American Journal of Infection Control 48 (2020) 1204−1210

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

American Journal of Infection Control

journal homepage: www.ajicjournal.org

Major Article

Effectiveness of implementing link nurses and audits and feedback to

improve nurses’ compliance with standard precautions: A cluster
randomized controlled trial
Daniele Donati RN, MSN a,*, Ginevra Azzurra Miccoli MD, PhD b, Claudia Cianfrocca RN, MSN a,
Enrico Di Stasio MD c, Maria Grazia De Marinis RN, MSN d, Daniela Tartaglini RN, MSN d
a
Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, Tor Vergata University of Rome, Rome, Italy
b
Infection Prevention and Control Team, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Rome, Italy
c
Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
Institute of Biochemistry and Clinical Biochemistry, Universita
d
Research Unit Nursing Science, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Rome, Italy

Key Words: Background: To prevent health care-associated infections, health organizations recommend that health care
Health care-associated infections workers stringently observe standard precautions (SPs). Nevertheless, compliance with SPs is still suboptimal,
Improvement intervention emphasizing the need for improvement interventions.
Nursing Methods: A cluster randomized controlled trial with a pretest-post-test design was conducted with 121 clinical
Patient safety
nurses who worked in different wards of a university hospital. The intervention group (n = 61) had 3 infection
Occupational health
control link nurses nominated and attended systematic audits and feedback. The control group (n = 60)
Infection control
received only the standard multimodal approach used in the hospital. Pre- and post-test assessment of
SPs compliance was performed via the World Health Organization observational hand hygiene form and
Compliance with Standard Precaution Scale Italian version.
Results: At the post-test, nurses in the intervention group reported significantly increased compliance with
hand hygiene, whereas no significant improvement was found in the control group. Nurses in both groups
reported significantly increased Compliance with Standard Precaution Scale Italian version scores; however,
a higher increase and practical significance was observed in the intervention group. Participants who
improved their scores were also compared between groups, showing a significantly greater increase of
individual scores in intervention group compared to the control group.
Conclusions: The findings of this study provide significant practical implications for hospitals seeking to
improve compliance with SPs among nurses, showing the effectiveness of using infection control link nurses
combined with systematic audits and feedback.
© 2020 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All
rights reserved.

Health care-associated infections (HAIs) are one of the most
important threats in public health worldwide.1-3 These infections
represent the most frequent adverse event in health care and are
associated with patients’ mortality and morbidity, longer hospital
stays, increased health care costs, and psychosocial and economic
burdens on the individuals involved, their families, and their
* Address correspondence to Daniele Donati, RN, MSN, Department of Biomedicine
and Prevention, Tor Vergata University of Rome, Via Montpellier 1, Rome 00133, Italy
E-mail address: d.donati@unicampus.it (D. Donati).
Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the
public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector.
Conflicts of interest: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
communities.3,4 According to the World Health Organization
(WHO), an HAI is an infection that is acquired by a patient during
the process of care that was not present or incubating on admission.
Furthermore, they include occupational infections among health
care workers (HCWs).3
It was estimated that in acute care hospitals, out of every 100
patients, seven in developed and 15 in developing countries will
acquire at least 1 HAI.1,3 Worldwide, it was also estimated that more
than 3 million HCWs experience the stressful event of a percutaneous
injury with a contaminated sharp object each year, with the danger-
ous risk of contracting blood-borne infections.5 Nurses are among the
most involved in such occupational injuries,6,7 perhaps because the
direct, repeated, and longer duration of nursing care8,9 leads to a

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2020.01.017
0196-6553/© 2020 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 D. Donati et al. / American Journal of Infection Control 48 (2020) 1204−1210 1205

