FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

Educational technologies for teaching hand hygiene: Systematic review

by Daiane Rubinato Fernandes, Bruna Nogueira dos Santos, Carolina Scoqui Guimarães, Elaine Barros Ferreira, Amanda Salles Margatho, Paula Elaine Diniz dos Reis, Didier Pittet, Renata Cristina de Campos Pereira Silveira

Aim

To gather available scientific evidence on technologies used to teach hand hygiene to professional populations and lays involved in health care in the hospital setting. This systematic review was designed as proposed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis, included studies reporting primary, original, quantitative research findings with no date limit and written in English, Spanish or Portuguese. The search was performed in the following electronic databases: Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde, US National Library of Medicine, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar and ProQuest. The eligibility criteria were applied independently by two reviewers to select the studies, first by reading the titles and abstracts on the Rayyan platform and then by full text reading of the eligible studies. After a descriptive analysis, the studies were subjected to critical evaluation of their methodological quality using JBI tools.

Results

Seven studies were included, addressing various methods for teaching hand hygiene using different technological resources, such as audiovisual electronic devices, videos, virtual reality, and gamification using tablets and smartphones, in different populations.

Conclusion

Using technologies to teach hand hygiene considerably helps patients, visitors, and relatives in learning the procedures and efficiently improves hand hygiene compliance rates among healthcare professionals, creating evidence-based repetitive learning opportunities for patients and caregivers.

Prevalence of adverse events in pronated intubated adult COVID‐19 patients: A systematic review with meta‐analysis

Abstract

Aim

To present the pooled estimated prevalence of adverse events in pronated intubated adult COVID-19 patients.

Design

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources

This study used the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Embase, LILACS, Livivo, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases as data sources.

Methods

The studies were meta-analysed using JAMOVI 1.6.15 software. A random-effects model was used to identify the global prevalence of adverse events, confidence intervals and the heterogeneity data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool, and the certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

Results

Of the 7904 studies identified, 169 were included for full reading, and 10 were included in the review. The most prevalent adverse events were pressure injuries (59%), haemodynamic instability (23%), death (17%) and device loss or traction (9%).

Conclusion

The most prevalent adverse events in mechanically ventilated pronated patients with COVID-19 are pressure injuries, presence of haemodynamic instability, death and device loss or traction.

Implications for the patient care

The evidence identified in this review can help improve the quality and safety of patient care by helping to design care protocols to avoid the development of adverse events that can cause permanent sequelae in these patients.

Impact

This systematic review addressed the adverse events related to prone position in intubated adult COVID-19 patients. We identified that the most prevalent adverse events in these patients were pressure injuries, haemodynamic instability, device loss or traction and death. The results of this review may influence the clinical practice of nurses who work in intensive care units and, consequently, the nursing care provided not only to COVID-19 patients but for all intubated patients due to other reasons in intensive care units.

Reporting method

This systematic review adhered to the PRISMA reporting guideline.

Patient or public contribution

As this is a systematic review, we analysed data from primary studies conducted by many researchers. Thus, there was no patient or public contribution in this review.

❌