Analyze 3 Studies in Each Database – Medline, CINAHL, & Google Scholar, Essay Example

Medline

• “Comparing Hand Washing to Hand Sanitizers in Reducing Elementary School Students’ Absenteeism” (Vessey et al 2007)

1. This was a case study.
2. The study uses a quantitative research method.
3. The study uses 18 classrooms of 2^nd and 3^rd grade students from 4 elementary schools.
4. The study took place both in the classroom and in the students’ homes.
5. Half of the students were asked to use gel hand soap while the other half were asked to use hand sanitizer. After two months they were asked to switch for the following two months.
6. No significant rates in absenteeism were demonstrated.
7. The PICOT question compares the efficacy of traditional hand washing versus alcohol-based hand sanitizers.
8. This article’s results indicate that hand sanitizers are just as effective as hand soaps to keep elementary children in school. There are a large number of case studies that suggest that hand sanitizers are just as effective as hand soaps.

• “Nurses’ perceptions of the benefits and adverse effects of hand disinfection: alcohol-based hand rubs vs. hygienic hand washing: a multicentre questionnaire study with additional patch testing by the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group” (Stutz 2009)

1. This is a research study.
2. This was a quantitative study.
3. Nurses were used for this study.
4. The study took place in five hospital settings.
5. A questionnaire was given to the nurses, followed by a modified multicultural study, and patch tests of ethanol, proponal, and ABHRs were performed in a subsample.
6. The majority of nurses considered alcohol-based hand sanitizer to be more harmful than traditional soap and water handwashing. Both were suspected to have irritant effects.
7. The PICOT question asks to determine the efficacy of hand washing and alcohol-based sanitizers in a hospital setting. This study is appropriate as most nurses spend a significant amount of time in hospital settings.
8. The study indicates that nurses are susceptible to various skin disorders due to their frequent need to cleanse their hands.

• “Hand Hygiene for the Prevention of Nosocomial Infections” (Kampf et al 2009)

1. This was a research study.
2. This was a quantitative study.
3. Only literature was used in this study.
4. The setting is unknown.
5. No interventions were used.
6. Hygienic hand disinfection has better efficacy than hand washing.
7. This study relates to the PICOT question as it evaluates the efficacy of both hand washing and alcohol-based disinfection.
8. According to this study, there is evidence to support the use of alcohol-based disinfectants in a medical setting.

CINAHL

• “Bidirectional Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium transfer between bare/glove hands and green bell pepper and its interruption” (Jiminez et al 2007)

1. This was a case study.
2. The quantitative research method was used.
3. Volunteers were used for this study.
4. The setting is unknown.
5. No interventions were used.
6. The most effective way to prevent salmonella is the combination of disinfectants and hand washing.
7. This study relates to the PICOT question as it is a review of the efficacy of both cleansing methods in preventing disease.
8. There is strong evidence to suggest that a combination of both cleansing methods can help prevent the spread of diseases.

• “Alcohol-based hand-rub versus traditional surgical scrub and the risk of surgical site infection: a randomized controlled equivalent trial” (Al-Naami 2009)

1. This is a case study.
2. Qualitative research methods were used.
3. Patients who underwent surgery were the population studied. There were two groups. Group one consisted of 228 patients. Group 2 involved 272 patients.
4. The study took place in a hospital setting.
5. Some surgeons were asked to use alcohol-based disinfectants during the preoperation stage while others were asked to use traditional hand cleansing methods.
6. Most surgeons prefer using the alcohol hand rub over traditional surgical hand scrub.
7. The PICOT question asks to determine the efficacy of the two hand cleansing methods in a hospital setting. This study does just that.
8. The article suggests that the evidence shows that surgeons prefer using hand sanitizer over traditional surgical scrubs.

• “Hand Hygiene Practices in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: A Multimodal. Intervention and Impact on Nosocomial Infection” (Lam 2004)

1. This was a case study.
2. This was a quantitative study.
3. Health care workers were the population used in this study.
4. A hospital setting was used for this study.
5. Problem-based and task-oriented hand cleansing education was enforced. (Barbara et al 2004)
6. Hand hygiene compliance rose from 40 percent to 53 percent. (Barbara et al 2004)
7. This article is relevant to the PICOT question due to the fact that the study takes place in a hospital setting and that it involves the use of hygiene practices among health care workers.
8. There is evidence to support the use of alcohol-based hand sanitizers.

Google Scholar

• “Impact of a prevention strategy targeting hand hygiene and catheter care on the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections” (W.Z. 2009)

1. This was a case study.
2. Quantitative research methods were used.
3. Patients and health care workers participated in the study.
4. The study took place in a university hospital with five adult intensive care units.
5. An educational program was used.
6. Incidence density of CRBSI decreased to 1.0 per 1000 catheter days.
7. This is relevant to the PICOT question as it evaluates the link between hand hygiene and patient infection in a medical setting.
8. This article and others note that the proper use of hand cleansing methods reduce patient infection.

