LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Unsworth, John; Collins, Joan (2011)
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: B700, B900
Background - Maintaining the principles of asepsis when performing wound care and other invasive procedures is one of the fundamental approaches of preventing healthcare-acquired infection. Such an approach has been advocated for community practitioners. \ud \ud Literature - The performance of an aseptic technique is an under-researched area. The few studies that have been conducted have identified how strict adherence to the technique is difficult and contamination of hands/gloves is common and that community nurses often have a fatalistic view about whether asepsis is possible in a community setting. \ud \ud Aim - The overall aim of this research project was to examine how experienced practitioners have adapted the aseptic technique within a community setting and to what extent the changed procedure still adhered to the principles of asepsis. \ud \ud Methods - This study used a mixture of non-participant observation and individual semi-structured interviews to examine adherence to the principles of the aseptic technique among the district nurses. Data were collected from one Trust in England with a total of 10 district nurses taking part and 30 aseptic procedures been observed.\ud \ud Results - The results show that almost all of the staff understood the principles of asepsis and had adapted the standard procedure for use in a patient’s home. Common challenges included wound cleaning using a single nurse procedure, the contents of the pack and the home environment. The research also identified misconceptions about clean versus aseptic procedures and a lack of training for staff. \ud \ud Conclusions - This study highlights the challenges of maintaining the principles of asepsis in a home environment and the fact that district nurses are often relied upon to find creative solutions to such challenges. The study also highlights issues around the implementation of evidence-based practice and the need for clearer guidance about how evidence should be used alongside existing procedures.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Abudu, L., Blair, I., Fraise, A. and Cheng, K.K. 2001: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): a community based prevalence survey. Epidemiology and Infection 126, 351-56.
    • Adler, P.A. and Adler, P. 1998: Observational techniques. In Denzin N.K. and Lincoln Y.S. editors, Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Newbury Park, California: Sage.
    • Aziz, A.M. 2009: Variations in aseptic technique and the implications of infection control. British Journal of Nursing 18, 26-30.
    • Boxer, E. and Maynard, C. 1999: A review of the effect of tap water versus normal saline on infection rates in acute traumatic wounds. Journal of Wound Care 8, 409-12.
    • Bree-Williams, F.J. and Waterman, H. 1996: An examination of nurses' practices when performing aseptic techniques for wound dressings. Journal of Advanced Nursing 23, 48-54.
    • Crooks, P. and Davies, S. 1998: Research into practice: essential skills for reading and applying research. London: Bailliere Tindall.
    • Department of Health. 2003: Winning ways: working together to reduce healthcare associated infection in England. London: DoH.
    • Department of Health. 2005: Saving lives: a delivery programme to reduce healthcare associated infection. London: DoH.
    • Department of Health. 2007: Essential steps to safe, clean care. London: DoH.
    • Department of Health. 2008: The Health Act 2006: code of practice for the prevention and control of healthcare associated infection. London: DoH.
    • Dougherty, L. and Lister, S. 2008: The Royal Marsden manual of clinical nursing procedures. London: Wiley Blackwell.
    • Fernandez, R. and Griffiths, R. 2008: Water for wound cleansing. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Issue 1, Art No. CD003861.
    • Fernandez, R.S., Griffiths, R.D. and Ussia, C. 2001: Wound cleansing: which solution? What technique? Primary Intention 9, 51-58.
    • Fielding, N. 1994: Varieties of research interviews. Nurse Researcher 1, 4-13.
    • Ford, P. and Walsh, M. 1994: New rituals for old? Nursing through the looking glass. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
    • Gilmore, D. 2000: Is an aseptic technique always necessary? Journal of Community Nursing 14, 32-35.
    • Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. 1989: Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, California: Sage.
    • Hallett, C.E. 2000: Infection control in wound care: a study of fatalism in community nursing. Journal of Clinical Nursing 9, 103-9.
    • Hart, S. 2007: Using an aseptic technique to reduce the risk of infection. Nursing Standard 21, 43-48.
    • Joanna Briggs Institute. 2008: Solutions, techniques and pressure in wound cleansing. Nursing Standard 22, 35-39.
    • Lincoln, Y.S. 1990: The making of a constructivist. In Guba, E.G., editor, The paradigm dialogue. Newbury Park, California: Sage, 67-87.
    • Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. 1985: Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.
    • Mackintosh, C. 2006: Caring: the socialisation of preregistration student nurses: a longitudinal qualitative descriptive study. International Journal of Nursing Studies 43, 953-62.
    • Michalopoulos, A. and Sparos, L. 2003: Post-operative wound infections. Nursing Standard 17, 53-60.
    • Moore, Z. and Cowman, S. 2009: Review the evidence for selecting cleansing fluids for pressure ulcers. Nursing Times 105, 22-23.
    • Preston, R.M. 2005: Aseptic technique: evidence-based approach for patient safety. British Journal of Nursing 14, 540-46.
    • Punder, R. 1997: Wound cleansing. Journal of Community Nursing 11, 30-36.
    • Pratt, R.J., Pellowe, C.M., Wilson, J.A. et al. 2007: epic2: national evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare associated infection in NHS hospitals in England. Journal of Hospital Infection 65S, S51-64.
    • Rolfe, M.K., Bryar, R.M., Hjelm, K., Fletcher, M. and Anderson, B.L. 2003: Strategies and approaches towards evidence-based practice in the management of chronic leg ulceration by nurses working in the community in Kronoberg County, Sweden and the East Riding and Hull, UK. Clinical Effectiveness in Nursing 7, 160-67.
    • Rowley, S. and Clare, S. 2009: Improving standards for aseptic practice through an ANTT trust-wide implementation process: a matter of prioritisation and care. Journal of Infection Prevention 10 (Suppl 1) S18-23.
    • Takahashi, O. 2002: Nurse education and the assessment of nurse competence. Educate 2, 32-49.
    • Ward, D. 2000: Implementing evidence based practice in infection control. British Journal of Nursing 9, 267-71.
    • Young, T. 1995: Common problems in wound care: wound cleansing. British Journal of Nursing 4, 286, 288-89.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article