Transcript PICO

Research
Methodology
Group Members:
April Tulloch
Kerekia Walker
Sashield Walker
Daneik Wallace
Juliann Wallace
Nicole Wallace
Lecturer: Dr. J. Lindo
PICO
In neonatal care is hand washing as effective as
using a hand sanitizer in reducing nosocomial
infections by reducing microbial count and
infection rates ?
P- POPULATION
P- POPULATION
 In
a study done by Larson et al (2005)
2 neonatal intensive care units were used
including 2932 neonatal hospital admissions
and 119 nurse participants.
I- INTERVENTION
I – INTERVENTION
A
hand hygiene product was tested: a
traditional antiseptic hand wash (Larson
et al 2005).
C – COMPARISON
C- COMPARISON
 An
alcohol hand sanitizer.
O- OUTCOME
O-Outcome
 Infection
rates and microbial counts on
nurses' hands were equivalent during hand
washing and alcohol phases.
RESULTS

After adjusting for study site, birth weight,
surgery, and follow-up time, there were no
significant differences in neonatal infections
between the 2 products; odds ratios for alcohol
compared with hand washing were 0.98 (95%
confidence interval [CI], 0.77-1.25) for any
infection (Larson et al 2005).
RESULTS
 0.99
(95% CI, 0.77-1.33) for bloodstream infections,
1.61 (95% CI, 0.57-5.54) for pneumonia, 1.78 (95% CI,
0.94-3.37) for skin and soft tissue infections, and 1.26
(95% CI, 0.42-3.76) for central nervous system
infections. The skin condition of participating nurses
was significantly improved (Larson et al 2005).
RESULTS
 during
the alcohol phase (P = .02 and P = .049 for
observer and self-assessments, respectively), but
there were no significant differences in mean
microbial counts on nurses’ hands (3.21 and 3.11
log10 colony-forming units for hand washing and
alcohol, respectively; P = .38) Larson et al (2005).
Second Study
P-POPULATION
23 healthcare workers: permanent and
temporary nurses and nursing assistants of
each unit in Three intensive care units (Girou
et al 2002).
I- INTERVENTION
 Hand
rubbing with alcohol based solution
C- COMPARISON
 Hand
washing with antiseptic soap
O- OUTCOME

The reduction of total bacterial hand
contamination
RESULTS
 With
hand rubbing the median percentage
reduction in bacterial contamination was
significantly higher than with hand washing (83% v
58%, P=0.012), with a median difference in the
percentage reduction of 26% (95% confidence
interval 8% to 44%). The median duration of hand
hygiene was 30 seconds in each group (Girou et al.
2002).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
 In
conclusion, both studies admit that hand washing
and hand sanitizing are efficient hand hygiene
procedures in reducing infection rates, microbial
counts and hand contamination. However, only
one study highlighted that nurses' skin condition
was improved using alcohol based hand sanitizer.
Appraisal of Sources
Larson et al (2005) and Girou et al (2002)
 Cites
and utilizes appropriate and contemporary
data; no older than ten years.
 Content of studies were explained in detail as it to
pertains to the method, population, sample size
and adequate background on topic.
 Authors and their team were experienced
medical doctors with wide knowledge of the topic
being studied.
 Viewing of was not hampered by fee request or
software requirement.
References

Girou, E. et al. (2002). Efficacy of handrubbing with alcohol
based solution versus standard handwashing with
antiseptic soap: Randomised clinical trial. BMJ , 326 (362).

Larson, L. E. et al. (2005). Effect of antiseptic handwashing vs
alcohol sanitizer on health care–associated infections in
neonatal intensive care unit. JAMA Pediatrics , 159 (4).
www.google.com.jm/search?q=images+google&safe=off&source=l
nms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=sW9YUt7YI4ae9QSZzYHQCg&sqi=2&ved=0
CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=933&dpr=1#q=THANK+YOU&safe=of
f&tbm=isch&facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=VwEy630YM54qbM%3A%3Bq8
nQUPksJGWn0M%3Bh