Fluent Essays

TOPIC: Prevention of Hospital acquired infection in critically ill patients. Four references to be used: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC39631... https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275717591... 3rd article attached. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/1... Outlining Strategies Outlining your first draft by listing each paragraph's topic sentence can be an easy way to ensure that each of your paragraphs is serving a specific purpose in your paper. You may find opportunities to combine or eliminate potential paragraphs when outlining—first drafts often contain repetitive ideas or sections that stall, rather than advance, the paper's central point. Additionally, if you are having trouble revising a paper, making an outline of each paragraph and its topic sentence after you have written your paper can be an effective way of identifying a paper's strengths and weaknesses. Example Outline The following outline is for a 5-7 page paper discussing the link between educational attainment and health.Review the other sections of this page for more detailed information about each component of this outline! I. Introduction A. Current Problem: Educational attainment rates are decreasing in the United States while healthcare costs are increasing. B. Population/Area of Focus: Unskilled or low-skilled adult workers C. Key Terms: healthy, well-educated Thesis Statement: Because of their income deficit (cite sources) and general susceptibility to depression (cite sources), students who drop out of high school before graduation maintain a higher risk for physical and mental health problems later in life. II. Background A. Historical Employment Overview: Unskilled laborers in the past were frequently unionized and adequately compensated for their work (cite sources). B. Historical Healthcare Overview: Unskilled laborers in the past were often provided adequate healthcare and benefits (cite sources). C. Current Link between Education and Employment Type: Increasingly, uneducated workers work in unskilled or low-skilled jobs (cite sources). D. Gaps in the Research: Little information exists exploring the health implications of the current conditions in low-skilled jobs. III. Major Point 1: Conditions of employment affect workers' physical health. A. Minor Point 1: Unskilled work environments are correlated highly with worker injury (cite sources). B. Minor Point 2: Unskilled work environments rarely provide healthcare or adequate injury recovery time (cite sources). IV. Major Point 2: Conditions of employment affect workers' mental health A. Minor Point 1: Employment in a low-skilled position is highly correlated with dangerous levels of stress (cite sources). B. Minor Point 2: Stress is highly correlated with mental health issues (cite sources). V. Major Point 3: Physical health and mental health correlate directly with one another. A. Minor Point 1: Mental health problems and physical health problems are highly correlated (cite sources). B. Minor Point 2: Stress manifests itself in physical form (cite sources) VI. Major Point 4: People with more financial worries have more stress and worse physical health. A. Minor Point 1: Many high-school dropouts face financial problems (cite sources). B. Minor Point 2: Financial problems are often correlated with unhealthy lifestyle choices such unhealthy food choices, overconsumption/abuse of alcohol, chain smoking, abusive relationships, etc. (cite sources). VII. Conclusion A. Restatement of Thesis: Students who drop out of high school are at a higher risk for both mental and physical health problems throughout their lives. B. Next Steps: Society needs educational advocates; educators need to be aware of this situation and strive for student retention in order to promote healthy lifestyles and warn students of the risks associated with dropping out of school. Introduction/Context Your introduction provides context to your readers to prepare them for your paper's argument or purpose. An introduction should begin with discussion of your specific topic (not a broad background overview) and provide just enough context (definitions of key terms, for example) to prepare your readers for your thesis or purpose statement.. Thesis/Purpose Statement A thesis or purpose statement should come at the end of your introduction and state clearly and concisely what the purpose or central argument of your paper is. The introduction prepares your reader for this statement, and the rest of the paper follows in support of it. Background After the initial introduction, background on your topic often follows. This paragraph helps to introduce your audience to any needed information to understand the importance of your topic. Major & Minor Points Major points are the building blocks of your paper. Major points build on each other, moving the paper forward and toward its conclusion. Each major point should be a clear claim that relates to the central argument of your paper. Sample Major Point: Employment and physical health may be a good first major point for this sample paper. Here, a student might discuss how dropping out of high school often leads to fewer employment opportunities, and those employment opportunities that are available tend to be correlated with poor work environments and low pay. Minor points are subtopics within your major points. Minor points develop the nuances of your major points but may not be significant enough to warrant extended attention on their own. These may come in the form of statistics, examples from your sources, or supporting ideas. Sample