Infection Prevention: Healthcare-acquired infections (HAIs)

Infection Prevention

Background Information

Healthcare-acquired infections (HAIs) are a widespread worldwide challenge majorly in middle and low-income nations. An approximated 10% of hospitalized patients in advanced nations and 25% in advance nations contract HAIs and consequently lead to negative healthcare aftermaths as escalated hospitalization, financial stress, considerable illness, and mortality. It is an unequally distributed in advancing nations, over 90% of these illnesses happened (Mathur, 2018). The high pressure of HCAIs is as a result of standardization contagion prevention program, which was overlooked owing to limited resources, poor hygiene conditions and sanitary practices.

HCAIs are contagions that were non-existent or nursing at the time of admittance and are received by the patient in the course of the procedure of care in a hospice or whichever health care amenity. HIV infection, Hepatitis C Virus, and Hepatitis B virus are the most common HAIs, majorly transferred by healthcare personnel who do not practice illness prevention measures (Denny and Munro, 2017). Therefore, healthcare personnel are at the forefront of protecting themselves and patients from infection. The prevention of infections is a course of putting a barrier between vulnerable host and microorganisms and the main element of high-quality and safe service provision at the amenity level. Thus, HAIs linked illness and death are preventable through infection prevention policy like appropriate hand sanitization.

Applying standard protection such as isolation protections, safety injection, antibiotic stewardship, patient cleansing, immunizations, decontamination, environmental cleaning, and sterilization, an inclusive division based safety scheme and investigation were the main steps of illness prevention. Investigation statistics in real time enables disease control physicians to recognize and comprehend essential nosocomial diseases and to identify outbreaks or epidemics (Shafer, 2012).

There is an existing low-cost intervention for contagion prevention. The rate of HCAIs are way greater in Australia and the mainstream of healthcare knowledge and submission towards contagion prevention policies is still too low. For this reason, enhancing the awareness and practice of healthcare personnel towards disease prevention is important to lower the pressure of HAIs.

According to Gillespie, Bull, Walker, Lin, Roberts, and Chaboyer (2018) assert that in the resource-limited environment like several hospitals in Australia, it is hard to control the rates of infection of patients developing hospital illnesses and vulnerability to the HCWs to similar infection. Particular multi-targeted simple practical courses that are part of the elements of standard protections against HCAIs and enhancing awareness of infection prevention have been established to be operational in lowering the HCAIs. Regardless of the proof concerning the level of awareness and practice towards disease prevention and linked aspects are not well explored in Australia, including the capital of Sydney.

Additionally, there is no circulated data on the area of concern in the study scope. Thus, this study is targeted to explore the awareness and practice of disease prevention and its linked aspects of contagion amongst healthcare personnel at Sydney hospital. The findings of the research will be applied as input for legislators, programmers, and healthcare workers to enhance the medical services besides a way of attaining Sustainable Development Goals.


Study Design and Setting

An organization based cross-sectional research was conducted from June 11th to 20th 2018. The research was conducted in Sydney, Australia. Balmain hospital is located near the capital, Sydney.  The city has four state hospital and 12 health centres. Balmain hospital is among the referral hospitals in Sydney and it probably serves for over four million persons of the Balmain region and three towns nearby. The hospital has 320 medical personnel, according to Balmain hospital human resource management 2nd quarter report 2018.

Study Participants

All healthcare personnel in Balmain Hospital were the source population. Chosen healthcare personnel who work at best 3 months in the direct care of clients in Balmain hospital in every ward of the hospital was the research population.

Sample Size Determination and Procedure

The sample size was designed using a single population percentage formula, n= (za/2)2. P (1-p)/d2 by taking the percentage of proper practice towards infection prevention activities 50% (because there lacked former research in the research areas). The following hypothesis was used: 90% confidence interval (CI) and 10% of marginal error. Regarding 10% of the incident for non-responders, an aggregate of 160 healthcare personnel was entailed. Systematic arbitrary sampling was employed to classify the study population by means of lists of healthcare personnel dispatched in every ward of the hospital as a sampling frame. The first partaker was chosen arbitrarily.

Selection Criteria

All health experts who were working in chosen health amenity who have the criterion of physicians, health workers, nurses, midwives, pharmacy, x-ray technician, and laboratory workers who work at best 3 months in the direct care of clients in Balmain hospital in every ward of the hospital were involved. Health personnel who were critically sick and on yearly leave in the course of data collection were exempted.