potentially greater risk of exposure to microorganisms associated Several studies reported the range of benefits from introducing
with cross-infections.10 ICLNs to decrease HAIs30,31 and using audits and feedback to achieve
Infectious agents are most frequently spread by direct contact different infection prevention and control goals,32-35 but to our
with contaminated hands or indirect contact via contaminated knowledge, no study has been conducted to improve compliance
objects, such as patient care equipment, HCWs’ uniforms, and envi- with SPs by combining both strategies. Therefore, the aim of this
ronmental surfaces. Factors related to patients’ characteristics (eg, study was to assess the effectiveness of implementing ICLNs and sys-
compromised immune system, exposure to invasive procedures) tematic audits and feedback to improve clinical nurses’ compliance
and HCWs’ practices (eg, hand hygiene, needle management, personal with SPs. We made the following hypotheses: nurses who complete
protective equipment [PPE] use) contribute to HAIs.11,12 the intervention will have a higher observed compliance with hand
In 1996, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention intro- hygiene and greater self-reported compliance with SPs guidelines
duced guidelines, called “Standard Precautions” (SPs), as practical compared with the control group.
guidelines to prevent transmission of microorganisms in health care
settings.12 SPs refer to a system of actions that applies to all patients,
METHODS
regardless of their known or presumed infectious status, and repre-
sent the basic practices for infection prevention and control. These
This study was approved by the medical directorate of the uni-
practices include but are not limited to appropriate hand hygiene,
versity hospital. The participants were informed about the study
use of gloves and other PPE, appropriate cleaning and disinfection
and received clear explanations about its objectives and methods.
of patient care equipment and environmental surfaces, correct
Explicit informed consent was required of all participants. Permis-
waste disposal, and correct management of used needles and other
sion to reproduce the CSPS Italian version (CSPS-It) was obtained
sharp objects.11,12
from the author of the original English version (APPROVAL CODE:
To ensure staff and patient safety, health organizations worldwide
C999N99201901).
have recommended, with periodic updates, a stringent observance of
SPs.12-14 Nevertheless, compliance with these measures is still subop-
Study design
timal among HCWs.10,15-17 Recent literature from different countries
(Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Hong Kong, Italy) reported that clinical nurses’
A cluster randomized controlled trial with a pretest-post-test
compliance with SPs, measured via the same self-assessment instru-
design was used. There was no random assignment for participants,
ment used in this study (Compliance with Standard Precaution Scale
but groups were formed by randomly combining different hospital
[CSPS]18,19), ranged from 57.4% in Hong Kong to 69.9% in Italy.16,20,21
wards. This design was appropriate to generate an experimental
Examples of inadequate compliance include failures of hand hygiene,
group of nurses exposed to the intervention and a second control
inappropriate PPE use, and ineffective needle management.16 The
group of nurses who received no intervention and maintained their
main factors that can affect nurses’ compliance with SPs are inadequate
usual practice.
infrastructure, poor knowledge, lack of proper training, insufficient or
In the intervention group, one nurse per ward was selected and
not readily available PPE, their own risk behaviors, inadequate working
trained as an ICLN with the aim to promote SP guidelines for their
conditions (lack of time, work overload), emergencies, insufficient
team and collect internal observational data. ICLNs reported and dis-
management support, and poor safety climate.17,22-25
cussed data with their respective teams quarterly, performing audits
A recent systematic literature review on the interventions
and feedback. The head nurse and hospital infection control nurse
directed to HCWs to improve compliance with SPs reports unclear
(ICN) participated in every audit and feedback session.
evidence as to which interventions should be recommended, and
The control group received only the standard multimodal
it encourages health organizations to develop, implement, and
approach used in the hospital, which included an annual educational
evaluate interventions relevant for their needs.14 The most used
and interactive training open to all health care professionals, colored
were education, education with infection control support, peer
cues, campaigns (particularly for hand hygiene), and monitoring and
evaluation, audits and feedback, link professionals, and checklists
feedback activities.
and colored cues.14 With the need to implement and closely follow
Pretest assessment of SPs compliance was performed in March
a new strategy to achieve greater clinical nurses’ compliance with
2018 with the WHO observational hand hygiene form36 and the self-
SPs, the infection control team of the hospital where this study
assessment instrument CSPS-It.16,18,19 The intervention started in
was conducted, considering current literature and resources, chose
April 2018 and lasted 12 months. In April 2019, a post-test evaluation
to plan an intervention that combined link professionals and audits
was performed that collected the data with the same instrument and
and feedback.
method used for the pretest phase.
The link professional strategy was mainly applied by health
organizations, which implemented infection control link nurses
(ICLNs) who were targeted to build a link between the infection Sample and setting
control department and clinical wards, with the aim to improve
infection control practices.26,27 According to the Royal College of The study was conducted at a university hospital in Rome, Italy
Nursing, the role of the ICLN was defined with 4 core themes: “act that has about 280 beds and is funded by the National Health System.
