4 results
Environmental cleaning and disinfection in the operating room: a systematic scoping review through a human factors and systems engineering lens
- Anping Xie, Hugo Sax, Oluseyi Daodu, Lamia Alam, Marium Sultan, Clare Rock, C. Matthew Stewart, Shawna J. Perry, Ayse P. Gurses
-
- Journal:
- Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , First View
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 13 March 2024, pp. 1-10
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Objective:
To synthesize evidence and identify gaps in the literature on environmental cleaning and disinfection in the operating room based on a human factors and systems engineering approach guided by the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model.
Design:A systematic scoping review.
Methods:Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched 4 databases (ie, PubMed, EMBASE, OVID, CINAHL) for empirical studies on operating-room cleaning and disinfection. Studies were categorized based on their objectives and designs and were coded using the SEIPS model. The quality of randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies with a nonequivalent groups design was assessed using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials.
Results:In total, 40 studies were reviewed and categorized into 3 groups: observational studies examining the effectiveness of operating-room cleaning and disinfections (11 studies), observational study assessing compliance with operating-room cleaning and disinfection (1 study), and interventional studies to improve operating-room cleaning and disinfection (28 studies). The SEIPS-based analysis only identified 3 observational studies examining individual work-system components influencing the effectiveness of operating-room cleaning and disinfection. Furthermore, most interventional studies addressed single work-system components, including tools and technologies (20 studies), tasks (3 studies), and organization (3 studies). Only 2 studies implemented interventions targeting multiple work-system components.
Conclusions:The existing literature shows suboptimal compliance and inconsistent effectiveness of operating-room cleaning and disinfection. Improvement efforts have been largely focused on cleaning and disinfection tools and technologies and staff monitoring and training. Future research is needed (1) to systematically examine work-system factors influencing operating-room cleaning and disinfection and (2) to redesign the entire work system to optimize operating-room cleaning and disinfection.
Environmental cleaning in operating rooms: A systematic review from the human factors engineering perspective
- Anping Xie, Hugo Sax, Oluseyi Daodu, Lamia Alam, Marium Sultan, Clare Rock, Shawna Perry, Ayse Gurses
-
- Journal:
- Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology / Volume 3 / Issue S2 / June 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 29 September 2023, pp. s68-s70
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
Background: Environmental cleaning is critical in preventing pathogen transmission and potential consecutive healthcare-acquired infections. In operating rooms (ORs), multiple invasive procedures increase the infectious risk for patients, making proper cleaning and disinfection of environmental surfaces of paramount importance. A human-factors engineering (HFE) approach emphasizing the impact of the entire work system on care processes and outcomes has been proposed to improve environmental cleaning. Using the lens of this HFE approach, we conducted a systematic review to synthesize existing evidence and identify gaps in the literature on OR cleaning. Methods: The systematic review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and limited to English-written, peer-reviewed journal articles reporting empirical studies on OR cleaning. Figure 1 shows the flowchart of study search and screening. The following data were extracted from each included article: (1) general information of the article (eg, first author, title, journal, year of publication) and (2) characteristics of the study (eg, country, objectives, design, outcome measures and measuring techniques, findings, funding source). In addition, work-system elements (eg, people, tasks, tools and technologies, physical environment, organizational conditions) and cleaning processes (eg, turnover cleaning, terminal cleaning) addressed in each included studywere coded based on the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model. The methodological quality of included studies using a (non)randomized controlled design was assessed using the version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. Results: In total, 35 studies were included in this review, among which 10 examined the effectiveness of OR cleaning in reducing environmental contamination (Fig. 2), 1 examined the compliance of OR cleaning practices (Fig. 3), and 24 examined interventions for improving OR cleaning effectiveness and/or compliance (Fig. 4). Figure 5 summarizes the characteristics of the included studies. Conclusions: In this review, OR cleaning was inconsistently performed in practice, and mixed findings were reported regarding the effectiveness of OR cleaning in reducing environmental contamination. No study has systematically examined work-system factors influencing OR cleaning. Efforts to improve OR cleaning focused on cleaning tools and technologies (eg, ultraviolet light) and staff monitoring and training. Interventions targeting the broader work system influencing the cleaning processes are lacking. The scientific rigor of the included studies was modest. Most studies were either commercially funded or did not reveal their funding sources, which might introduce a desirability bias.
