Gures. The Statistical Process Control (time series) of HH 1-Deoxynojirimycin site Compliance process during phase 2 (2011) are shown in figure 1 (overall data); figure 2 (stratified by main HCWs categories) and; figure 3 (related to working area). Overall, the HH compliance process in phase 2 showed a mean compliance of 85 showing in certain periods a pattern of “non-random” variability (special causes).Two different types of “special causes” were noted: (1) A positive special cause (90.1 compliance) in the sixth evaluation period (during 4th, 5th,Figure 1. Binomial control chart (statistical overall hand BAY1217389 side effects hygiene compliance process control during phase 2). Audits were conducted during three randomized days every three weeks accounting for 17 evaluation periods on 2011. Two set of points are highlighted (circles) and the rules (“special causes”) are shown. Three zones (C, B, A) that emanate outward from the center line (CL) are labeled (often referred as “sigma limits”): zone C (from CL to +/2 1s limit); zone B (from +/21s to +/2 2s, whose limits are also known as “warning limits” [WL]), and zone A (from +/2 2s to +/2 3s [Upper control limit (UCL) and lower control limit (LCL) respectively]. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047200.gPLOS ONE | www.plosone.orgHospital Wide Hand Hygiene InterventionTable 2. Hand hygiene compliance at preintervention period (t0), phase 1 intervention (t1) and phase 2 intervention (t2).Variableto March 2007?Decembert1 January 2010?December 2010 4,095 78 (79.4?0.7)t2 January 2011?December 2011 7,619 84 (83.8?5.4)X2 for trend (p)No of observations Overall compliance, (95 CI) Adherence to the 5 WHO HH moments 1. Before touching a patient No. of observations Compliance, (95 CI) 2. Before clean/aseptic procedure No. of observations Compliance, (95 CI) 3. After body fluid exposure risk No. of observations Compliance, (95 CI) 4. After touching a patient No. of observations Compliance, (95 CI) 5. After touching patient surroundings* No. of observations Compliance, (95 CI) HH adherence by HCW category 1. Nursing No. of observations Compliance, (95 CI) 2. Nursing assistants No. of observations Compliance, (95 CI) 3. Physicians No. of observations Compliance, (95 CI) 4. Others No. of observations Compliance, (95 CI) HH adherence by working area 1. Medical-Surgical Wards No. of observations Compliance, (95 CI) 2. Intensive Care Unit No. of observations Compliance, (95 CI) 3. Emergency Department No. of observations Compliance, (95 CI) *Abreviations: NE, not evaluated. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047200.t3,881 57 (55.9?9.0),.1,281 43 (40.6?6.0)1,681 76 (74.2?8.3)2,736 82 (80.6?3.6) ,.469 60 (55.7?4.6)454 71 (66.9?5.3)789 74 (71.3?7.7) ,.567 73 (70.3?7.5)315 82 (78.1?6.4)661 83 (80.3?6.1) ,.1,564 62 (59.9?4.7)1,358 84 (82.7?6.5)2,917 91 (90.1?2.2) ,.NE NE449 95 (92.5?7.2)956 77 (74.7?0.1)1,449 68 (65.6?0.4)1,930 84 (82.2?5.6)3,772 89 (87.5?9.6) ,.1,029 69 (66.3?1.9)1,162 88 (89.6?1.4)2,194 91 (90.1?2.3) ,.724 48 (44.0?1.3)662 60 (56.1?3.6)1,123 63 (60.7?6.3) ,.679 27 (24.3?1.05)341 58 (52.8?3.3)530 71 (67.7?5.4) ,.2,532 57 (55.1?8.9)2,504 89 (88.3?0.7)4,358 88 (87.1?9.0) ,.520 70 (65.9?3.6)879 73 (70.1?5.9)1,749 85 (82.9?6.4) ,.829 51 (47.7?4.5)712 52 (48.6?5.9)1,512 74 (72.3?6.7) ,.and 6th of May 2011) and was coincident with “the World Hygiene Day”. (2) Negative special causes (lower value: 73.7 compliance) was observed in the 10th and 11th evaluation periods (during 26th,27th, 29th of July and 16th.Gures. The