1University of Wisconsin,Madison,Wisconsin.
2University of Wisconsin Health,Madison,Wisconsin.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018 Jul;39(7):841-848. doi: 10.1017/ice.2018.82.
OBJECTIVEIdentify factors referred to as barriers and facilitators that can prevent or assist safe injection practices in ambulatory care settings to guide quality improvement.DESIGNIn this mixed-methods study, we utilized observations and interviews.SETTINGThis study was conducted at ambulatory clinics at a midwestern academic medical center from May through August 2017. Sites included a variety of clinical settings that performed intramuscular, intradermal, intravenous, or intra-articular injections.PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONSDirect observations of injections and interviews of ambulatory care staff were conducted. An observation checklist was created, including standards of injection safety from nationally recognized guidelines. Interview questions were developed using the System Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and then coded by 2 investigators.RESULTSIn total, 106 observations and 36 interviews were completed at 21 clinics. Injection safety standards with the lowest adherence included using needleless access devices to prepare injections (33%) and the proper use of multidose vials (<80%). Of 819 coded interview segments, 461 (56.3%) were considered facilitators of safe injection practices. The most commonly identified barriers were patient movement during administration, feeling rushed, and inadequate staffing. The most commonly identified facilitators were availability of supplies, experience in the practice area, and availability of safety needles and prefilled syringes.CONCLUSIONSPerceived barriers and facilitators to infection control elements of injection safety are interconnected with SEIPS elements of persons, organizations, technologies, tasks, and environment. Direct observations demonstrated that knowledge of safety injection standards does not necessarily translate to best practices and may not match self-reported data.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:841-848.
确定可能阻碍或促进门诊环境中安全注射实践的因素,以指导质量改进。
在这项混合方法研究中,我们利用观察和访谈。
这项研究于 2017 年 5 月至 8 月在中西部学术医疗中心的门诊诊所进行。地点包括执行肌肉内、皮内、静脉或关节内注射的各种临床环境。
对注射进行直接观察,并对门诊医护人员进行访谈。创建了一个观察检查表,包括来自国家认可指南的注射安全标准。访谈问题是使用患者安全系统工程倡议 (SEIPS) 模型开发的。访谈由 2 名调查员进行记录、转录和编码。
共在 21 个诊所完成了 106 次观察和 36 次访谈。注射安全标准的最低依从性包括使用无针接入装置准备注射(33%)和多剂量小瓶的正确使用(<80%)。在 819 个编码访谈片段中,有 461 个(56.3%)被认为是安全注射实践的促进因素。最常见的障碍是患者在给药过程中的移动、感到匆忙和人员配备不足。最常见的促进因素是供应品的可用性、在实践领域的经验以及安全针头和预充注射器的可用性。
感染控制要素中与注射安全相关的感知障碍和促进因素与 SEIPS 中人员、组织、技术、任务和环境的要素相互关联。直接观察表明,对安全注射标准的了解不一定转化为最佳实践,并且可能与自我报告的数据不匹配。
传染病控制与医院流行病学 2018;39:841-848.