Fluent Essays

1. Search for two peer reviewed articles on the topic Prevention of Hospital acquired infection in critically hill patients Please do not use these articles; - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC39631...- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275717591...- last article to Not to use is attached.Please look for two other articles aside these ones listed and attached above. 2. Write an annotated bibliography for each of them. Example belowWhat is an annotated bibliography?An annotated bibliography provides an overview of sources that your have chosen for your research project. Writers frequently create annotated bibliographies to (1) keep a record of their sources (2) remind them of the information ideas and arguments in the source and (3) record the role each source may play in their paper.How do I complete my annotated bibliography?Your Goal:Your annotated bibliography will contain a total of 2 entries. Each entry should be written in paragraph form and approximately 8 sentences in length. Follow this format: An annotated bibliography includes bibliographic information on each source and a summary and reflection of each of the sources. Begin with the bibliographic information: The bibliographic information of the source Provide a complete source citation following APA guidelines. Need some APA citation help? Follow thisLink (Links to an external site.)Next write your annotation. Your annotation will be a paragraph of approximately 8 sentence in length that summarizes and reflects on the source.`Summary: . What are the main ideas ? What is the point of this article? What topics are covered? If someone asked what this article/book is about, what would you say? Reflection: Once youve summarized source, you need to ask how it fits into your research. Was this source helpful to you? How can you use this source in your research project? Has it changed how you think about your topic or added to your understanding of it?Example Annotation:Stone,B. (2014).The master of the wind. Newsweek 144(12), E 34.This article profiles Jim Lewis, who owns Clipper Windpower. Lewis explains that implementation of wind power has been difficult, with the main obstacle being cost. Lewis believes that wind power will not fully succeed without a proactive approach from the government. The article presents a cost analysis comparing relative costs of electricity generated from fossil fuels with that generated by wind. This source was extremely helpful. It opened my eyes to the financial aspect of this undertaking, I will probably us this article to illustrate the economic and environmental trade-offs of wind power. e1.pdf Unformatted Attachment Preview Feature Patients’ Hand Washing and Reducing HospitalAcquired Infection Downloaded from http://aacnjournals.org/ccnonline/article-pdf/37/3/e1/120674/e1.pdf by guest on 17 May 2020 Stacy Haverstick, RN, BSN, PCCN Cara Goodrich, MS, AGPCNP-BC Regi Freeman, RN, MSN, ACNS-BC Shandra James, RN, DNP Rajkiran Kullar, MPH, CIC Melissa Ahrens, MPH, CIC Background Hand hygiene is important to prevent hospital-acquired infections. Patients’ hand hygiene is just as important as hospital workers’ hand hygiene. Hospital-acquired infection rates remain a concern across health centers. Objectives To improve patients’ hand hygiene through the promotion and use of hand washing with soap and water, hand sanitizer, or both and improve patients’ education to reduce hospital-acquired infections. Methods In August 2013, patients in a cardiothoracic postsurgical step-down unit were provided with individual bottles of hand sanitizer. Nurses and nursing technicians provided hand hygiene education to each patient. Patients completed a 6-question survey before the intervention, at hospital discharge and 1, 2, and 3 months after the intervention. Hospital-acquired infection data were tracked monthly by infection prevention staff. Results Significant correlations were found between hand hygiene and rates of infection with vancomycinresistant enterococci (P = .003) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (P = .01) after the intervention. After the implementation of hand hygiene interventions, rates of both infections declined significantly and patients reported more staff offering opportunities for and encouraging hand hygiene. Conclusion This quality improvement project demonstrates that increased hand hygiene compliance by patients can influence infection rates in an adult cardiothoracic step-down unit. The decreased infection rates and increased compliance with hand hygiene among the patients may be attributed to the implementation of patient education and the increased accessibility and use of hand sanitizer. (Critical Care Nurse. 2017;37[3]:e1-e8) H ospital-acquired infections (HAIs) can lead to longer stays, higher health care costs, and greater mortality rates. According to Magill et al,1 who conducted a multistate point-prevalence study of health care–associated infections, 1 in 25 patients in the acute care setting will develop a health care–associated infection during their hospital stay. In 2011, roughly 722 000 patients had a HAI and around 75 000 of those patients died.1 Of those infections, pneumonia and surgical site infections had the highest rates.1 Because a common mode of transmission is via contaminated hands, hand hygiene is ©2017 American Association of Critical-Care Nurses doi: https://doi.org/10.4037/ccn2017694 www.ccnonline.org CriticalCareNurse Vol 37, No. 3, JUNE 2017 e1 100 Percentage of responses 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 No Yes 2 Months after intervention 3 Months after intervention