Infection prevention as “a show”: A qualitative study of nurses’ infection prevention behaviours
Introduction
Infection control and prevention of healthcare associated infections are an essential part of healthcare. While there is a body of work that examines factors affecting compliance with guidelines and is aimed at predicting infection prevention behaviours, some behaviour that occurs in everyday practice remains unexplained (Pittet, 2004). Examining such behaviours may provide a key insight into the challenges of behaviour change and may ultimately inform new initiatives aimed at improving practice, increasing quality of patient care and enhancing infection prevention.
As far back as 1860, Florence Nightingale emphasised the importance of hygiene, cleanliness and standards of care, yet despite this infections in hospitals and other healthcare settings continue to be a major concern for health services (Department of Health (DH), 2009). While today's hospitals are much cleaner, safer places than in the 19th and early 20th centuries, dirt and infection still threaten patient safety (DH, 2009) through transmission within the hospital environment. However, despite current scientific knowledge and policies, beliefs and practices associated with cleanliness do not always accord with the implications of the ‘rational’ scientific approach or even immediate objective evidence (Morrow et al., 2011). For example, despite a clear recognition of the importance of hand washing in reducing transmission of microorganisms, compliance by health professionals is often poor and protective equipment is not always used appropriately (Pittet, 2000).
In 2011 the World Health Organisation (WHO, 2011) reported that healthcare associated infections accounted for 16 million additional days in hospital throughout Europe with total costs estimated at approximately €7 billion, while in the USA the estimated total cost per year was $6.5 billion. In the UK, the cost of treatment and management of healthcare associated infections has continued to rise with recent estimates of €53.9 million per year, attributed to the resulting increased length of stay (WHO, 2011).
In the first decade of the 21st century, the control of healthcare acquired infection, most notably the globally problematic meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), became a major focus of UK health policy as rates of infection were perceived to be too high (National Audit Office (NAO), 2009). Repeated UK government initiatives (DH, 2001a, DH, 2001b, DH, 2003, DH, 2004, DH, 2005, DH, 2007, DH, 2008) led to some reported improvements in control (NAO, 2009); however evidence suggests that infection spread continues to be poorly understood by healthcare workers and the general population, with practices not underpinned by sound knowledge and evidence (Easton et al., 2007, Nichols and Badger, 2008, Morrow et al., 2011). Furthermore, although the need to understand infection prevention behaviour has been identified as a key factor in improving practice and a significant step towards modifying behaviour (Pittet, 2004), little research has been undertaken regarding the motivation behind specific behaviours. Some studies have identified why certain procedures and practices are not carried out, for example handwashing, but few have considered workers’ behaviours as a whole or investigated the key determinants to behaviour and infection prevention practices (Pittet, 2004, Whitby et al., 2006).
Despite training and education, compliance with good practice remains variable. Evidence suggests this is affected by many factors, including perception of one's own practice and intention, motivation, perception of threat and social or peer pressure (Chan et al., 2002, Stein et al., 2003, Pittet, 2004, Akyol et al., 2006). Additionally, knowledge does not necessarily correlate with good practice; low compliance with standard precautions has been noted in those who reported a high level of conflict between providing patient care and the need to protect themselves (Gould, 2004). It has been argued that appropriate responses to infection only occur when there is a perceived risk and when efficacy is expected (Jenner et al., 2002). Jenner et al. (2002) cite self-protection as a motivating factor even when the main organisational purpose is patient protection and infection reduction. Personal responsibility and attitudes are predictors of intention to practice hand hygiene, with behaviour, to some extent, being predicted by perceived behaviour, control and intent (Jenner et al., 2002).