as a role model and visible advocate, enable individuals and teams We adopted a purposive sampling strategy. Six medical-surgical
to learn and develop infection prevention and control practice, act wards, similar in terms of nursing care provided, patient types and
as a local communicator, and support in audit and surveillance.”28 work organization, were selected; 3 were randomly assigned to the
Infection control teams can follow and support ICLNs’ activities, intervention group and 3 to the control group. Random selection was
planning systematic audits and feedback as a part of the program. conducted using a simple randomization technique, based on single
Audits and feedback were defined as a strategy based on the sequence random assignment. All allocations of units randomized
belief that health care professionals are prompted to modify their were possible.
practices when given performance feedback showing that their clin- One hundred and twenty-six nurses who worked in the identified
ical practice is inconsistent with a desirable target.29 This strategy wards were involved in the study, 64 in the intervention group and
has been considered relevant to improving the professional practice 62 in the control group. Three participants from the intervention
and behavior of health care professionals.29 group and 2 from the control group were lost to follow-up during the
1206 D. Donati et al. / American Journal of Infection Control 48 (2020) 1204−1210
study due to maternity leave and changes in the work setting. Figure 1
presents a flowchart of the sampling process.
Intervention
The intervention group had 3 ICLNs nominated, one per ward,
who were identified by the respective head nurses for their avail-
ability and predisposition to the role. The ICLNs attended a specific
3-hour interactive training program held by the hospital’s ICN, who
was also a university lecturer. The program included, in addition to
basic ideas of infection control and SP guidelines, teaching and relational
skills and a clear definition of the role and duty of the ICLN following the
framework proposed by the Royal College of Nursing.28
The training was explained, and it provided a practical observa-
tional checklist that aimed to assess common SPs in the daily nursing
routine, such as hand hygiene, use of protective devices, disposal of
sharps and waste, and decontamination of spills and used articles.
This instrument was in line with the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and WHO SPs guidelines and the local infection control
policies.
Ongoing training and coaching was also provided to the ICLNs.
The hospital ICN was available during working time for the entire
period of the intervention by telephone, email, and planned short
meetings. The ICLNs’ training and involvement always took place
during paid working time.
The head nurses were responsible for promoting the ICLNs’ activ-
ity among their respective teams and organizing their shift work to
support, for example, their educational and surveillance activities.
The ICLNs were asked to collect observational data for their team
using the checklist provided during the training session. This data
collection was mentioned to the ward nurses, who also knew which
items were investigated.
Data collected by the ICLNs were discussed among the respective
teams in the presence of the head nurse and the ICN (a member of
the hospital's infection control committee) every 3 months by orga-
nizing a 30-minute audit and feedback, repeated on 3 different days,
near the end of the morning shift, in order to encourage the presence
of the most possible nurses on the team. During the audit and feed-
back, the successes and critical issues encountered were discussed to
Fig 1. Flowchart.
support continuous improvement of the compliance rates registered
by the ICLN. The team positioning with respect to the compliance
goals and previous collected data were always shown and delivered
in written format.
During the audit, the hospital ICN, as an expert with a position of
seniority, also reinforced the rationale of maintaining an optimal
level of compliance with SPs during clinical practice, particularly for
goals that were more critical, and also provided educational material
to the staff. Head nurses had to consider and address any critical
organizational problems reported by the participants during the
audit.
Measure
We used direct observation of compliance with hand hygiene and
the self-reported compliance with SPs.
A nurse collaborator of the hospital ICN, who was blinded to the
purpose of the study, collected direct observational data in each
group before and after the intervention using the WHO form based
on the “My Five Moments for Hand Hygiene.”36 To support the reli-
ability of the resulting scores the observer was previously trained in
the observation technique. Moreover, the observation form for data
collection included only operationalized behavior categories.
The observations were collected during the morning shift in slots
of 20 minutes per ward on 3 alternate days (Monday-Wednesday-
Friday). This timing was established by the head nurses of the wards
to observe the greatest variety of nurses in the respective teams.
Participants were always made aware of the observer activity (open
observation) and that any observation was registered anonymously.
Direct observation data were calculated as a percentage (number of
instances of hand hygiene performed/number of hand hygiene
opportunities).36
Self-reported compliance with SPs was collected using the CSPS-It.
Participants were invited to complete the CSPS-It and a sociodemo-
graphic questionnaire through an online survey. The psychometric
properties of the original English tool and its Italian version were
comprehensively evaluated with satisfactory results in previous
studies.16,18,19 In particular, CSPS-It showed a sound internal consis-
tency and reliability (Cronbach’s a, 0.84; item-total correlation,
 D. Donati et al. / American Journal of Infection Control 48 (2020) 1204−1210 1207