• “Surgical Hand Antisepsis With Alcohol-Based Handrub: Comparison of Effectiveness After 1.5 and 3 Minutes of Application” (Weber 2009)

1. This was a case study.
2. This study used quantitative research methods.
3. Postdoctoral surgeons were the population studied.
4. Basel University Hospital, Switzerland
5. There was a crossover trial where the surgeon served as their own control, using individual randomization to the 1.5 or 3-minute group through the initial trial stages.
6. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups.
7. This article relates to the PICOT question as it examines the efficacy of hand cleansing methods in a medical setting.
8. There is strong evidence to support that 1.5 minutes of hand cleansing is just as effective as 3 minutes of hand cleansing.

• “Efficacy of Soap and Water and Alcohol?Based Hand?Rub Preparations against Live H1N1 Influenza Virus on the Hands of Human Volunteers” (Grayson et al 2009)

1. This was a case study.
2. Quantitative research methods were used.
3. Health care workers were used in this study.
4. The setting is unknown though it can be logically inferred that this study was performed in a hospital setting.
5. Twenty vaccinated health care workers’ hands were contaminated with the H1N1 virus. They were then asked to wash their hands or use sanitizer.
6. There was an instant decrease in H1N1 after air drying. 14 of 20 workers had cultural h1n1. 6 of 20 did not have viable h1n1 recovered.
7. This study is relevant to the PICOT question as it evaluates the link between hand sanitation and infection.
8. The study suggests that hand-washing reduces the rate of infection.

Pick Two

• Hand Hygiene for the Prevention of Nosocomial Infections (Abstract). Hand-rub based on Alcohol versus traditional surgical scrub and the risk of surgical site infection: a randomized controlled equivalent trial (Abstract)
• The answer provided in the first article is that proper hygiene among health care workers prevents nosocomial infections. Health care workers are at high risk for nosocomial infections due to their consistent need to sanitize their hands. While the use of latex gloves can prevent the spread of disease from patients to nurses, hand cleansing is still a vital and frequent part of the nursing occupation. Multiple studies have shown that hand cleansing compliance among health care workers is low. This could be because nurses fear obtaining nosocomial infections. Multiple studies have also shown that alcohol-based hand sanitizers are just as effective at killing germs as the traditional soap and water method.

b-2. The answer provided in the second article is that alcohol-based hand-rub and traditional surgical scrub are just as effective at preventing surgical site infection. This answers the PICOT question because the question regards the efficacy of hand sanitizers and traditional hand cleansing. The article explains that surgeons prefer hand sanitizers and that both methods of hand cleansing are equally effective at preventing site infections in surgical patients.

References

Al-Naami, M. Y. (2009). Alcohol-based hand-rub versus traditional surgical scrub and the risk of surgical site infection: a randomized controlled equivalent trial.ewma, 9(3), 5.

Vessey, J. A., Sherwood, J. J., Warner, D., & Clark, D. (2007). Comparing Hand Washing to Hand Sanitizers in Reducing Elementary School Students’ Ahsenteeism. Pediatric Nursing, 33(4), 368.

Lam, B. C. (2004). Hand Hygiene Practices in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: A Multimodal Intervention and Impact on Nosocomial Infection. Pediatrics, 114(5), e565.

Grayson, M. L., Melvani, S., Druce, J., & Barr,. G. (2009). Efficacy of Soap and Water and Alcohol Based Hand Rub Preparations against Live H1N1 Influenza Virus on the Hands of Human Volunteers. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 48, 285 “291.

Jimenez, M., Chaidez, C., Siller, J. H., Valdez, J. B., & Carrillo, A. (2007). Bidirectional Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium transfer between bare/glove hands and green bell pepper and its interruption. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 17(5), 381 – 388.

Kampf, G., Löffler, H., & Gastmeier, P. (2009). Hand Hygiene for the Prevention of Nosocomial Infections. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, 106(40), 649-55.

Weber, MD, W. P. (2009). Surgical Hand Antisepsis With Alcohol-Based Hand Rub: Comparison of Effectiveness After 1.5 and 3 Minutes of Application. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 30(5), 420.

MD, W. Z. (2009). Impact of a prevention strategy targeting hand hygiene and catheter care on the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections. Critical Care Medicine, 37(7), 2167-2173.

Stutz, N. (2009). Nurses’ perceptions of the benefits and adverse effects of hand disinfection: alcohol-based hand rubs vs. hygienic handwashing: a multicentre questionnaire study with additional patch testing by the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group. British Journal of Dermatology, 160, pp565–572.