Behaviour, which is influenced by both rational and irrational thoughts, may therefore not be congruent with policy. Paradoxically, policies perceived as rational by government agencies may be adhered to even when healthcare workers believe they are not effective, or may be adapted to accommodate irrational fears (Kennedy et al., 2004). Any behaviour deemed inappropriate warrants further investigation and may require considerable examination and interpretation before the rationale behind it can be explained. Healthcare workers by the very nature of their role may find that their behaviour is influenced and conflicted by automated thinking and what is learnt through education and training, or seen in clinical practice (Curtis, 2007); this conflict may play a significant part in how they behave. Curtis (2007) discusses how disgust of dirt is part of human nature, with dirt and disgust both stemming from the cultural construction in which we live combined with an element of “gut feeling” (p 661). Similarly infection prevention and hygiene behaviours carried out by healthcare workers as a group may actually be a socially constructed concept which can be understood by identifying the interpretations, knowledge and reality that have informed the behaviour.
This paper presents one of three themes identified in a larger study that aimed to understand nurses’ infection prevention behaviours within acute hospitals by eliciting nurses’ explanations of observed behaviours. The main study gained insight into perceptions of risk regarding infection prevention, the behaviours nurses adopted to reduce risk and the belief systems they were operating from.
We present here one theme in which participants explained their own and others’ behaviours in different terms; specifically they could recognise inappropriate behaviour in others but not in themselves. There was a sense that participants were at ease rationalising their own behaviour but that they were unable to do this for others. The notion that a display or ‘show’ was being performed also emerged with some recognition from participants that this may be driven by both the desire to appear knowledgeable and an awareness of patient scrutiny. These findings, and the explanations they offer, have significant potential to impact and influence on nurses’ infection prevention behaviour (Jackson, 2011).
Section snippets
Methods
This interpretative qualitative study used in-depth interviews in order to explore nurses’ perceptions of risk and contagion, and the explanations they provided for their own and others’ behaviours. Twenty individual interviews were conducted over a 14 month period by CJ. Registered nurses, who were undertaking part-time post qualification education at university, were recruited. Inclusion criteria were, qualified for one year or more, working in an acute setting, not studying a course that had
Participants
Participants ranged in age from 24 to 53 years with the largest group (40%) being between 24 and 29 years. Thirteen women and seven men were interviewed. Level of previous nursing education was University diploma (roughly equivalent to an associate degree, 60%), bachelors degree (30%) and postgraduate degree (10%). Years of experience in nursing ranged from 1½ to 20.
Findings
The findings present the theme ‘Rationalising dirt related behaviours’. This theme, which has 3 subthemes, identifies important aspects of behaviour and considers participants’ explanations and rationalisation of these; both their own and that of others they reported observing. Participants explained their own and others’ behaviours in different terms; significantly they could recognise inappropriate behaviour in others but not in themselves. There was a sense that participants were at ease
Discussion
For participants it seemed important that their own good practice and presentation were acknowledged in the first instance before any further discussion regarding inappropriate behaviour or less desirable practice could be considered. This presentation of self in the initial stages of the interview has some links with Goffman's (1959) work on presentation of self in everyday life which discusses how those providing a service present themselves in their role and give a particular impression. For
Limitations
It is acknowledged that self report of practice is flawed, particularly in relation to infection prevention, as espoused practice and actual practice can differ significantly (Jenner et al., 2006, Nichols and Badger, 2008). However this study is strengthened by the use of vignettes which can reduce socially desirable responses (Hughes and Huby, 2002). By allowing participants to discuss their own practice, the practice of others and the vignette character, some of the potential for the
Conclusions
This paper shows that infection prevention behaviours among nurses can be understood though a lens of social theory. Nurses make judgements about their own infection prevention behaviours which permit deviations from policy because of post hoc rationalisation whereby the behaviour is reinterpreted in the light of motivation and intentions. Consequently the transgression is not registered as such. Judgements about the behaviours of others differ and others’ practice was explained as being at a
References (39)
- et al.
Handwashing: a simple, economical and effective method for preventing nosocomial infections in intensive care units
Journal of Hospital Infection
(2006) - et al.