0.311-0.608; intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.86). The scale’s con-
tent validity was 0.95, and its construct validity was successfully
verified testing a unidimensional model in confirmatory factor
analysis.16
The scale is composed of 20 items describing the use of protective
devices, disposal of sharp instruments and waste, decontamination
of spills and used articles, and prevention of cross-infection. The
CSPS-It includes both positively and negatively worded statements
that can be answered with a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(never) to 4 (always). To compute the total score, item scores were
summed together: only the maximum compliance option (“always”
for positive items and “never” for negative items) was scored 1, while
the other options were scored 0. Thus, the total score can range from
0 to 20, with higher values indicating better compliance. In addition,
it was possible to calculate the average compliance rate for each
item, which is the percentage of maximum compliance among all
participants.16,18,19
Participant characteristics
The following sociodemographic data were collected: gender, age,
education, clinical experience, SPs training during the last two years,
and motivation to be trained.
Data analysis
Statistical analysis was performed with the Statistical Package
for Social Science (SPSS), release 15.0. Continuous variables were
expressed as mean § SD and categorical variables displayed as fre-
quencies. All data were first analyzed for normality of distribution
using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of normality. Differences
between groups and timing differences were compared by means of
the Student's t test, paired t test, and x2test, as appropriate, and the
corresponding effect size (ES) calculated. A P value of less than .05
was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS
Participant characteristics
of the sample achieved one or more first-level professional master
programs, and almost 10% of participants had a master's degree or a
higher. Participants’ average clinical experience was 7.5 § 5.5 years.
Just over 70% of participants had attended at least 1 training course
on SPs during the last 2 years, and just over 60% had a motivation to
participate. Potential confounding factors of nurses in the experimental
and control group are shown in Table 1. No significant differences in
terms of demographic and professional characteristics were observed.
Baseline assessment
The baseline assessment did not show significant differences
between control and intervention group outcomes. The percentage
of hand hygiene compliance in the control group was 61.9%, while it
was 63% in the intervention group (Table 2). The average pretested
CSPS-It total score in the control group was 13.95 § 3.31 (a compli-
ance rate of 69.8%), while it was 13.92 § 2.72 for the intervention
group (a compliance rate of 69.6%; Table 3).
Hand hygiene stratified by the WHO 5 moments reveals a lower
compliance with moment 5 (“after touching patient surroundings”;
compliance = 51.2%; number of observations = 41) and moment 1
(“before touching a patient”; compliance = 54.1%; number of observa-
tions = 61). Higher compliance was found for moment 4 (“after touching
a patient”; compliance = 69.1%; number of observations = 68), moment
2 (“before a clean/aseptic procedure”; compliance = 70%; number of
observations = 20), and moment 3 (“after body fluid exposure risk”;
compliance 74.2%; number of observations = 31).
The CSPS-It items compliance rate varied from 38.8% to 90.9%. The
3 items with lowest compliance rate were “I take a shower in case of
extensive splashing even after I have put on PPE” (38.8%), “The sharps
box is only disposed when it is full” (46.3%), and “I wear a gown or
apron when exposed to blood, body fluids, or any patient excretions”
(53.7%). Five items showed a ceiling effect because the endorsement in
the upper extreme responses was >80%37: “I put used sharp articles
into sharps boxes” (90.9%), “I wear gloves when I am exposed to body
fluids, blood products, and any excretion of patients” (90.1%), “My
mouth and nose are covered when I wear a mask” (89.3%), “I wear
gloves to decontaminate used equipment with visible soils” (89.3%),
and “I change gloves between each patient contact” (87.6%).

