Comparison of hand hygiene evaluations: A literature review

Background. Because our hands are the most common mode of transmission for bacteria causing hospital acquired infections, hand hygiene practices are the most effective method of preventing the spread of these pathogens, limiting the occurrence of healthcare-associated infections and reducing transmission of multi-drug resistant organisms. Yet, compliance rates are below 40% on the average. ^ Objective. This culminating experience project is primarily a literature review on hand hygiene to help determine the barriers to hand hygiene compliance and offer solutions on improving these rates and to build on a hand hygiene evaluation performed during my infection control internship completed at Memorial Hermann Hospital during the fall semester of 2005. ^ Method. A review of peer-reviewed literature using Ovid Medline, Ebsco Medline and PubMed databases using keywords: hand hygiene, hand hygiene compliance, alcohol based handrub, healthcare-associated infections, hospital-acquired infections, and infection control. ^ Results. A total of eight hand hygiene studies are highlighted. At a children's hospital in Seattle, hand hygiene compliance rates increases from 62% to 81% after five periods of interventions. In Thailand, 26 nurses dramatically increased compliance from 6.3% to 81.2% after just 7 months of training. Automated alcohol based handrub dispensers improved compliance rates in Chicago from 36.3% to 70.1%. Using education and increased distribution of alcohol based handrubs increased hand hygiene rates from 59% to 79% for Ebnother, from 54% to 85% for Hussein and from 32% to 63% for Randle. Spartanburg Regional Medical Center increased their rates from 72.5% to 90.3%. A level III NICU achieved 100% compliance after a month long educational campaign but fell back down to its baseline rate of 89% after 3 months. ^ Discussion. The interventions used to promote hand hygiene in the highlighted studies varied from low tech approaches such as printed materials to advanced electronic gadgets that alerted individuals automatically to perform hand hygiene. All approaches were effective and increased compliance rates. Overcoming hand hygiene barriers, receiving and accepting feedback is the key to maintaining consistently high hand hygiene adherence. ^

A literature review of the use of DDT to fight malaria

Background. First synthesized in 1874, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) was not used until the second half of World War II after its insecticidal properties were discovered in 1939. For decades DDT has been used globally with the intent of eradicating malaria. This began in 1955 when the eighth World Health Assembly launched a global campaign selecting DDT as the chemical of choice for the eradication of malaria. The United States banned DDT use in 1972 partially due to the publication of “Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson in 1962 which suggested that DDT was harmful to the environment, wildlife and is a carcinogen. ^ Objectives. To critically review the literature on DDT, and evaluate its importance in malaria prevention and control. Methods: The design of this systematic literature review is a narrative summary and evaluation of the papers reviewed. The data came from searches using PubMed and MEDLINE which are free and publicly available databases. Inclusive criteria that were considered during the search are English language peer reviewed journal articles published in the last 20 years. The keywords were: “insecticidal and agricultural use of DDT”, “human impact of malaria”, “economic impact of malaria”, “benefits of DDT”, “effects of DDT”, “importance of malaria control”, and alternatives to DDT for malaria control. ^ Results. Malaria continues to be one of the most common infectious diseases and creates a tremendous global public health problem. WHO recommends DDT for malaria vector control because compared to other pesticides, it is the most persistent in indoor spraying. ^ Conclusion. Indoor spraying of DDT in malaria endemic areas may cause increased exposure of the chemical to humans; however I conclude that the overall benefits outweigh the risks because more lives are saved due to fewer infections with malaria.^