Major articleUnderstanding the current state of infection prevention to prevent Clostridium difficile infection: A human factors and systems engineering approach

- Clostridium difficile contact isolation precautions compliance was evaluated at 2 hospitals.
- A human factors engineering model for patient safety guided our evaluation.
- Full compliance with contact isolation precautions was low at both hospitals.
- No hand hygiene prior to room entry was the most common reason for noncompliance.
- Multiple work system components serve as barriers and facilitators to compliance.

BackgroundAchieving and sustaining high levels of health care worker (HCW) compliance with contact isolation precautions is challenging. The aim of this study was to determine HCW work system barriers to and facilitators of adherence to contact isolation for patients with suspected or confirmed Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) using a human factors and systems engineering approach.MethodsThis prospective cohort study took place between September 2013 and November 2013 at a large academic medical center (hospital A) and an affiliated Veterans Administration hospital (hospital B). A human factors engineering (HFE) model for patient safety, the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety model, was used to guide work system analysis and direct observation data collection. There were 288 observations conducted. HCWs and visitors were assessed for compliance with all components of contact isolation precautions (hand hygiene, gowning, and gloving) before and after patient contact. Time required to complete contact isolation precautions was measured, and adequacy of contact isolation supplies was assessed.ResultsFull compliance with contact isolation precautions was low at both hospitals A (7%) and B (22%). Lack of appropriate hand hygiene prior to room entry (compliance for hospital A: 18%; compliance for hospital B: 29%) was the most common reason for lack of full compliance. More time was required for full compliance compared with compliance with no components of contact isolation precautions before patient room entry, inside patient room, and after patient room exit (59.9 vs 3.2 seconds, P < .001; 507.3 vs 149.7 seconds, P = .006; 15.2 vs 1.3 seconds, P < .001, respectively). Compliance was lower when contact isolation supplies were inadequate (4% vs 16%, P = .005).ConclusionsAdherence to contact isolation precautions for CDI is a complex, time-consuming process. HFE analysis indicates that multiple work system components serve as barriers and facilitators to full compliance with contact isolation precautions and should be addressed further to prevent CDI.