↓ Skip to main content

Personal hand gel for improved hand hygiene compliance on the regional anesthesia team

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Anesthesia, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Personal hand gel for improved hand hygiene compliance on the regional anesthesia team
Published in
Journal of Anesthesia, August 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00540-015-2058-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Colby L. Parks, Kristopher M. Schroeder, Richard E. Galgon

Abstract

Hand hygiene reduces healthcare-associated infections, and several recent publications have examined hand hygiene in the perioperative period. Our institution's policy is to perform hand hygiene before and after patient contact. However, observation suggests poor compliance. This is a retrospective review of a quality improvement database showing the effect of personal gel dispensers on perioperative hand hygiene compliance on a regional anesthesia team. Healthcare providers assigned to the Acute Pain Service were observed for compliance with hand hygiene policy during a quality improvement initiative. Provider type and compliance were prospectively recorded in a database. Team members were then given a personal gel dispensing device and again observed for compliance. We have retrospectively reviewed this database to determine the effects of this intervention. Of the 307 encounters observed, 146 were prior to implementing personal gel dispensers. Compliance was 34 %. Pre- and post-patient contact compliances were 23 and 43 %, respectively. For 161 encounters after individual gel dispensers were provided, compliance was 63 %. Pre- and post-patient contact compliances were 53 and 72 %, respectively. Improvement in overall compliance from 34 to 63 % was significant. On the Acute Pain Service, compliance with hand hygiene policy improves when individual sanitation gel dispensing devices are worn on the person.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Gambia 1 3%
Unknown 36 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 19%
Other 5 14%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 10 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 14%
Environmental Science 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 11 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 May 2016.
All research outputs
#17,768,879
of 22,821,814 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Anesthesia
#544
of 812 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,640
of 264,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Anesthesia
#12
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,821,814 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 812 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,084 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.