Statistical Process Control (time series) of HH compliance process during phase 2 (2011) are shown in figure 1 (overall data); figure 2 (stratified by main HCWs categories) and; figure 3 (related to working area). Overall, the HH compliance process in phase 2 showed a mean compliance of 85 showing in certain periods a pattern of “non-random” variability (special causes).Two different types of “special causes” were noted: (1) A positive special cause (90.1 compliance) in the sixth evaluation period (during 4th, 5th,Figure 1. Binomial control chart (statistical overall hand hygiene compliance process control during phase 2). Audits were conducted during three randomized days every three weeks accounting for 17 evaluation periods on 2011. Two set of points are highlighted (circles) and the rules (“special causes”) are shown. Three zones (C, B, A) that emanate outward from the center line (CL) are labeled (often referred as “sigma limits”): zone C (from CL to +/2 1s limit); zone B (from +/21s to +/2 2s, whose limits are also known as “warning limits” [WL]), and zone A (from +/2 2s to +/2 3s [Upper control limit (UCL) and lower control limit (LCL) respectively]. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047200.gPLOS ONE | www.plosone.orgHospital Wide Hand Hygiene InterventionTable 2. Hand hygiene compliance at preintervention period (t0), phase 1 intervention (t1) and phase 2 intervention (t2).Variableto March 2007?Decembert1 January 2010?December 2010 4,095 78 (79.4?0.7)t2 January 2011?December 2011 7,619 84 (83.8?5.4)X2 for trend (p)No of observations Overall compliance, (95 CI) Adherence to the 5 WHO HH moments 1. Before touching a patient No. of observations Compliance, (95 CI) 2. Before clean/aseptic procedure No. of observations Compliance, (95 CI) 3. After body fluid exposure risk No. of observations Compliance, (95 CI) 4. After touching a patient No. of observations Compliance, (95 CI) 5. After touching patient surroundings* No. of observations Compliance, (95 CI) HH adherence by HCW category 1. Nursing No. of observations Compliance, (95 CI) 2. Nursing assistants No. of observations Compliance, (95 CI) 3. Physicians No. of observations Compliance, (95 CI) 4. Others No. of observations Compliance, (95 CI) HH adherence by working area 1. Medical-Surgical Wards No. of observations Compliance, (95 CI) 2. Intensive Care Unit No. of observations Compliance, (95 CI) 3. Emergency Department No. of observations Compliance, (95 CI) *Abreviations: NE, not evaluated. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047200.t3,881 57 (55.9?9.0),.1,281 43 (40.6?6.0)1,681 76 (74.2?8.3)2,736 82 (80.6?3.6) ,.469 60 (55.7?4.6)454 71 (66.9?5.3)789 74 (71.3?7.7) ,.567 73 (70.3?7.5)315 82 (78.1?6.4)661 83 (80.3?6.1) ,.1,564 62 (59.9?4.7)1,358 84 (82.7?6.5)2,917 91 (90.1?2.2) ,.NE NE449 95 (92.5?7.2)956 77 (74.7?0.1)1,449 68 (65.6?0.4)1,930 84 (82.2?5.6)3,772 89 (87.5?9.6) ,.1,029 69 (66.3?1.9)1,162 88 (89.6?1.4)2,194 91 (90.1?2.3) ,.724 48 (44.0?1.3)662 60 (56.1?3.6)1,123 63 (60.7?6.3) ,.679 27 (24.3?1.05)341 58 (52.8?3.3)530 71 (67.7?5.4) ,.2,532 57 (55.1?8.9)2,504 89 (88.3?0.7)4,358 88 (87.1?9.0) ,.520 70 (65.9?3.6)879 73 (70.1?5.9)1,749 85 (82.9?6.4) ,.829 51 (47.7?4.5)712 52 (48.6?5.9)1,512 74 (72.3?6.7) ,.and 6th of May 2011) and was coincident with “the World Hygiene Day”. (2) Negative special causes (lower value: 73.7 compliance) was observed in the 10th and 11th evaluation periods (during 26th,27th, 29th of July and 16th.
Heme Oxygenase heme-oxygenase.com
Just another WordPress site