The sample included all 121 clinical nurses working in the hospi- Intervention result
tal wards where the study was conducted. All subjects enrolled in
the study completed the CSPS-It. The majority of the sample was Pre- and postintervention within-group comparisons were ana-
female (88.4%), and the average age was 29.9 § 5.5 years. About 40% lyzed (Tables 2 and 3). Nurses in the intervention group reported

Table 1
Demographic characteristics of the sample (n = 121)

Participants Control group Intervention group

Variables (n = 121) (%) (n = 60) (%) (n = 61) (%) P Value ES

Sex .802 0.10

Male 14 (11.6) 6 (10) 8 (13.1)
Female 107 (88.4) 54 (90) 53 (86.9)
Age (years) 29.9 §5.5 29.5 §4.7 30.3 §6.2 .467 0.15
Education .691 0.08
Degree 61 (50.4) 32 (53.3) 29 (47.5)
Master 49 (40.5) 22 (36.7) 27 (44.3)
Master’s degree 11 (9.1) 6 (10) 5 (8.2)
Clinical experience (years) 7.5 §5.5 7.4 §5.1 7.6 §5.9 .917 0.04
SPs training* .732 0.10
Yes 86 (71.1) 44 (73.3) 42 (68.9)
No 35 (28.9) 16 (26.7) 19 (31.1)
Motivation to be trained .501 0.16
Yes 74 (61.2) 39 (65) 35 (57.4)
No 47 (38.8) 21 (35) 26 (42.6)
Note: Values are presented as mean § standard deviation or n (%).
*Participation at least in 1 training course on SPs during the last 2 years.
1208 D. Donati et al. / American Journal of Infection Control 48 (2020) 1204−1210
Table 2
Intervention data (observed compliance with hand hygiene)
Control group
Pretest Post-test
Variable (n = 113)* (n = 117)*
Hand hygiene compliancez 70 (61.9) 76 (65.0)
Pretest control vs intervention group: P = .986; ES = 0.02
Post-test control vs intervention group: P = .058; ES = 0.27
Note: Values are presented as n (%).
*Number of hand hygiene opportunities.
z
Number of instances of hand hygiene performed.
significantly increased compliance with the WHO 5 moments of hand
hygiene (63% vs 77.3%, P = .031, ES = 0.31 “small”), whereas no signifi-
cant improvement was found in the control group (61.9% vs 65%,
P = .736, ES = 0.06 “very small”; Table 2). The main improvement was
registered in compliance with the moment 1 (“before touching a
patient”), which increased from 53.3% (number of observations = 30)
to 71.9% (number of observations = 32) in the intervention group.
Nurses in the control and intervention groups reported signifi-
cantly increased CSPS-It scores; however, a higher increase and
practical significance was observed in the intervention group
(Table 2). The control group increased from 13.95 § 3.31 to 14.32 §
3.05 (P < .01; ES = 0.11 “very small”), while the intervention group
increased from 13.92 § 2.72 to 15.43 § 2.22 (P < .01; ES = 0.61
“medium”). The post-test CSPS-It total compliance rate was 71.6% in
the control group and 77.2% in the intervention group.
Participants who improved their scores were also compared
between groups, showing a significantly greater increase of individ-
ual scores for the intervention group compared to the control group
(80.3% vs 35%, P < .01; ES = 0.95 “large”; Table 3). The 3 CSPS-It items
that registered the highest compliance rate improvement in the
intervention group were “waste contaminated with blood, body flu-
ids, secretion, and excretion are placed in red plastic bags irrespective
of patient’s infective status” (from 57.4% to 78.7%), “the sharps box is
only disposed when it is full” (from 45.9% to 63.9%), and “I wear a
gown or apron when exposed to blood, body fluids, or any patient
excretions” (from 50.8% to 67.2%).
DISCUSSION
This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of ICLNs and system-
atic audits and feedback in improving clinical nurses’ compliance
with SPs. Although SP guidelines represent the foundation of best
practices in infection prevention and control, data reported by the
nurses involved in this study, especially in the pretest assessment,
revealed a compliance gap. At the pretest assessment, the overall
compliance rate was lower than 65% from direct observation of hand
Table 3
Intervention data (self-reported compliance with SPs)
Control group
Pretest Post-test
Variable (n = 60) (n = 60)
CSPS-It total score* 13.95 § 3.31 14.32 §3.05
Participants who improved their score 21 (35.0)
Pretest control vs intervention group: P = .954; ES = 0.01
Post-test control vs intervention group: P = .024; ES = 0.42
Note: Values are presented as mean § standard deviation or n (%).
*Score ranges from 0 to 20.
Intervention group
Pretest Post-test
(n = 108)* (n = 110)*
P = .736 68 (63.0) 85 (77.3) P = .031
ES = 0.06 ES = 0.31
hygiene and lower than 70% on the CSPS-It in both groups. These
findings were in line with several previous studies that reported sub-
optimal nurses’ compliance with SP guidelines.8,16,20,21
We hypothesize from our data that 1 factor related to this subop-