Figure 1 Patient survey results: were you offered to wash your hands during your stay? the single best method to prevent the spread of infection. Staff hand hygiene is always important, but providing access and education to patients is equally important. Cross-contamination shows the relationship between the environment, patients, and staff. A majority of hospitals’ efforts to prevent infection are focused on the attitudes and practices of staff members. After many interactions with patients on our cardiothoracic stepdown unit, it became obvious that increased focus on patients’ hand hygiene practices and attitudes about hand hygiene was needed. Stacy Haverstick is a staff nurse on a cardiothoracic step-down unit at University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Cara Goodrich is a staff nurse on a cardiothoracic step-down unit at University of Michigan Health System. Regi Freeman is a clinical nurse specialist in the cardiovascular intensive care unit University of Michigan Health System. Shandra James is a clinical assistant professor at University of Michigan, School of Nursing, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Rajkiran Kullar is an infection preventionist at University of Michigan Health System. Melissa Ahrens is an infection preventionist at University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, Ohio. Corresponding author: Stacy Haverstick, RN, BSN, PCCN, 4C Cardiac and Thoracic Surgery Unit, University of Michigan Health System, 1500 E. Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 (email: haversts@umich.edu). To purchase electronic or print reprints, contact the American Association of CriticalCare Nurses, 101 Columbia, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656. Phone, (800) 899-1712 or (949) 362-2050 (ext 532); fax, (949) 362-2049; email, reprints@aacn.org. CriticalCareNurse While in the hospital, patients’ ability to practice hand hygiene in the room is limited by accessibility to soap and water or to hand sanitizer. For example, in each patient’s room there is a sink by the door and a bottle of hand sanitizer that is placed on the wall opposite the patient’s bed. Many patients are unable to access either of these without assistance because of mobility issues or postsurgical intravenous catheters and drains. These barriers can lead to decreased hand hygiene compliance among patients. Intended Improvement Authors e2 Local Problem Vol 37, No. 3, JUNE 2017 Our focus was on providing tools for patients to protect themselves against HAI. Patients’ experiences and survey data demonstrated that the patient’s ability to practice hand hygiene in the hospital is limited and requires reinforcement by nursing staff. Before the intervention, 75\% of patients reported that they had been encouraged to wash their hands (Figure 1). Increasing patients’ hand washing by educating patients on the importance of hand hygiene, as well as providing patients with access to hand sanitizer, was proposed to reduce infection rates. Reasons why patients were not able to perform hand hygiene included that patients did not know how important hand hygiene was to preventing infection, that they did not usually wash their hands at home, and that they were unable to wash their hands because they rely on www.ccnonline.org Downloaded from http://aacnjournals.org/ccnonline/article-pdf/37/3/e1/120674/e1.pdf by guest on 17 May 2020 Before intervention 1 Month after intervention Sometimes Table 1 Staff questionnairea Question Responses Yes, no Patients encouraged to carry out hand hygiene after going to the bathroom and before meals? Always, often, sometimes, rarely, never Patients who require assistance with hand washing are offered the opportunity? Always, often, sometimes, rarely, never I think hand hygiene is important to preventing infection in the hospital. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree, unsure I think staff feel their own hand hygiene is important part of preventing infection. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree, unsure I think staff feel patients’ hand hygiene is an important part of preventing infection in the hospital. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree, unsure In your opinion, what more could be done in order for patients to clean their hands in the hospital? Write your response… a Adapted from Burnett et al,3 with permission. staff to offer the opportunity to do so. 2 The typical postsurgical patient was not readily able to get to the sink without help. With a fostering innovation grant provided by the University of Michigan, bed-bound patients received alcohol-based hand sanitizer, handsanitizer wipes, or both. Staff were educated and encouraged to be aware of patients’ access to hand hygiene after any tasks that necessitated hand hygiene, including after using the restroom, before meals, before touching incisions or wounds, and before leaving their room and upon returning to the room. Study Question This study was done to determine if increased access to hand hygiene products and patient education could improve patients’ hand hygiene and reduce the transmission of HAIs. In particular, rates of infection with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), and Clostridium difficile were assessed to determine if rates were decreased. Setting The patient hand hygiene initiative was implemented in August 2013 on an adult 36-bed cardiothoracic surgical step-down unit at the University of Michican Health System, a large academic medical center in the Midwest. The majority of patients were unable to get to the sink to wash their hands without assistance. Patients in