Minor Point: A sample minor point of the previous major point (employment and physical health) might address worker injury or the frequent lack of health insurance benefits offered by low-paying employers. The rest of the body of your paper will be made up of more major and minor points. Each major point should advance the paper's central argument, often building on the previous points, until you have provided enough evidence and analysis to justify your paper's conclusion. Conclusion Your conclusion both restates your paper's major claim and ties that claim into a larger discussion. Rather than simply reiterating each major and minor point, quickly revisit your thesis statement and focus on ending the paper by tying your thesis into current research in your field, next steps for other researchers, your broader studies, or other future implications. Assignment: Use the model outline above to compose and outline of your paper. www.ccnonline.org CriticalCareNurse Vol 37, No. 3, JUNE 2017 e1 Feature Patients’ Hand Washing and Reducing Hospital- Acquired Infection 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 vancomycin- resistant enterococci (P = .003) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (P = .01) after the interven- tion. 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 implementa- tion of patient education and the increased accessibility and use of hand sanitizer. (Critical Care Nurse. 2017;37[3]:e1-e8) ©2017 American Association of Critical-Care Nurses doi: https://doi.org/10.4037/ccn2017694 Hospital-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 D ow nloaded from http://aacnjournals.org/ccnonline/article-pdf/37/3/e1/120674/e1.pdf by guest on 17 M ay 2020 e2 CriticalCareNurse Vol 37, No. 3, JUNE 2017 www.ccnonline.org 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 step- down unit, it became obvious that increased focus on patients’ hand hygiene practices and attitudes about hand hygiene was needed. Local Problem 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 oppo- site 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 com- pliance among patients. Intended Improvement 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 inter- vention, 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 import- ant 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 Authors 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: [email protected]). To purchase electronic or print reprints, contact the American Association of Critical- Care Nurses, 101 Columbia, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656. Phone, (800) 899-1712 or (949) 362-2050 (ext 532); fax, (949) 362-2049; email, [email protected] Figure 1 Patient survey results: were you offered to wash your hands during your stay? Pe rc en ta ge o f r es po ns es 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Yes Before intervention 1 Month after intervention 2 Months after intervention 3 Months after intervention No Sometimes D ow nloaded from http://aacnjournals.org/ccnonline/article-pdf/37/3/e1/120674/e1.pdf by guest on 17 M ay 2020 www.ccnonline.org CriticalCareNurse Vol 37, No. 3, JUNE 2017 e3 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, hand- sanitizer wipes, or both. Staff were educated and encour- aged 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 trans- mission 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. Methods Ethical Issues The project received exempt status from the hospi- tal’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. Setting The patient hand hygiene initiative was implemented in August 2013 on an adult 36-bed cardiothoracic surgi- cal 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 pos- tanesthesia 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 hos- pital staff to give patients an opportunity to protect themselves from HAIs. Planning the Intervention/Planning the Study of the Intervention 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 Table 1 Staff questionnairea Question Did you offer an opportunity to your patient to enable them to wash/clean their hands? Patients encouraged to carry out hand hygiene after going to the bathroom and before meals? Patients who require assistance with hand washing are offered the opportunity? I think hand hygiene is important to preventing infection in the hospital. I think staff feel their own hand hygiene is important part of preventing infection. I think staff feel patients’ hand hygiene is an important part of preventing infection in the hospital. In your opinion, what more could be done in order for patients to clean their hands in the hospital? a Adapted from Burnett et al,3 with permission. Responses Yes, no Always, often, sometimes, rarely, never Always, often, sometimes, rarely, never Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree, unsure Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree, unsure Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree, unsure Write your response… D ow nloaded from http://aacnjournals.org/ccnonline/article-pdf/37/3/e1/120674/e1.pdf by guest on 17 M ay 2020 e4 CriticalCareNurse Vol 37, No. 3, JUNE 2017 www.ccnonline.org implementation to track progress of program participa- tion. It was hypothesized that the unit results would mir- ror the results of Burnett et al,3 where the staff aimed on the positive side of the scale and patients had the major- ity of rarely or never responses when asked if they were encouraged to wash their hands.3 Patient surveys were given and returned anony- 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 inter- vention, (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 Impor- tance of Hand Hygiene” brochure created by the institu- tion’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 visi- tors were instructed to wash their hands with soap and water only. Additionally, per the institution’s policy, all 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 nutri- tion 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 sani- tizer, 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 interven- tion. 