timal compliance could be the missed SPs cyclical training reported
by participants. In fact, as regards nurses’ characteristics, this study
revealed that over a quarter of participants did not attend a SPs train-
ing course during the last 2 years but also that a relevant subset were
motivated to participate in one. Our hospital repeated the annual
training for at least 5 dates, but this was insufficient to ensure nurses’
easy access. Managers should regularly encourage and facilitate
nurses’ participation in training programs aimed to reduce the the-
ory-practice gap that affects compliance. Providing all HCWs with
ongoing education and training was also recommended as an impor-
tant standard of hospital quality,38 and it was demonstrated that
nurses’ participation in such a course could positively influence their
compliance with SPs.10,16,39
This study evaluated an improvement intervention designed in
consideration of the current evidence and hospital resources, as sug-
gested by a previous study.14 The research hypotheses of this study
were supported, and the implemented intervention was considered
effective in improving compliance with SPs among clinical nurses.
Hand hygiene compliance and CSPS-It total score were significantly
increased in the intervention group. Regarding hand hygiene, observed
compliance with the first moment (“before touching a patient”) had
the greatest increase. With respect to CSPS-It items, the proper use
of PPE, the correct disposal of sharps boxes, and the correct disposal
of contaminated waste had a major increase in the respective
scores. Pre- and post-test CSPS-It total scores were also compared at
the individual level between groups, showing that more than three-
quarters of participants in the intervention group improved their
total scores, significantly more than participants in the control
group did.
Although this study was the first to combine such interventions
and outcomes, other authors supported the effectiveness of ICLNs
and audits and feedback in improving infection control practices. For
Intervention group
Pretest Post-test
(n = 61) (n = 61)
P < .001 13.92 § 2.72 15.43 § 2.22 P < .001
ES = 0.12 ES = 0.61
49 (80.3) P < .001
ES = 0.96
 D. Donati et al. / American Journal of Infection Control 48 (2020) 1204−1210
example, Sopirala and colleagues described that an ICLN program
effectively reduced HAIs and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus in a university hospital setting,31 while in a systematic
review, Gould and colleagues found that regular performance feed-
back combined with the strategies promoted by the WHO may
slightly improve compliance with hand hygiene recommendations
and reduce the infection rate.35
In this study, it was pivotal that all leadership levels recognized
and supported ICLNs’ strategic position in supporting the implemen-
tation of SPs in favor of occupational health and patient safety, as is
also supported by a previous study.30 Audits and feedback were used
as a synergistic strategy to allow the hospital infection control team
to follow and support the effectiveness of the ICLNs’ improvement
activities. To ensure a better audit and feedback process, performance
data over time were regularly reported to, delivered to, and discussed
by the team; the hospital ICN (supervisor) was always present; an
audit was provided more than once; and explicit targets and action
plans were provided. According to the literature, these steps were
relevant to positively impacting the compliance of health care
professionals via the audit and feedback approach.29
LIMITATIONS
This study has limitations. It was conducted in a single center and
did not examine the long-term effects of the implemented interven-
tion. This limits the findings’ generalizability and reliability over
time. Moreover, assignment bias was possible, since the participants
were not randomly assigned to groups. However, to be more confi-
dent of our findings, sociodemographic and professional characteris-
tics were tested, showing no statistical or practical significance in
differences between subgroups. The pretest assessment was also
compared, showing that the groups were similar with respect to the
dependent variable. Other possible confounding factors, arising from
patients, wards and timings were not analyzed.
CONCLUSIONS
Compliance with SPs among nurses continues to show room for
improvement. This issue represents an important priority to achieve
effective infection prevention and control in health organizations.
The findings of this study provide significant practical implications
for hospitals seeking to improve compliance with SPs among clinical