Financial support: This study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Disclosures: None
Work system factors affecting COVID-19 PPE use: A human factors approach to analysis of video recordings of emergency department clinical work
- Esosa Nosakhare, Shawna Perry, Susan Peterson, Frankie Catalfumo, Kelly Osei, Kelly Osei, Kelly Osei, Kelly Williams, Maia Bradley, Marium Sultan, Oluseyi Daodu, Nivedha Prabhu, Ayse Gurses
-
- Journal:
- Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology / Volume 2 / Issue S1 / July 2022
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 16 May 2022, pp. s9-s10
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
Background: The effectiveness of PPE in preventing self-contamination of healthcare workers (HCWs) and transmission of pathogens (airborne and contact) in the emergency department (ED) is highly dependent on consistent, appropriate use of and other interactions (eg, storing, cleaning, etc) with the PPE. Pre–COVID-19 studies focused primarily on individual HCW contributions to incorrect or suboptimal PPE use. We conducted an analysis of ED video recordings using a human-factors engineering framework (ie, The Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety, SEIPS), to identify work-system–level contributions to inappropriate PPE usage by HCWs while they provide care in their actual clinical care environment. Methods: In total, 47 video sessions (each ~15 minute) were recorded between June 2020 and May 2021 using a GoPro camera in an 8-bed pod area, designated for persons under investigation (PUI) and confirmed COVID-19–positive patients, in an ED of a large, tertiary-care, academic medical center. These recordings captured a ‘landscape view’: 2 video cameras were set up to capture the entire ED pod area and HCWs as they provided care. A team with hemorrhagic fever expertise, infection prevention and control expertise, and ED expertise reviewed each video together and extracted data using a semistructured form. Results: Guided by the 5 components of the SEIPS work system model, (ie, task, physical environment, person, organization, tools and technology), multiple work system failure points influencing HCWs appropriate use of PPE were identified. For example, under the task component, HCWs were observed not doffing and donning in recommended sequence. Also, inconsistencies with COVID-19 status signage on a patient’s door and ambiguous labelling of work areas designated as clean (donning) and dirty (doffing) sites acted as a barrier to appropriate PPE use under the physical environment section. Conclusions: Human factors–based analysis of video recordings of actual ED work identified a variety of work system factors that impede appropriate or correct use of PPE by HCWs. Future efforts to improve appropriate PPE use should focus on eliminating or mitigating the effects of these work system factors.
Funding: US CDC
Disclosures: The authors gratefully acknowledge the CDC for funding this work. This material is based upon work supported by the Naval Sea Systems Command (under contract No. N00024-13-D-6400, Task Order NH076). Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) or the US CDC.
Work system barriers to & resilience strategies for COVID-19 PPE use in the emergency department: A qualitative interview study
- Oluseyi Daodu, Ayse Gurses, Patience Osei, Esosa Nosakhare, Shawna Perry, Marium Sultan, Nivedha Prabhu, Susan Peterson, Emma MacIntyre, Khue Vo, Lauren Yuan, Lauren Benishek, Jessica Li
-
- Journal:
- Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology / Volume 2 / Issue S1 / July 2022
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 16 May 2022, p. s10
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
Background: Emergency departments (EDs) are complex, sociotechnical, high-paced, safety-critical work systems that have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite training, consistent compliance with recommended PPE use during COVID-19 pandemic has been challenging. Healthcare workers (HCWs) have had adapt to overcome these challenges to ensure their own safety and patient safety. We sought to identify barriers in the work system that impede the recommended COVID-19 PPE use in EDs. Methods: We conducted semistructured, in-depth interviews over ZoomTM from August 2020–May 2021 with 45 HCWs from the ED (ie, physicians, nurses, ancillary support staff, etc) affiliated with a large, tertiary-care, academic medical center. These audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and analyzed using a hybrid (inductive and deductive) qualitative coding approach in NVivo software. The deductive portion was guided by the SEIPS work system model, a well-known human-factors conceptual framework. Results: We identified multiple work-system factors in the ED that impede compliance with the recommended COVID-19 PPE use. In addition, ED HCWs have reported making a variety of adaptations or developing strategies to overcome these barriers. Some of these adaptations were made to the PPE physically (eg, trimming portions of PPE), and others were related to the tasks and/or processes associated with PPE, such as filming their own training video demonstrating PPE donning and doffing techniques, and environment services staff checking a patient’s status with nurses prior to entering the patient’s room when there was no COVID-19 signage on the door. Conclusions: Consistent compliance with COVID-19 PPE use in ED clinical practice is challenging and can be negatively affected by a variety of work system factors. Resilience strategies developed by HCWs can provide critical information with regards to HCW needs and potential directions for innovation. Future efforts should focus on not only changing individual HCW behavior through training but also on improving the PPE and ED work system design.
Funding: US CDC
Disclosures: The authors gratefully acknowledge the US CDC for funding this work. This material is based upon work supported by the Naval Sea Systems Command (under contract no. N00024-13-D-6400, task order NH076). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) or the US CDC.