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 non- parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test was used because of the small sample size and the underpowered study. Sig- nificance 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. Table 2 Patient questionnairea Question Were you offered to wash your hands during your stay? Were you encouraged to carry out hand hygiene after going to the bathroom and before meals? I think hand hygiene is important to preventing infection in the hospital. I think staff feel their own hand hygiene is important part of preventing infection. I think staff feel patients’ hand hygiene is an important part of preventing infection in the hospital. In your opinion, what more could be done in order for patients to clean their hands in the hospital? a Adapted from Burnett et al,3 with permission. Responses Yes, no Always, often, sometimes, rarely, never Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree, unsure Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree, unsure Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree, unsure Write your response… Each patient received an alcohol-based hand sanitizer or wipes. D ow nloaded from http://aacnjournals.org/ccnonline/article-pdf/37/3/e1/120674/e1.pdf by guest on 17 M ay 2020 www.ccnonline.org CriticalCareNurse Vol 37, No. 3, JUNE 2017 e5 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 differ- ence 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 differ- ence 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). 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 prompt- ing 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. 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 pro- vided with meals are for sanitizing, placing a small con- tainer 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 encour- aged 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 bar- rier was that the nurse and/or tech- 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 Table 3 Overall outcomes for infection rates Organism Clostridium difficile Vancomycin-resistant enterococci Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus P .86 .003 .01 After intervention February 2015 (n = 38) 0.78 0.50 0.50 Before intervention January 2012 (n = 38) 0.73 1.60 0.82 Median infection rate MRSA and VRE infection rates declined significantly. D ow nloaded from http://aacnjournals.org/ccnonline/article-pdf/37/3/e1/120674/e1.pdf by guest on 17 M ay 2020 e6 CriticalCareNurse Vol 37, No. 3, JUNE 2017 www.ccnonline.org 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 intervention, the percent- ages had increased to 81% strongly agreed and 18% agreed. Two months after the intervention, 84% strongly agreed, 14% agreed, and 1% were unsure. Three months after the intervention, 93% strongly agreed and 6% agreed. Discussion After the intervention, patients’ knowledge about the importance of hand hygiene and the availability of hand hygiene supplies increased. Patients’ responses indicated that they were offered the opportunity to wash their hands before meals and after using the restroom with increas- ing frequency in the months following the intervention. Therefore, compliance with patient hand hygiene would have increased. Patients’ perspective of staff hand hygiene being important to prevent infection showed a slight decline during the months of the study. This decrease could be related to the increasing knowledge and atten- tion to hand hygiene that patients experienced after implementation of these interventions. In a review of our facilities’ HAIs, unit-specific infection control data indicated that VRE infections decreased by 70% and MRSA infections decreased by 63% in a 19-month period. These decreased infection rates could be affected by several factors, including increased awareness of and knowledge about hand hygiene that resulted in improved hand hygiene prac- tices among both patients and staff. As noted earlier, C difficile infections increased 31% in a 19-month period. Associated factors may have included the use of alcohol- based hand sanitizer and sanitizer wipes, as hand hygiene with soap and water is recommended for use to prevent the spread of C difficile infections. Relation to Other Evidence Survey findings were consistent with outcomes reported by Ward.2 Patients did not perform hand hygiene for a multitude of reasons such as lack of Figure 2 Patient survey results: were you encouraged to carry out hand hygiene after going to the bathroom and before meals? Pe rc en ta ge o f r es po ns es 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Always Before intervention 1 Month after intervention 2 Months after intervention 3 Months after intervention SometimesOften NeverRarely D ow nloaded from http://aacnjournals.org/ccnonline/article-pdf/37/3/e1/120674/e1.pdf by guest on 17 M ay 2020 www.ccnonline.org CriticalCareNurse Vol 37, No. 3, JUNE 2017 e7 knowledge, not routinely washing hands at home, inabil- ity to access supplies for hand hygiene, lack of encour- agement by staff, and staff being too busy to be bothered. Before these interventions, it