nurses, showing the effectiveness of using ICLNs combined with sys-
tematic audits and feedback. No other trials implemented and evalu-
ated the same intervention strategy; therefore, further research
should be conducted to extend this evidence. This study could inform
initiatives to improve compliance with SPs and safety in nursing care.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank S. C. Lam (CSPS original author) for the permission
to use the CSPS-It.
References
1. Allegranzi B, Bagheri Nejad S, Combescure C, et al. Burden of endemic health-care-
associated infection in developing countries: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Lancet Lond Engl. 2011;377:228–241.
2. van Mourik MSM, Perencevich EN, Gastmeier P, Bonten MJM. Designing surveil-
lance of healthcare-associated infections in the era of automation and reporting
mandates. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66:970–976.
3. World Health Organization. Report on the burden of endemic health care-associated
infection worldwide. [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2019 Oct 21]. Available at: http://apps.
who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/80135/9789241501507_eng.pdf;jsessioni
d=8E9A31DDBE986A2EEAEC6F4FAB2C270C?sequence=1. Accessed January 15,
2018.
1209
4. Andersson AE, Bergh I, Karlsson J, Nilsson K. Patients’ experiences of acquiring a deep
surgical site infection: an interview study. Am J Infect Control. 2010;38:711–717.
5. Pru € ss-Ustu
€ n A, Rapiti E, Hutin Y. Estimation of the global burden of disease attrib-
utable to contaminated sharps injuries among health-care workers. Am J Ind Med.
2005;48:482–490.
6. Çiçek-Şentu€ rk G, Tekin A, Gu
€ rbu
€ z Y, et al. Retrospective investigation of 9 years of
data on needlestick and sharps injuries: effect of a hospital infection control com-
mittee. Am J Infect Control. 2019;47:186–190.
7. Saia M, Hofmann F, Sharman J, et al. Needlestick injuries: incidence and cost in the
United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, and Spain. Biomed Int.
2010;1:41–49.
8. Doronina O, Jones D, Martello M, Biron A, Lavoie-Tremblay M. A systematic review
on the effectiveness of interventions to improve hand hygiene compliance of
nurses in the hospital setting. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2017;49:143–152.
9. Melia KM. When the body is past fixing: caring for bodies, caring for people. J Clin
Nurs. 2014;23:616–622.
10. Luo Y, He G-P, Zhou J-W, Luo Y. Factors impacting compliance with standard pre-
cautions in nursing, China. Int J Infect Dis. 2010;14:e1106–e1114.
11. Public Health Agency of Canada. Routine practices and additional precautions for
preventing the transmission of infection in healthcare settings. [Internet]. 2013 [cited
2019 Jun 14]. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/docu
ments/services/publications/diseases-conditions/routine-practices-precautions-
healthcare-associated-infections/routine-practices-precautions-healthcare-asso
ciated-infections-2016-FINAL-eng.pdf. Accessed January 18, 2018.
12. Siegel JD, Rhinehart E, Jackson M, Chiarello L, Health Care Infection Control Practi-
ces Advisory Committee. 2007 Guideline for isolation precautions: preventing
transmission of infectious agents in health care settings. Am J Infect Control.
2007;35(Suppl 2):S65–164.
13. Adebayo O, Labiran A, Imarhiagbe L. Standard precautions in clinical practices: a
review. Int J Health Sci Res. 2015;5:521–528.
14. Moralejo D, El Dib R, Prata RA, Barretti P, Corre ^a I. Improving adherence to stan-
dard precautions for the control of health care-associated infections. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev. 2018;2: CD010768.
15. Beyamo A, Dodicho T, Facha W. Compliance with standard precaution practi-
ces and associated factors among health care workers in Dawuro Zone, South
West Ethiopia, cross sectional study. BMC Health Serv Res. [Internet]. 2019
[cited 2019 Oct 21];19. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
articles/PMC6567427/. Accessed August 4, 2019.
16. Donati D, Biagioli V, Cianfrocca C, De Marinis MG, Tartaglini D. Compliance with
standard precautions among clinical nurses: validity and reliability of the Italian
version of the compliance with Standard Precautions Scale (CSPS-It). Int J Environ
Res Public Health. 2019;16:121.
17. Powers D, Armellino D, Dolansky M, Fitzpatrick J. Factors influencing nurse com-
pliance with standard precautions. Am J Infect Control. 2016;44:4–7.
18. Lam SC. Universal to standard precautions in disease prevention: preliminary
development of compliance scale for clinical nursing. Int J Nurs Stud. 2011;48:
1533–1539.
19. Lam SC. Validation and cross-cultural pilot testing of compliance with standard
