How do These Two Articles Support the Nursing Practice Problem You Chose?
Both articles have identified various factors that influence compliance with hand hygiene among healthcare workers. For instance, Van Nguyen et al. (2020) associate attitudes and knowledge of protocols with the levels of adherence to such protocols. Additionally, Stangerup et al. (2021) link workload, work pressure and stress, time and resource availability, and well as changes in practice routines to reduced levels of compliance. On the other hand, compliance is related to positive attitudes and training to higher levels of compliance (Van Nguyen et al., 2020). The findings of the articles will be used to assess the nursing problem of focus and apply the various recommendations to answer the PICOT question. The articles also present training HCWs as a way of improving knowledge of hand hygiene practices and attitudes towards the set protocols to ensure improved compliance with such protocols and practices.
The interventions and the groups focused on the articles are similar to the interventions and comparison groups identified in the PICOT question. For instance, the article’s population of focus is HCWs, which is also the population of interest in the PICOT question. The main intervention for improving compliance in both articles is training. The PICOT question adopts hand hygiene education as the main intervention and compares it to usual hand-washing practices. Therefore, both articles provide a ready guide to solving the nursing problem focused on in the PICOT question.
Method of Studies
The summarized articles both apply quantitative research methods. The article by Stangerup et al. (2021) applies statistical analyses to the collected data, while Van Nguyen et al. (2020) applied multiple logistic regression analysis and descriptive statistics in their study. As quantitative studies, the authors of both articles collect numerical data and apply statistical analyses to the data collected. Results are also presented using statistics. The main benefit of using quantitative methods is that it allows for empirical testing of developed hypotheses by collecting and comparing data from a large sample that is representative of the population. This supports the generalizability of the findings. However, quantitative methods are prone to structural biases due to incomplete data and biases in the sample selection.
Results of Studies
The results presented in the study by Stangerup et al. (2021) show that compliance with hand hygiene was highest during the pandemic by 58% and lowest past the pandemic by 34%. This shows that compliance is higher during the intervention phase, lower before the intervention, and lowest after the intervention. Compliance is also dependent on workload, work pressure stress, time, and resource availability. The findings of this study have implications for planning hand hygiene interventions and ensuring the continuity of such interventions to support adherence to hand hygiene protocols.
In their study, Van Nguyen et al. (2020) found that a majority of HCWs have enough knowledge and positive attitudes towards the WHO’s “My 5 Moments for Hand Hygiene.” Improving knowledge and attitudes on hand hygiene through training improved adherence to the protocols in high-risk and high-exposure settings. The study has implications on nursing practice on applying multimodal strategies, including regular education and training programs that improve knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards hand hygiene.
Ethical Considerations
Two major ethical considerations in conducting research are informed consent and confidentiality. Informed consent means providing the participants with information related to the study to help them decide whether to participate. On the other hand, confidentiality means that all communications and identities of the participants will remain private. The summarized articles have adequately considered these ethical considerations while conducting their research. For instance, Stangerup et al. (2021) approval from the Ethics Committee and the Danish Data Protection Agency, while Van Nguyen et al. (2020) obtained approval from the Scientific Panel of the Institute for Preventive Medicine and Public Health at Hanoi Medical University according to Decision No. 61/QDYHDP&YTCC, dated 16/06/2015.
Conclusion
Hand hygiene is an important IPC that can effectively reduce and prevent the occurrence of HAIs. However, adherence to hand hygiene protocol among healthcare workers remains a challenge. Through the use of a PICOT question, it is possible to search for peer-reviewed articles that support answering the question and resolving the nursing problem. Quantitative research methods provide high-quality empirical evidence that can be replicated in various nursing practice set