was surmised that hand hygiene was simply overlooked by nursing staff, as reported by Fox et al.4 The essential times for hand hygiene used in this project were corroborated by Sunkesula et al5 as being before meals, after using the restroom, before contact with incisions or wounds, and before leaving and after returning to the hospital room. Limitations This quality improvement project had some limita- tions. Primarily, this study was conducted on 1 unit in 1 medical center, which limits the generalizability of the findings to other settings. Plans to expand these practices to other units within the facility are ongoing. Results were compared with results for a group of patients from before the intervention instead of with results from a randomized control group, and the demographics of the 2 groups were not evaluated. Patients’ learning was assessed upon admission; how- ever, education of patients about hand washing was done via verbal instruction and printed brochure. This method may not have taken into consideration the learning needs and health literacy of the patients. Staff members on this unit were engaged to do this work and to assist patients to complete hand hygiene even though the unit is very busy and fast paced. This arrangement may limit the applicability of our results to other units or areas where engagement is not high and change is difficult. Some costs were associated with obtaining supplies to assist with enabling patients to perform hand hygiene, which may limit the implementa- tion of this project in other areas or facilities. Factors associated with the methods, including the use of sur- veys, may have led to lower response rates than if other methods of data collection had been used. Thus an addi- tional limitation of this quality improvement study is the small sample size. Survey responses from the patients and staff may have exhibited bias because of interaction with the nursing staff conducting this quality improvement work. Many factors come into play when considering infection rates; thus it is difficult to generalize that infection rates decreased exclusively as a result of the patient hand hygiene interventions implemented. During this time, no other interventions specifically related to prevention of HAIs were implemented on the unit, in an effort to determine the impact of the interventions related to patients’ hand hygiene. Interpretation As is well documented in the literature, hand hygiene is the single best method to prevent the spread of infec- tion. Education of staff and patients is essential to engage stakeholders in hand hygiene. Survey results indicated that patients were not well informed about the impor- tance of hand hygiene and were not given the opportu- nity to perform hand hygiene. Informing the nursing staff of these findings and engaging the staff to empower the patient to complete hand hygiene and provide the patient with resources were essential to the success of this quality improvement project. Even though this study had a small sample size, it indicated a reduction in HAIs on the cardiothoracic step-down unit, which could in turn potentially lead to a decreased length of stay, lower health care costs, and a decrease in mortality. Conclusions Further studies should be focused on observations of patients’ hand hygiene before and after interventions are implemented. Observations of patients’ hand hygiene practices should occur at the most essential times, including after the patient uses the restroom, before meals, before touching incisions or wounds, before leav- ing the room, and upon return to the room. This specific type of surveillance would assist with providing knowl- edge about where nursing staff should focus their efforts to engage patients to complete hand hygiene. The prac- tices of other multidisciplinary team members relative to hand hygiene and empowerment of patients to complete hand hygiene could be studied to assist in further inte- grating patients’ hand hygiene practices. CCN Acknowledgments The authors thank the staff of 4C at University of Michigan Health System. Financial Disclosures This project was funded by a fostering innovation grant for $2350 that was provided by the University of Michigan Health System. Now that you’ve read the article, create or contribute to an online discussion about this topic using eLetters. Just visit www.ccnonline.org and select the article you want to comment on. In the full-text or PDF view of the article, click “Responses” in the middle column and then “Submit a response.” D ow nloaded from http://aacnjournals.org/ccnonline/article-pdf/37/3/e1/120674/e1.pdf by guest on 17 M ay 2020 e8 CriticalCareNurse Vol 37, No. 3, JUNE 2017 www.ccnonline.org References 1. Magill S, Edwards J, Bamberg W, et al. Multistate point-prevalence survey of health care-associated infections. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1198-1208. 2. Ward D. Improving patient hand hygiene. Nurs Stand. 2003;17(35):39-42. 3. Burnett E, Lee K, Kydd P. Hand hygiene: what about our patients? Br J Infect Control. 2008;9(1):19-24. 4. Fox C, Wavra T, Drake D, et al. Use of a patient hand hygiene protocol to reduce hospital-acquired infections and improve nurses’ hand wash- ing. Am J Crit Care. 2015;24(3):216-224. 5. Sunkesula V, Knighton S, Zabarsky T, et al. Four moments for patient hand hygiene: a patient-centered, provider-facilitated model to improve patient hand hygiene. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015;36(8):986-989. D ow nloaded from http://aacnjournals.org/ccnonline/article-pdf/37/3/e1/120674/e1.pdf by guest on 17 M ay 2020