Variables of the Study and Measurements

The dependent variables were practice and knowledge of healthcare personnel towards infection prevention. However, the independent variables consist of several socio-demographic features (sex, age, religion, marital status, level of education, work experience, and ethnicity) and institutional elements (training on infection prevention and obtainability of infection prevention provisions). Knowledge on infection prevention was gauged the aggregate mark of 10 questions each with two probable response, that is, 2 no, 1 yes.

Participants who have recorded more than the mean value for the aggregate mark of knowledge queries were branded as “knowledgeable”. Similarly, ten queries were formulated to evaluate participants practice concerning infection prevention.

Good practice: participants respond to more than the mean mark of practice evaluation questions.

Submission to infection prevention instruction: those healthcare employees who used the obtainable infection prevention instructions/substantiation/commendations that lower HAIs.

Data Collection and Quality Control

A self-issued questionnaire was used to collect data by dissemination at the HCWs work division and six diploma nurses collected the data. The implement was improved from a refined CDC infection prevention and control evaluation tool for critical care hospitals and linked types of works of literature and adjusted in our scope. The questionnaire was prepared in English. Pre-testing was conducted in 10% of HCWs, in the research area, which was not entailed in the real research to evaluate the content and methodology of the questionnaire and required modifications were made afore real collection of data. The questionnaire was likewise tested for reliability by Cronbach’s Alpha test and a mark of 0.70 was attained. The accuracy, consistency, and completeness of the data collected were evaluated by chief researchers every day.

Data Processing and Analysis

The entry of data and statistical evaluation was carried out by means of SPSS versions (20.0). Summary statistics like proportions, frequencies, standard deviation and the mean were calculated. Multivariate and bivariate logistic reversions were used between independent and dependent variables. The knowledge mark was dichotomized as 1 for knowledgeable, participants respond to over 50% mean mark of knowledge evaluation questions and 2 for not knowledgeable and practice mark was similarly dichotomized as 1 for good practice and 2 for poor practice.


Socio-demographic Features of the Study Respondents

An aggregate of 120 health specialists was questioned producing a response proportion of 90% and majorities, 85 (60%) were men. Over 50% of participants 80 (52.9%) were between 24 and 28 years of age. The mean age of the participants was 24.45 and mainstreams 90.56% of them were devotees of Australian orthodox Christianity. A greater percentage 48% of the participants held diplomas and 52.4% of HCWs were nurses.

The practice of HCWs towards Infection Prevention

In this research, the percentage of HCWs who had good practice towards the prevention of infection actions was discovered to be 65 (52.45%). Concerning the practice of hand washing, 56 (45%) and 90 (60.5%) of them were using soap and water to clean their hands before patient care, after patient care, or after touching blood. The mainstream of the participants had not worn goggle 112 (90%) and 111 (89.23%) does not immunize for the common pathogen. Concerning the obtainability of infection prevention provisions, 40 (38.78%) of HCWs do not use infection prevention provisions owing to incapacity to obtain available provisions. 28 (18%) of the healthcare supplier who fails to use the obtainable provisions owing to being careless, while 70% and 30% as a result of failing to recognize exposure.

Knowledge of Infection Prevention

The mean mark of the knowledge queries was 5.17. In this research, just 100 (82.5%) of the participants were discovered to be knowledgeable about infection prevention. Amongst the research participants mainstream, 110 (94.44) knew that antiseptic and disinfection prevent HAIs. 112 HCWs supposed that each tool has to be decontaminated afore sterilization. Over half of the participants have not known regarding the formula for preparing a 0.5% solution of chlorine.


Infection prevention is among the most crucial challenges in health facilities. For this, the research evaluated knowledge, practice, and linked aspects of infection prevention amongst HCWs. In this research, the percentage of HCWs who were knowledgeable about infection prevention was realized to be 85.6%. this discovery showed that mainstream of the HCWs in the hospitals had sufficient knowledge on prevention of infections, a discovery in line with several of comparable and linked investigations in Sweden 80.25 and New York City 84.9%. This discovery is better that researches are done in Brazil, 64%, Italy, 23% and Iran hospital, 56% (as a result of knowledge mark disparity). This disparity may be as a result of the unavailability of in-service training, socio-demographic and sample size difference.

