ArticleCureus2025
General Internal Assessment of Hand Hygiene Practices Among Diverse Healthcare Personnel in Critical Care and General Wards of a Tertiary Hospital.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHand hygiene (HH) is a key infection prevention and control (IPC) measure in departments at risk of infection, including pathology and the critical care department. Although the World Health Organization (WHO) has provided its framework of Five Moments of HH, the level of compliance among health workers is uneven. The purpose of this study was to audit HH practice among pathology staff in critical care and general wards through structured observational practice.
methodsIn this cross-sectional observational audit, based on the Five Moments of HH as established by the WHO, the performance of HH compliance was evaluated across various professional groups (medical staff, nursing, and allied health staff). A total of 1,730 HH opportunities were documented among 87 healthcare professionals over the period of six months. Compliance was analyzed by profession, ward type, and shift. While the predictors of compliance were assessed using logistic regression.
resultsTotal HH compliance observed was 62.4% (1,080/1,730). Physicians showed the highest compliance (263/348; 75.6%), followed by the allied health professionals (34/49; 69.4%), while nurses (598/1015; 58.9%) and laboratory technicians (185/318; 58.2%) demonstrated lower compliance rates (p<0.001). ICU staff were seen to comply significantly more often than general ward staff (246/346; 71.1% vs. 834/1,384; 60.3%, p<0.001). Compliance was highest during morning shifts (456/692; 65.9%) and lowest at night (246/415; 59.3%, p=0.047). Logistic regression confirmed that professional category, ward type, shift, staffing adequacy, and resource availability were independent predictors of compliance.
conclusionThe audit revealed moderate HH compliance with significant variation by professional categories and clinical areas. The implementation of behavior-specific interventions and real-time feedback on targeted IPC training is crucial to increase HH adherence and decrease the risk of contracting healthcare-associated infection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.