efficacy data on an observational tool designed to assess the use of Universal Precautions (UP) in patient care settings. The instrument addresses barrier precautions, hand-washing, handling of sharps, and avoidance of unprotected mouth to mouth resuscitation.

Design:

The Universal Precautions Assessment Tool was submitted to a panel of 3 experts to establish consensual validity. It was pilot tested by 2 simultaneous observers to establish interrater reliability.

Setting:

Pilot Study I was conducted in 3 different units within a 100-bed U.S. Army hospital. Pilot Study II was conducted in the emergency department of a large university-based hospital.

Participants:

Subjects observed were registered nurses providing acute patient care.

Results:

Two simultaneous raters calculated UP compliance rates of 76.4% and 78.6%, respectively, for 9 nurses in Pilot Study I, and 62% and 65%, respectively, for 5 nurses in Pilot Study II. The intraclass correlation coefficient for the raters' scores in Pilot Study I was 0.992 with a 95% confidence interval (0.979, 0.997). Consensual validity was established.

Conclusions:

The instrument has acceptable interrater reliability under the conditions used. Limitations to use include the possibility of a Hawthorne effect and the fact that assessing proper implementation of UP occasionally relies on a “judgment call” by the observer. With test conditions adjusted to minimize these limitations and with proper consideration of sample size, the tool can be used by researchers and by monitors of hospital quality control to measure UP compliance of caregivers individually or collectively.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 12 , Issue 10 , October 1991 , pp. 597 - 601
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Department of Labor. Joint advisory notice, Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services, HBV/HIV. Federal Register. 1987;52:41818–41823.Google Scholar
2. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens: proposed rule and notice of hearing. Federal Register 1989;54:23134–23139.Google Scholar
3. Baraff, LJ, Talan, DA. Compliance with universal precautions in a university hospital emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 1989;18:654–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Courington, KR, Patterson, SL, Howard, RJ. Universal precautions are not universally followed. Arch Surg. 1991;126:93–96.10.1001/archsurg.1991.01410250099016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Gruber, M, Beavers, FE, Johnson, B, et al. The relationship between knowledge about acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and the implementation of universal precautions by registered nurses. Clinical Nurse Specialist. 1989;3:182–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Willy, ME, Dhillon, GL, Loewen, NL, Wesley, RA, Henderson, DK. Adverse exposures and universal precautions practices among a group of highly exposed health professionals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1990;11:351–356.10.2307/30144278CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Kelen, GD, DiGiovanna, T, Bisson, L, Kalainov, D, Sivertson, KT, Quinn, TC. Human immunodeficiency virus infection in emergency department patients. JAMA. 1989;262:516–522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Hammond, JS, Eckes, JM, Gomez, GA, Cunningham, DN. HIV, trauma, and infection control: universal precautions are universally ignored. J Trauma. 1990;30:555–561.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Centers for Disease Control. Recommendations for prevention of HIV transmission in healthcare settings. MMWR. 1987;36(suppl2S):lS–18S.Google Scholar
10. Centers for Disease Control. Update: universal precautions for prevention of transmission of human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B virus, and other bloodborne pathogens in healthcare settings. MMWR. 1988;37:377–382, 387–388.Google Scholar
11. Sokal, RR, Rohlf, FJ. Biometry. San Francisco, Calif: WH Freeman & Co; 1969.Google Scholar
12. Kendall, MG, Stuart, A. The Advanced Theory of Statistics. Vol 2. New York, NY: Hafner Pub Co.; 1961.Google Scholar
13. Mayo, E. The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization. Andover, Ma: Andover Press; 1945.Google Scholar
14. Mayer, JA, Dubbert, PM, Miller, M, Burkett, PA, Chapman, SW. Increasing handwashing in an intensive care unit. Infect Control. 1986;7:259–262.10.1017/S0195941700064171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Hinkle, DE, Oliver, JD. How large should the sample be? Part II: the one-sample case for survey research. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1985;45:271–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Hinkle, DE, Oliver, JD. How large should the sample be? A question with no simple answer? Or…. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1983;43:1051–1060.10.1177/001316448304300414CrossRefGoogle Scholar