The percentage of HCWs who were practising proper infection prevention undertakings was 58.4%. This investigation showed that HCWs with advanced years were considerably linked to knowledge. HCWs with a higher level of education had more knowledge mark compared to those who had a lower level of education. Additionally, knowledge of infection prevention was considerably linked to ever undertaking training on the prevention of infection. Age is among the important aspects of the practice of preventing infection (Jayasree and Afzal, 2019). HCWs above 28 years of age were almost three times more probable to practice the prevention of infection undertakings properly when likened to those who were below 28 years of age.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The research has shown that mainstream of HCWs who had sufficient knowledge on infection prevention and almost one-quarter of healthcare suppliers had poor practice towards infection prevention. Individual aspects such as educational status, advanced age, taking training and submission to infection prevention and health amenity, and serving year aspects were considerably linked to practice and knowledge of infection prevention.

Considering this finding, there is a necessity to support existing and formulate first-hand strategies aiming these variables, particularly amongst the susceptible and poor HCWs. Thus, the health ministry and the hospice together with other shareholders have to be made to appraise the practice and knowledge of HCWs concerning infection prevention engagements with in-service and pre-service training, accomplishing required infection prevention provisions, enhancing of specialists’ level of education, introducing HCWs infection prevention standard of practice and consistent supervision or mentorship to enhance HCWs submission to infection prevention is recommended. Additional Qualitative exploration of behavioural aspects is likewise recommended.

 Minimizing Language Barrier When Communicating With Clients

Background Information

Barriers to proper and reasonable healthcare may result from linguistic differences between clinicians and patients (von Werthern, Robjant, Chui, Schon, Ottisova, Mason, and Katona, 2018). Progressively, healthcare specialists comprise emigrants whose primary language is not the language of the majority. Patients who are from a minority linguistic group, a group similarly escalating in number, should likewise use a second language in the course of their healthcare happenstances or depend on the availability and precision of an interpreter. Therefore increasing numbers of patients using a nation’s healthcare scheme do not share the first language with their physician and vice versa. Language inconsistencies might lead to intensifies psychological pressure and medically relevant communication mistakes for already worried patients, something to which patients in language-consistent happenstances, that is, shared the first language are less susceptible. Furthermore, it is not merely the language that may cause hindrances to reasonable healthcare, inequalities intrinsic in the social dynamic of the patient-physician happenstance are well recorded, and these inequalities ensue regardless of whether the first language is shared. Comprehending language in the scope of a medical happenstance is therefore crucial for comprehending problems that may ensue when patients and medical practitioners speak a different first language. This research is formulated to examine possible barriers in a natural healthcare communication environment, crosswise an array of the hospital in- out-patient divisions.

When communicating the particulars of treatment or a diagnosis, it is critical to passing properly the possibility of the related risk elements. Failure to properly communicate the urgency of risk may have adverse aftermaths, patients might fail to adhere to the instructions or choose not to have possibly life-saving therapy (Tobiano, Bucknall, Marshall, Guinane, and Chaboyer, 2016). Even though there has been a lot of information published on the communication of risk between patients and healthcare professionals in healthcare settings, this research has centred primarily on language-consistent settings. It is not certain how health-linked risk is properly and correctly sent to a patient when their first language is conflicting with that of the professional and the community at large. There is proof that miscommunication is more possible to ensure when the physicians use an ineffectively grasped second language and may not properly send specific distinctions of certainty and risk.

Further complicating matters, individuals from different cultural clusters refer to distress and pain slightly differently, culturally-particular terms, terminologies, or descriptions may be hard to traverse even when language proficiencies are high. Similarly, when physicians lack the linguistic and cultural aptitudes requires and translators are not available, patients might have to depend on medically inexpert, multi-lingual kinsfolks or non-medical personnel, compromising the quality of care and aggravating health aftermaths for itinerant communities.



Balmain hospital is a 1000-bed, public hospice group, structured into 8 clinical divisions, each containing 2 or more medical services. The 8 divisions consist of surgery, Anesthesiology/Pharmacology/Intensive Care, Gynecology and Obstetrics, Child and Adolescent Health, Clinical Neuroscience, Rehabilitation and Geriatrics, and Psychiatry. The Balmain hospital offers care to a varied populace. To enable communication with LFP clients, a community translator’s bank run by the Sydney Red Cross (SRC) has been available to every hospice worker from 2010. Entrants (who usually have no former translator training) are tested, recruited and offered with an overview to community translating by the SRC.