Nurses’ knowledge of and compliance with universal precautions in an acute care hospital
International Journal of Nursing
(2002) - et al.
Infection control and management of MRSA: assessing the knowledge of staff in an acute hospital setting
Journal of Hospital Infection
(2007) - et al.
Discrepancy between self-reported and observed hand hygiene behaviour in healthcare professionals
Journal of Hospital Infection
(2006) - et al.
“Somebody else's problem”: staff attributions of cause and risk of meticillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus
American Journal of Infection Control
(2011) The Lowbury lecture: behaviour in infection control
Journal of Hospital Infection
(2004)- et al.
A survey of doctors’ and nurses’ attitudes and compliance with infection control guidelines in Birmingham teaching hospitals
Journal of Hospital Infection
(2003) Dirt, disgust and disease: a natural history of hygiene
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
(2007)The epic project: developing national evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare associated infections
Journal of Hospital Infection
(2001)Standard Principles for Preventing Hospital-acquired Infections
(2001)
Winning Ways: Working together to reduce Healthcare Associated Infection in England
Towards Cleaner Hospitals and Lower Infection Rates
Saving Lives: A Delivery Programme to Reduce Healthcare Associated Infection (HCAI) Including MRSA
Saving Lives: Reducing Infection, Delivering Clean and Safe Care
Clean, Safe Care, Reducing Infections and Saving Lives
The Health and Social Care Act 2008. Code of Practice for Health and Adult Social Care on the Prevention and Control of Infections and Related Guidance
Purity and danger – An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo
Practicing Clinical Supervision: A Reflective Approach
On becoming a critically reflective practitioner
Health Information and Libraries Journal
Cited by (42)
Burdens of infection control on healthcare workers: a scoping review
2024, Journal of Hospital InfectionThe role of online marketing to engage healthcare workers with infection prevention and control information and resources: A pilot study
2023, Infection, Disease and HealthChallenges undertaking procedures requiring asepsis: a qualitative interview study with nurses
2023, Journal of Hospital InfectionCitation Excerpt :Ours is not the first study to establish a ‘blame culture’ when nurses describe barriers and enablers to implementing infection prevention strategies. Other authors have remarked on a tendency for individuals to present themselves as competent and knowledgeable about infection prevention while criticising colleagues [25,26]. Informants in our study expressed a need for more detailed guidance and better preparation to undertake PRAs, corroborating a growing body of opinion and research [6–9,23,24].
Paediatric nurses’, children's and parents’ adherence to infection prevention and control and knowledge of antimicrobial stewardship: A systematic review
2021, American Journal of Infection ControlCitation Excerpt :Similarly, Bouchoucha et al.76 reported that nurses would regularly deviate from standard precautions based on their own assessments of the circumstances or the patient. Jackson et al. and Kilpatrick et al.32, 78 both found that standard precaution guidelines and PPE were used by nurses as a means of self-protection if the nurse judged the patient as “dirty”. Macqueen showed that elements of disgust (described as degree of perceived “dirtiness,” such as considering some types of body fluids dirtier than others) can occur in the paediatric population, despite studies showing that children are considered to be cleaner than adults.25
Nurses' and midwives’ cleaning knowledge, attitudes and practices: An Australian study
2021, Infection, Disease and HealthWhy do nurses miss infection control activities? A qualitative study
2020, CollegianCitation Excerpt :Respondents to this study also viewed lack of knowledge or poor application of knowledge as a factor in infection control activities being missed. This is contrary to previous studies which have found that while poor understanding of infection transmission may be a factor in poor compliance with infection prevention guidelines other issues such as perception of level of risk, peer pressure, perception of one’s practice and motivation may result in infection precautions being missed despite level of knowledge (Jackson, Lowton, & Griffith, 2014). Our respondents argue that infection control activities can be missed due to poor understanding of guidelines, acceptance of HAI and failure to identify the risk associated with poor performance of the fundamentals of care.