precautions scale: self-administered instrument for clinical nurses. Infect Control
Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35:547–555.
20. Cruz JP, Colet PC, Al-Otaibi JH, Soriano SS, Cacho GM, Cruz CP. Validity and reliabil-
ity assessment of the compliance with standard precautions scale Arabic version
in Saudi nursing students. J Infect Public Health. 2016;9:645–653.
21. Pereira FMV, Lam SC, Chan JHM, Malaguti-Toffano SE, Gir E. Difference in compli-
ance with standard precautions by nursing staff in Brazil versus Hong Kong. Am J
Infect Control. 2015;43:769–772.
22. Donati D, Biagioli V, Cianfrocca C, Marano T, Tartaglini D, De Marinis MG. Experien-
ces of compliance with standard precautions during emergencies: a qualitative
study of nurses working in intensive care units. Appl Nurs Res. 2019;49:35–40.
23. Efstathiou G, Papastavrou E, Raftopoulos V, Merkouris A. Compliance of Cypriot
nurses with standard precautions to avoid exposure to pathogens. Nurs Health Sci.
2011;13:53–59.
24. Haile TG, Engeda EH, Abdo AA. Compliance with standard precautions and associ-
ated factors among healthcare workers in Gondar University Comprehensive Spe-
cialized Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia. J Environ Public Health. 2017;2017: 2050635.
25. Porto JS, Marziale MH. Reasons and consequences of low adherence to standard
precautions by the nursing team. Rev Gaucha Enferm. 2016;37:e57395.
26. Dekker M, Jongerden IP, van Mansfeld R, et al. Infection control link nurses in acute
care hospitals: a scoping review. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2019;8:20.
27. Williams L, Cooper T, Bradford L, et al. An evaluation of an infection prevention
link nurse programme in community hospitals and development of an implemen-
tation model. J Infect Prev. 2019;20:37–45.
28. Manley K, Gallagher R. The Role of the Link Nurse in Infection Prevention and Control
(IPC): Developing a Link Nurse Framework. [Internet]. London: Royal College of
Nursing; 2012 [cited 2019 Oct 22]. Available at: http://rcn.sirsidynix.net.uk/uht
bin/cgisirsi/?ps=X6qOIWo4Bs/LONDON/X/9. Accessed January 24, 2018.
29. Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional
practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;6: CD000259.
30. Peter D, Meng M, Kugler C, Mattner F. Strategies to promote infection prevention
and control in acute care hospitals with the help of infection control link nurses: a
systematic literature review. Am J Infect Control. 2018;46:207–216.
31. Sopirala MM, Yahle-Dunbar L, Smyer J, et al. Infection control link nurse program:
an interdisciplinary approach in targeting health care-acquired infection. Am J
Infect Control. 2014;42:353–359.
1210 D. Donati et al. / American Journal of Infection Control 48 (2020) 1204−1210
32. Smiddy MP, Murphy OM, Savage E, et al. Efficacy of observational
hand hygiene audit with targeted feedback on doctors’ hand hygiene
compliance: a retrospective time series analysis. J Infect Prev. 2019;20:
164–170.
33. Smith A, Taggart LR, Lebovic G, Zeynalova N, Khan A, Muller MP. Clostridium diffi-
cile infection incidence: impact of audit and feedback programme to improve
room cleaning. J Hosp Infect. 2016;92:161–166.
34. Tavares M, Carvalho AC, Almeida JP, et al. Implementation and impact of an audit
and feedback antimicrobial stewardship intervention in the orthopaedics depart-
ment of a tertiary-care hospital: a controlled interrupted time series study. Int J
Antimicrob Agents. 2018;51:925–931.
35. Gould DJ, Moralejo D, Drey N, Chudleigh JH, Taljaard M. Interventions to improve
hand hygiene compliance in patient care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;9:
CD005186.
36. World Health Organization. Hand Hygiene Technical Reference Manual: To Be Used
by Health-Care Workers, Trainers and Observers of Hand Hygiene Practices. World
Health Organization. [Internet]. World Health Organization; 2009 [cited 2019
Oct 22]. Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44196. Accessed
January 10, 2018.
37. Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to
Their Development and Use. 5th ed New York: Oxford University Press; 2015.
38. Joint Commission Resources. JCI Accreditation Standards for Hospitals. [Internet].
6th ed. Terrace, IL: Oakbrook; 2017 [cited 2019 Nov 5]. Available at: https://
www.jointcommissioninternational.org/jci-accreditation-standards-for-hos
pitals-6th-edition/. Accessed July 5, 2019.
39. Al-Rawajfah OM, Hweidi IM, Alkhalaileh M, Khader YS, Alshboul SA. Compliance of
Jordanian registered nurses with infection control guidelines: a national popula-
tion-based study. Am J Infect Control. 2013;41:1065–1068.