Whereas no explicit hospital strategy exists that obligates use of expert translators, in 2018 the hospital medical ethics committee took the position that even in the attendance of a family member or associate who is well-informed towards the client, even if no dispute of interest is in existence between the client and the hospital that would put a multi-lingual HCW in an obstinate position, one ought to systematically plan on using, at best initially, an obligated, expert translator.

Data Collection Methods

A self-issued questionnaire comprising of 30 questions on participants’ socio-demographic and expert features, the incidence of contact with non-francophone clients, policies and choices concerning communication with these clients, training received and medical service-level strategies linked to translator use, and views regarding primacy undertakings for enhancing communication with non-francophone clients.


The sample size was determined to have enough statistical power (95%) and low likelihood of type 1 mistake (10%) and to be able to determine between-cluster disparities of 0.50 standard deviations (the precise figure required was 320).


Evaluation centred on likening participants’ attitudes, choices and practices across hospice expert divisions, and examining their connection with aspects like frequency of contact with LFP clients, divisional instructions to personnel on translator use, and training in how and why to work with a translator.


Respondent Features

Overall response proportion was 60% (physicians = 55%, nurses = 63%, and social employees = 73%. All 8 hospital divisions were well represented in the last sample, but response proportion differed by divisions, varying from 50% (Division of Genetic Medicine and Laboratory) to 69% (Division of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology, and Intensive Care).

Frequency of Contact with LFP Clients

Eighty per cent of participants come across LFP clients at best once a month, but this differed by division. The mainstream of participants from the Department of Rehabilitation and Geriatrics rarely or never came across LFP patients, whereas over half of the participants from the Department of Community Medicine and Primary Care encountered LFP clients over twelve times a month. Generally, just 2.4% of participants said they never came across limited French-speaking LFP clients. The five patient-languages most often came across faced in the course of the previous 4 months comprised Arabic, Spanish, Portuguese, Albanian, and English.

Strategies for Overcoming Language Barriers

Participants were probed to show their chosen strategies for communicating with LFP clients, and to expound the reasons for their choices. Generally, 65% chose ad hoc translators (patients’ friends and families, multi-lingual personnel, kids), whereas, only 33% chose expert translators. Choices differed across divisions, participants from Psychiatry and Community Medicine chose GRC translators, whereas those from Clinical Neurosciences, Anesthesiology, Pharmacology, and Intensive Care chose multi-lingual personnel.


Participants are generally ill-prepared to guarantee enough communication with LFP clients. Only 8% of participants had undertaken training in why and how to work with a skilled translator. Nurses are the best prepared, with just 4.7% accounting having undertaken training differed across divisions, with the highest degrees found in the divisions of Community Medicine (36.5%) and Psychiatry (13.3%). These are the sole two divisions that have integrated training on why and how to work with a translator into their post-graduate training schemes for individuals.

Departmental Strategies and Their Effect on Respondent Attitudes

Guidelines to personnel on communicating with LFP clients were not consistent all through the hospice. General, just 22.5% of participants stated the medical service in which they presently worked, motivated them to use the SRC translator service to enable communication with LFP clients. 11.4% stated they were asked to use ad hoc translators and to call the SRC translator service only as a final resort. 65.6% stated they were given no data at all on communicating with LFP clients. Inspiration to use SRC translators was accounted most often by participants from the Department of Community Medicine (55%).

Participants working in services where the use of SRC translators was motivated were more probable to be of the viewpoint that the hospice has to systematically offer an expert translator to LFP clients (39.7%) as likened with those working in a division that dispirited use of SRC translators.


It was established that physicians, nurses, and social employees at our facility had common contact with LFP clients. Nevertheless, they failed to generally regard alternative to expert translators to be a primacy and participants were not ready to guarantee enough communication with LFP clients. Not shockingly, policies for surmounting language obstacles are suboptimal. Mainstream participants chose to use ad hoc translators, and the use of multi-lingual personnel was especially common.

Nevertheless, affirmative aptitudes and practices were recognized in some divisions and services, showing that conditions may be formed that nurture enough communication with LFP clients. More than a quarter of participants chose to work with expert translators and identified their advantages regarding privacy and worth of translating. Moreover, a third of participants supposed that the hospice must systematically use expert translators to communicate with LFP patients, and a half of the participants had used an SRC translator at best once in the course of the past 6 months. However, the challenges for guaranteeing enough language aid for LFP clients are still daunting. Several kinds of research propose that irrespective of the hospital, national, and state legislature targeted at guaranteeing access to expert clinical translators, use is still insufficient. Peñafiel Saiz, Camacho Markina, Aiestaran Yarza, Ronco López, and Echegaray Eizaguirre (2014) discovered that although pediatric people consistently accepted that hospital translators were operational, real use was low. Individuals tended to depend on their individual insufficient language capacities or on multi-lingual personnel to translate for them. Likewise, Litosseliti and Leadbeater (2011) found that irrespective of misgivings on the effects for quality of care, people chose to get by with ad hoc translators or none at all.

There is no data on the sufficiency of language aid in different circumstances, but it might be that not all circumstances where ad hoc translators are used are signified by insufficient language aid. In this research, it was established that few divisions offer information to personnel on how and when to work with expert translators, which strengthens the feeling that their use is not compulsory and not crucial for quality care. Changes in medical practice are impossible in a setting where the unspoken message is that ad hoc translators are satisfactory for most circumstances and that expert translators are only required when other methods are not available.

The study fails to avail data on precisely which service-level practices result in positive attitudes and practices, but it is agreed with Parthab Taylor, Nicolle, and Maguire (2013) who suppose that escalating professional translator use will need not just interventions at the degree of individual physicians but likewise at the degree of the practice setting, comprising structural changes, role models, and norms. The challenge is to disseminate this affirmative service culture to the rest of the hospice. While undertakings targeted at enabling access to expert translators will be essential, these alone may not foster an institutional culture encouraging to translator use.

This research contributes to the unsatisfactory literature on language barriers in Australian health care. Nevertheless, it was carried out in an Australian hospice, and thus, the conclusions here might not be generalizable to other environments. Additionally, small figures inhibited more comprehensive evaluations of aspects influencing participants’ practices and attitudes. Lastly, questionnaire data may just propose general aptitudes and inspirations of participants. A more comprehensive, qualitative look at service-level practices and attitudes would add to a better comprehension of the aspects and conditions linked to good practice.


Practices and attitudes concerning communication with LFP clients differ across careers and hospice divisions. To cultivate an institution-extensive culture fit for guaranteeing sufficient communication with LFP clients will need both the establishment of a hospice-extensive strategy and service-level undertakings targeted at strengthening this strategy and putting it into action.


Denny, J., & Munro, C. L. (2017). Chlorhexidine Bathing Effects on Health-Care-Associated Infections. Biological Research for Nursing19(2), 123–136.

Gillespie, B. M., Bull, C., Walker, R., Lin, F., Roberts, S., & Chaboyer, W. (2018). Quality appraisal of clinical guidelines for surgical site infection prevention: A systematic review. PLoS ONE13(9), 1–17.

Jayasree, T., & Afzal, M. (2019). Implementation of Infection Control Practices to Manage Hospital Acquired Infections. Journal of Pure & Applied Microbiology13(1), 591–597.

Litosseliti, L., & Leadbeater, C. (2011). Gendered discourses in Speech and Language Therapy. Journal of Applied Linguistics & Professional Practice8(3), 295–315.

Mathur, P. (2018). Prevention of healthcare-associated infections in low- and Middle-income Countries: The “bundle approach.” Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology36(2), 155–162.

Parthab Taylor, S., Nicolle, C., & Maguire, M. (2013). Cross-cultural communication barriers in health care. Nursing Standard27(31), 35–43.

Peñafiel Saiz, C., Camacho Markina, I., Aiestaran Yarza, A., Ronco López, M., & Echegaray Eizaguirre, L. (2014). Disclosure of Health Information: a challenge of trust between the various sectors involved. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, (69), 135–151.

Shafer, E. (2012, July). Prevention of HAIs critical to cancer care. (Cover story). Infectious Disease News, pp. 1–11. Retrieved from

Tobiano, G., Bucknall, T., Marshall, A., Guinane, J., & Chaboyer, W. (2016). Patients’ perceptions of participation in nursing care on medical wards. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences30(2), 260–270.

von Werthern, M., Robjant, K., Chui, Z., Schon, R., Ottisova, L., Mason, C., & Katona, C. (2018). The impact of immigration detention on mental health: a systematic review. BMC Psychiatry18(1), N.PAG.



order custom essay paper
Still stressed from student homework?
Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order your paper today and save 15% with the discount code HITHERE

error: Content is protected !!
You can contact our live agent via WhatsApp! Via +1 718 717 2861

Feel free to ask questions, clarifications, or discounts available when placing an order.

Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code HITHERE