Abstract

PICO question
 In small animal veterinary professions, does implementation of an educational intervention, when compared to no intervention, improve hand hygiene compliance?
 
 Clinical bottom line
 Category of research question
 Treatment
 The number and type of study designs reviewed
 Three papers were critically appraised. They were all prospective observational cohort studies
 Strength of evidence
 Weak
 Outcomes reported
 Two out of the three papers did not find educational implementation to have a statistically significant positive effect on hand hygiene compliance (HHC) in small animal veterinary professionals
 Conclusion
 The veterinary evidence reviewed does not provide strong justification for the use of education in the improvement of HHC in small animal practice. This contrasts with extensive human evidence which supports the use of educational interventions (Helder et al., 2010). However, a limited veterinary knowledge base in the field of HH, combined with the flawed methodologies of the appraised literature, suggests that this finding is not representative of the effect education could have on HHC.
 The conclusion drawn from the evidence assessed within this Knowledge Summary is that educational interventions are not significantly linked to an improvement in HHC within a small animal veterinary setting. When considering the volume of human evidence which supports education as a tool to improve HHC, the authors suggest this Knowledge Summary should be repeated in the future when additional veterinary evidence is available to reassess the conclusion drawn
 
 How to apply this evidence in practice
 The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources.
 Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision-making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.
 

Highlights

  • Sample size: 38 clinics; including 449 individuals

  • Baseline data of hand hygiene opportunities collected for 9–13 days after which, posters were mounted

  • Poster A was placed in every consultation room, and poster B was placed in three locations in the backroom

Read more

Summary

Summary of the evidence

Population: Veterinary professionals in primary care companion animal clinics (South West and East Ontario, Canada). Sample size: 38 clinics; including 449 individuals (veterinarians, technicians, receptionists, students, volunteers). Intervention details: Two video cameras installed: one in a consultation room and one in the “most likely” hand hygiene location in the backroom. Baseline data of hand hygiene opportunities collected for 9–13 days after which, posters were mounted. Poster A was placed in every consultation room, and poster B was placed in three locations in the backroom. Post intervention data was collected for up to 8 days or 40 appointments, depending on which happened first. An anonymous survey looked at individual perception, response to the posters and perception of general hand hygiene practice. Outcome studied: Primary variable related to PICO was poster implementation and its impact on HHC. Main findings: (relevant to PICO question): No significant effect of posters on HHC. Appropriate hand hygiene conducted in 14% of opportunities

Limitations
Findings
Methodology Section
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call