Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Oral presentation
  • Open Access

O005: Results of the french national audit on standard precautions

  • 1, 2,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 3,
  • 4,
  • 5,
  • 6,
  • 1, 2 and
  • 1
Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control20132(Suppl 1):O5

https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-2994-2-S1-O5

Published: 20 June 2013

Keywords

  • Healthcare Worker
  • Private Hospital
  • Exposure Risk
  • Institutional Policy
  • Infectious Status

Introduction

Standard precautions (SP) aim to protect healthcare workers (HCW) and patients from infectious diseases arising from bloodborne pathogens and reduce the risk of cross transmission of micro-organisms. They must be applied in all circumstances, regardless of the infectious status of the patient.

Objectives

The objectives were to assess: 1) institutional policies for SP promotion; 2) available resources for SP implementation; and 3) education of HCW and their compliance with SP.

Methods

The study was a mixed audit of procedures, resources and attitudes. It was conducted between February 1st and December 31st 2011, supported by the Ministry of Health. Inclusion criteria were voluntary public and private hospitals in France, medical, surgical and medico-technical wards therein and HCW working with patients in these wards. Self-assessment questionnaires were administered at three levels: institutional, ward and HCW. At institutional and ward levels, results were given as a percentage of objectives attained; at professional level, percentages of responses reported as “never”, “sometimes”, “often” or “always” were calculated for each question.

Results

A total of 1,599 hospitals participated, including 14,968 wards and 203,840 HCW. At institutional level, the overall score was 88%, covering: SP promotion (91%), procedures (99%) and SP evaluation (63%). At ward level, the overall score was 94%, covering: procedures (95%) and resources (93%). Among the 165,722 (81.3%) HCW who reported having participated in a training session on SP, 69.6% had had it in the last five years. A total of 88.1% of HCW knew where to find the appropriate written procedure in the event of a blood exposure. HCW reported the best compliance for glove changing between two patients (94.5% “always”). The less respected criteria were glove use for intramuscular or subcutaneous injection and eye protection use in the event of blood exposure risk (34.5% and 24.4% “always”, respectively).

Conclusion

No study on SP exists in literature which includes such a large participation as this one. It will form a refence basis leading to actions for improvement at local and national level.

Disclosure of interest

None declared.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
CClin Sud-Est, Lyon, France
(2)
UMR5558, LBBE, Lyon 1 University, Villeurbanne, France
(3)
CClin Paris-Nord, Paris, France
(4)
CClin Ouest, Rennes, France
(5)
CClin Est, Nancy, France
(6)
CClin Sud-Ouest, Poitiers, France

Copyright

© Giard et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement