The Safe Hands Study: Implementing aseptic techniques in the operating room: Facilitating mechanisms for contextual negotiation and collective action - 28/02/19
Résumé |
Background |
Even though hand hygiene and aseptic techniques are essential to provide safe care in the operating room, several studies have found a lack of successful implementation. The aim of this study was to describe facilitative mechanisms supporting the implementation of hand hygiene and aseptic techniques.
Methods |
This study was set in a large operating room suite in a Swedish university hospital. The theory-driven implementation process was informed by the literature on organizational change and dialogue. Data were collected using interviews and participant observations and analyzed using a thematic approach. The normalization process theory served as a frame of interpretation during the analysis.
Results |
Three facilitating mechanisms were identified: (1) commitment through a sense of urgency, requiring extensive communication between the managers, operating room professionals, and facilitators in building commitment to change and putting the issues on the agenda; (2) dialogue for co-creation, increasing and sustaining commitment and resource mobilization; and (3) tailored management support, including helping managers to develop their leadership role, progressively involving staff, and retaining focus during the implementation process.
Conclusions |
The facilitating mechanisms can be used in organizing implementation processes. Putting the emphasis on help and support to managers seems to be a crucial condition in complex implementation processes, from preparation of the change process to stabilization of the new practice.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Key Words : Implementation process, Hand hygiene, Aseptic technique, Contextual restructuring, Complex intervention, Co-creation
Plan
| Funding/support: Funded by the Center for Person Centered Care (GPCC: http://gpcc.gu.se) and Landstingens Ömsesidiga Försäkringsbolag (http://lof.se). The funding bodies had no roles in design of the study, data collection, analysis, interpretation of data, or writing the manuscript. |
|
| Conflicts of interest: None to report. |
|
| Author contributions: E.W. was responsible for study design, data collection, data analysis, and drafting the manuscript. L.D. was responsible for data collection, data analysis of observations, interpreting the analysis, and drafting the manuscript. L.W. was responsible for interpreting the analysis and drafting the manuscript. B.G. was responsible for interpreting the analysis and drafting the manuscript. A.E.A. was responsible for study design, data collection, data analysis, and drafting the manuscript. |
Vol 47 - N° 3
P. 251-257 - mars 2019 Retour au numéro
Article précédent
- Elevating the standard of endoscope processing: Terminal sterilization of duodenoscopes using a hydrogen peroxide–ozone sterilizer
- Vanessa Molloy-Simard, Jean-Luc Lemyre, Karine Martel, Bradley J. Catalone
- Knowledge, perception, performance, and attitude regarding hand hygiene and related factors among infection control nurses in South Korea: A cross-sectional study
- Hyang Soon Oh
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?