Handwashing Techniques: A Literature Review on the Capstones PICOT Question

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Comparison of Research Questions
Comparison of Sample Populations
Comparison of Study Limitations
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Handwashing techniques are vital for enhancing physical hygiene among individuals. Mothers who deliver through the caesarian procedure constitute vulnerable populations threatened by the Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections (CAUTI) (Galiczewski & Shurpin, 2017). In essence, this category of individuals requires objective handwashing practices to protect against avoidable post-caesarian diseases. This review presents a comparative overview of existing studies founded on evidence-based experiences. For instance, the ongoing pandemic advocates for sanitizers and soap using running water for thorough handwashing. Learning new ways of keeping ones hands clean entails adopting effective and scientifically proven procedures for careful handwashing.

Comparison of Research Questions

Research questions from identified relevant sources are fundamental in understanding existing practices of cleaning hands. Besides, the aims of the articles of Galiczewski and Shurpin (2017), Gesmundo (2016), and Meddings et al. (2019) are aimed at the investigation of different aspects of CAUTI. Galiczewski and Shurpins (2017) article poses a research question on the impact of direct observation of catheter insertion on reducing the rates of urinary tract infections and catheter utilization. The study reveals that effective handwashing practices reduce infection rates (Galiczewski & Shurpin, 2017). Hence, the authors answer to the previously mentioned research question is that the impact is positive.

The study conducted by Meddings et al. (2019) is concerned with discovering the effects of implementing a multimodal initiative on CAUTI in organizations with high hospital-acquired infections. Meddings et al. (2019) conclude that the multimodal intervention yielded no substantial improvements in CAUTI or urinary catheter utilization (para. 10). Finally, the research question of the article by Gesmundo (2016) is about the effect of a CAUTI education package on the knowledge of nurses in indwelling catheter management. Gesmundo (2016) answers that the CAUTI education package improves nurses knowledge and increases their proficiency in implementing multi-faceted strategies to using catheter care components.

Overall, it could be noted that the three studies mentioned above address a similar issue on how to minimize the frequency of CAUTI. However, the authors come to different conclusions. Galiczewski and Shurpin (2017) recommend direct observation of catheter insertion, and Gesmundo (2016) argues that nurses should be better educated on how to prevent CAUTI. In contrast, Meddings et al. (2019) find that multimodal initiative on CAUTI is useless.

Comparison of Sample Populations

The concept of sample population refers to an experimental group from which data and observations are derived. The sample population of the study by Galiczewski and Shurpin (2017) consists of 140 patients that had a urinary catheter placed during their stay in the medical ICU (p. 29). The patients who are younger than 18 and whose urinary catheter placed in another unit of the hospital prior to being transferred or admitted to the medical ICU were excluded from the sample (Galiczewski and Shurpin, 2017, p. 29). Three hundred eighty-seven hospitals from all over the US participated in the study conducted by Meddings et al. (2019).

Within these hospitals, authors focused attention on the analysis of the long-term care wards. The sample population of Gesmundos (2016) study is the smallest one. The author compares two post-operative wards at a hospital. Even though Gesmundos (2016) sample population is small, its size seems to be justified by the research aims. Nevertheless, if the conclusions of Gesmundo (2016) were based on a larger sample, the results would be more credible.

Comparison of Study Limitations

Even though the results of these studies reveal a meticulous and time-consuming work of the scholars, they still have certain limitations. Galiczewski and Shurpin (2017) admit that the weak side of their study is that the observed patients were treated in a single ICU of a large tertiary academic teaching hospital (p. 33). This limits the generalizability of results because the observed hospitals are of the same size and type (Galiczewski & Shurpin, 2017).

Galiczewski and Shurpin (2017) also claim that another limit of their research is the update of the NHSN CAUTI definitions in January 2015. Hence, the collected data could not be compared to the data before the updates because hospitals followed other rules. According to Meddings et al. (2019), the limitation of their study is that the period of intervention was too short, and fidelity and characteristics of patients were not assessed. The critical limitation of Gesmundos (2016) article is the small sample population. Generally, three studies share the common problem issues with the observed population.

Conclusion

In conclusion, handwashing principles are helpful for patients who deliver through the caesarian process. This review notes strong similarities between the recommended practices entailing hand hygiene. EBP highlights the effectiveness of using running water when washing away germs using soap. Post-caesarian patients should adopt expert insights concerning good practices on handwashing practices. Most importantly, the ongoing pandemic has emphasized the importance of proper handwashing practices. Specialists from different disciplines recommend the use of soap for cleaning germs or bacteria. This review acknowledges the information gap on handwashing practices among patients delivering the caesarian technique. Authorities and healthcare agencies should collaborate to reduce cases of CAUTI through modernized communication in digital platforms.

References

Galiczewski, J. M., & Shurpin, K. M. (2017). An intervention to improve the catheter associated urinary tract infection rate in a medical intensive care unit: direct observation of catheter insertion procedure. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, 40, 26-34. Web.

Gesmundo, M. (2016). Kai Tiaki Enhancing nurses knowledge on Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection (CAUTI) prevention. Web.

Meddings, J., Manojlovich, M., Ameling, J.M., Olmsted, R.N., Rolle, A.J., Greene, M.T., Ratz, D., Snyder, A. & Saint, S. (2019). Quantitative results of a national intervention to prevent hospital-acquired catheter-associated urinary tract infection: a pre-post observational study. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

Handwashing Techniques: A Literature Review on the Capstones PICOT Question

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)