the unit typically arrive from the intensive care unit or the postanesthesia care unit with chest tubes, nasogastric tubes, jejunostomy feeding tubes, epidurals, left ventricular assist devices, and intravenous fluids and medications. Patients are taught not to get up without assistance because of the increased risk of falling, so getting up freely to wash their hands is not easily accomplished. Unit staff nurses observed that patients need to have access to alcohol-based hand sanitizer, hand wipes, or soap and water at the bedside instead of relying on the hospital staff to give patients an opportunity to protect themselves from HAIs. Methods Planning the Intervention/Planning the Study of the Intervention Ethical Issues The project received exempt status from the hospital’s institutional review board. Informed consent was waived because the project met criteria for a quality improvement project. No ethical concerns were noted for this project. A $2350 fostering innovation grant was provided by the University of Michigan Health System and was used to purchase alcohol-based hand sanitizer as well as hand-sanitizing wipes. Before implementation of the patient hand-washing project, staff completed an anonymous 6-question survey (Table 1).3 Permission was granted to use a modified survey from the article, “Hand Hygiene: What About Our Patients?”3 Unit staff were asked to complete the questionnaire and return it within 1 week. We received a total of 33 staff responses. Upon discharge, patients also completed a 6-question survey (Table 2) before the intervention, as well as 1, 2, and 3 months after www.ccnonline.org CriticalCareNurse Vol 37, No. 3, JUNE 2017 e3 Downloaded from http://aacnjournals.org/ccnonline/article-pdf/37/3/e1/120674/e1.pdf by guest on 17 May 2020 Did you offer an opportunity to your patient to enable them to wash/clean their hands? Table 2 Patient questionnairea Question Responses Were you offered to wash your hands during your stay? Yes, no Were you encouraged to carry out hand hygiene after going to the bathroom and before meals? Always, often, sometimes, rarely, never I think hand hygiene is important to preventing infection in the hospital. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree, unsure I think staff feel their own hand hygiene is important part of preventing infection. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree, unsure I think staff feel patients’ hand hygiene is an important part of preventing infection in the hospital. Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree, unsure In your opinion, what more could be done in order for patients to clean their hands in the hospital? Write your response… Adapted from Burnett et al,3 with permission. implementation to track progress of program participation. It was hypothesized that the unit results would mirror the results of Burnett et al,3 where the staff aimed on the positive side of the scale and patients had the majority of rarely or never responses when asked if they were encouraged to wash their hands.3 Patient surveys were given and returned Each patient received an alcohol-based anonyhand sanitizer or wipes. mously at discharge. Surveys were in paper form, with a varying response rate dependent on how many patients were discharged, as well as how many answered and returned the form. Patient survey responses included (1) 16 responses before the intervention, (2) 39 responses 1 month after the intervention, (3) 63 responses 2 months after the intervention, and (4) 54 responses 3 months after the intervention. Upon admission to the unit, each patient received an alcohol-based hand sanitizer or wipes and “The Importance of Hand Hygiene” brochure created by the institution’s infection prevention department, which was reviewed with the patient by the nurse. Also included in the unit’s brochure was a section dedicated to the importance of hand hygiene for the patient that indicated when patients should wash their hands (after using the restroom, before meals, before touching incisions or wounds, before leaving their room, and upon return to the room). If the patient had a C difficile infection, they along with visitors were instructed to wash their hands with soap and water only. Additionally, per the institution’s policy, all e4 CriticalCareNurse Vol 37, No. 3, JUNE 2017 alcohol-based hand sanitizer was removed from the patient’s room. Patients with existing infections of MRSA, VRE, and C difficile were also taught not to use the nutrition or linen rooms shared with all staff and patients. It was expected that the nurse and nurse technicians would reinforce patients’ hand hygiene when appropriate. During daily rounds, the unit host asked patients if they had received and were using the alcohol-based hand sanitizer or wipes that were provided on admission. If the patient did not receive or had misplaced the hand sanitizer, the host provided additional sanitizer. Unit leaders followed the trend in new cases of HAI from the infection prevention department’s monthly report, which was then used to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of the project. Methods of Evaluation and Analysis All patients admitted to the unit were included in the project. HAI rates were compared during a 19-month period before and a 19-month period after the intervention. Statistical analyses were conducted by using SPSS version 21. Rates of HAI (MRSA, VRE, and C difficile) were compared before and after the intervention. A nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test was used because of the small sample size and the underpowered study. Significance was set at the .05 level. Results