Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T10:33:00.970Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices Regarding Contact Precautions Among Iranian Physicians

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Mehrdad Askarian ,
Ramin Shiraly ,
Kiarash Aramesh  and
Mary-Louise McLaws
Mehrdad Askarian*
Affiliation:
Department of Community Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
Ramin Shiraly
Affiliation:
Department of Community Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
Kiarash Aramesh
Affiliation:
Department of Community Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
Mary-Louise McLaws
Affiliation:
School of Public Health & Community Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
*
Department of Community Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, P.O. Box 71345-1737, Shiraz, Iran, ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

To assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of Iranian physicians regarding contact isolation precautions.

Design.

Data were collected between May and November 2002 using a cross-sectional survey design.

Setting.

Teaching hospitals in Shiraz, Iran.

Participants.

A total of 155 physicians: 78 attending clinicians and 77 resident physician surgeons or internists.

Results.

The mean scores for knowledge and attitude were acceptable, with 71% of physicians scoring the maximum for knowledge and 65% achieving the maximum scores for attitude, whereas the mean score for practice was low, with only 26% achieving the maximum score. A good level of knowledge be associated with a good attitude (odds ratio [OR], 68.4 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 20.0-285.6]; P< .001), good practices were associated with good knowledge (OR, 22.5 [95% CI, 7.1-91.3]; P< .001), and a good attitude was associated with good practice (OR, 20.0 [95% CI, 5.7-105.2]; P<.001).

Conclusion.

Although strong associations were found among knowledge, attitude, and practice, the level of compliance with precautions was not nearly as high as it should be.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 27 , Issue 8 , August 2006 , pp. 868 - 872
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Nishi, J, Yoshinaga, M, Miyanohara, H, et al. An epidemiologic survey of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus by combined use of MEC-HVR genotyping and toxin genotyping in a university hospital in Japan. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002; 23:506–510.Google Scholar
2. Vriens, MR, Fluit, AC, Troelstra, A, et al. Is methicillin resistant Staphylococcus more contagious than methicillin-susceptible S. aureus in a surgical intensive care unit? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002; 23:491–494.Google Scholar
3. Lai, KK, Fontecchio, SA, Kelley, AL, Baker, S, Melvin, ZS. The changing epidemiology of vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003; 24:264–268.Google Scholar
4. Salgado, C, Farr, BM. Outcome associated with vancomycin-resistant enterococci: a meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003; 24:690–698.Google Scholar
5. Muto, CA, Jernigan, JA, Ostrowsky, BE, et al. SHEA guideline for preventing nosocomial transmission of multidrug-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus . Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003; 24:362–386.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Richet, HM, Benbachir, M, Brown, OFJ, et al. Are there regional variations in the diagnosis, surveillance, and control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003; 24:334–341.Google Scholar
7. Ostrowsky, BE, Trick, WE, Sohn, AH, et al. Control of vancomycin-resistant enterococcus in health care facilities in a region. N Engl J Med 2001; 344:1427–1433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Fauerbach, L. Risk factors for infection transmission. In: APIC Text of Infection Control and Epidemiology. Washington, DC: APIC; 2002:4–1-4-9.Google Scholar
9. Bayers, KE, Anglim, AM, Anneski, CJ, et al. A hospital epidemic of vancomycin resistant enterococcus: risk factors and control. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2001; 22:140–147.Google Scholar
10. Saint, S, Higgins, LA, Nallamothu, BK, Chenoweth, C. Do physicians examine patients in contact isolation less frequently? A brief report. Am J Infect Control 2003; 31:354–356.Google Scholar
11. Kirkland, KB, Weinstein, JM. Adverse effects of contact isolation. Lancet 1999; 354:1177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. O'Boyle, C. Hand washing and skin preparation for invasive procedures. In: APIC Text of Infection Control and Epidemiology. Washington, DC: APIC; 2002:28–A1-28-A17.Google Scholar
13. Hinson, PL. Education and training. In: APIC Text of Infection Control and Epidemiology. Washington, DC: APIC; 2002:8–1-8-21.Google Scholar
14. Evans, HL, Shaffer, MM, Hughes, MG, et al. Contact isolation in surgical patients: a barrier to care? Surgery 2003; 134:180–188.Google Scholar
15. Watanakunakorn, C, Wang, C, Hazy, J. An observational study of handwashing and infection control practices by health care workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1998; 19:858–860.Google Scholar
16. Bolyard, EA, Tablan, OC, Williams, WW, et al. Guideline for infection control in healthcare personnel, 1998: hospital infection control practices advisory committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1998; 19:407–463.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Glover, TL. How drug-resistant microorganisms affect nursing. Orthop Nurs 2000; 19:19–28.Google Scholar