Outcomes Unit-specific infection control data showed that VRE infections decreased by 70\% (n = 33 before and n = 10 after) in a 19-month period after the intervention. www.ccnonline.org Downloaded from http://aacnjournals.org/ccnonline/article-pdf/37/3/e1/120674/e1.pdf by guest on 17 May 2020 a Table 3 Overall outcomes for infection rates Median infection rate Before intervention January 2012 (n = 38) After intervention February 2015 (n = 38) Clostridium difficile 0.73 0.78 .86 Vancomycin-resistant enterococci 1.60 0.50 .003 Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus 0.82 0.50 .01 Organism Staff Survey At the time of the preintervention survey, nursing staff believed that they encouraged patients to complete hand hygiene 97\% of the time. Ideas that staff listed to help with patients’ hand hygiene were as follows: having preprinted signs for alerting patients to wash their hands before leaving room and when returning, giving patients a personal sanitizer at the bedside, a sign in patients’ restrooms stating: “Did you remember to wash your hands?”, increased patient education, increased prompting of patients to wash their hands, infection control pamphlets on admission, patient contracts, hand wipes at the bedside for those unable to stand to wash, visual reminders for patients on the wall, having doors that open without touching them, and having automatic sinks and toilets. Patient Survey Results of the patient survey querying: “Were you offered to wash your hands during your stay?” (Table 2) indicated that the data improved from 75\% before the intervention to 94\% by 3 months after the intervention. www.ccnonline.org Patients’ suggestions to increase patient hand hygiene included the following: having staff encourage all patients to perform hand hygiene, giving each patient his or her own hand sanitizer, recognizing that patients would be more apt to use hand sanitizer than hand wipes, having hand wipes at the bedside, explaining that the wipes provided with meals are for sanitizing, placing a small container on the side of the tray table with individual hand sanitizer wipes. Comments from patients collected on the survey indicated: “Well, I think you guys are doing a good job with hand hygiene, very good staff,” “Every need for hygiene is provided,” “Staff is really good about washing their hands.” Other survey questions included, “Were you encouraged to carry out hand hygiene after going to the bathroom and before meals?” (Figure 2). Before the intervention, 53\% of patients responded “always” but that percentage had decreased to 46\% by 3 months after the intervention. When talking with staff, patients said that they thought that when working with an adult population, nurses should not have to remind patients to wash their hands. Another barrier was that MRSA and VRE infection rates declined the nurse and/or tech- significantly. nician was not always with the patient during activities that would necessitate hand hygiene. In the unit brochure and the hand-washing brochure, the importance of hand hygiene after using the bathroom and before meals was outlined and encouraged. The patient survey also asked patients about their level of agreement with the statement, “I think hand hygiene is important to preventing infection in the hospital.” Before the intervention, 93\% strongly agreed and 6\% agreed. One month after the intervention, 90\% strongly agreed and 9\% agreed. Two months after the CriticalCareNurse Vol 37, No. 3, JUNE 2017 e5 Downloaded from http://aacnjournals.org/ccnonline/article-pdf/37/3/e1/120674/e1.pdf by guest on 17 May 2020 MRSA infections decreased by 63\% (n = 19 before and n = 7 after) in a 19-month period after the intervention. A Wilcoxon rank sum test revealed no significant difference in the rates of C difficile infection before (median, 0.73) and after (median, 0.78) the intervention (U = 175, z = -0.171, P = .86, r = 0.02). Conversely, C difficile infections increased 31\% in a 19-month period. A Wilcoxon rank sum test revealed a significant difference in the VRE infection rates from before (median, 1.6) and after (median, 0.50) the intervention (U = 83.50, z = -2.975, P = .003, r = 0.48). A Wilcoxon rank sum test revealed a significant difference in the MRSA rates before (median, 0.82) and after (median, 0.50) the intervention (U = 102.500, z = -2.484, P = .01, r = 0.40; Table 3). P 70 Percentage of responses 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Always Often Rarely Never 2 Months after intervention 3 Months after intervention Figure 2 Patient survey results: were you encouraged to carry out hand hygiene after going to the bathroom and before meals? intervention, opinion decreased to 84\% strongly agreed and 15\% agreed. Three months after the intervention, 93\% strongly agreed and 6\% agreed. An evaluation of these results indicated that we needed to improve our patient education. The patient survey also queried patients’ level of agreement with the statement, “I think staff feel their own hand hygiene is an important part of preventing infection.” Before the intervention, 100\% of patients strongly agreed. One month after the intervention, 93\% strongly agreed, 4\% agreed, and 1\% disagreed. Two months after the intervention, 79\% strongly agreed and 20\% agreed. Three months after the intervention, 94\% strongly agreed and 5\% agreed. Another survey statement was, “I think staff feel patient hand hygiene is an important part of preventing infection in the hospital.” Before the intervention, 68\% of patients strongly agreed, 25\% agreed, and 6\% were unsure. One month after the i ... Purchase answer to see full attachment