A clinical audit on the compliance on hand washing laboratory in a private university in peninsular by IJIRST

IJIRST –International Journal for Innovative Research in Science & Technology| Volume 1 | Issue 7 | December 2014 ISSN (online): 2349-6010

A Clinical Audit on The Compliance On Hand Washing Laboratory In a Private University In Peninsular Malaysia Regidor III Dioso Nursing Lecturer Lincoln University College, Malaysia

Vitalis Ronald Eden Pharmacy Laboratory Technologist Lincoln University College, Malaysia

Lianah Samporna Medical Laboratory Technologist Lincoln University College, Malaysia

Mashood Ahmad Shah Microbiologist Lincoln University College, Malaysia University

Abstract Objectives: (1) Identify allied health laboratory users‟ compliance with hand washing and (2) evaluate effectiveness of hand washing in decreasing the spread of microorganisms found in the hands of laboratory users. Methods: The use of the bacteriostatic liquid soap in a pump dispenser, tap water that are elbow or knee operated, nail brushes to clean the fingers and nails, air dryers or paper towels thrown on waste bins after hand washing and the seven ways of hand washing were audited. Fifty participants were observed in secret. The participants included in the audit are students and laboratory instructors. The participants‟ washed hands were cultured immediately for the presence of microorganisms. The demographic distribution is divided into age, gender and nationality. Results: Generally, of the 50, there were more participants who complied (28 or 56%) than those who did not comply (22 or 44%) with hand washing laboratory. There were more males who complied than female and there were more Malaysians who complied than non-Malaysians. Cultured results showed that hand washing were effective in decreasing microorganism spread found in the hands of the allied health laboratory users. Keywords: Clinical Audit On Hand Washing; Hand Washing Laboratory; Clinical Audit; University Hand Washing Laboratory; Hand Washing. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

I. INTRODUCTION The use of bacteriostatic liquid soap in a pump dispenser, the use of tap water that are elbow or knee operated, the use of air dryers or paper towels after hand washing, the use of nail brushes, the seven ways of hand washing and the use of waste basins – the innovated hand washing laboratory – were audited. The participants involved in the audit are the laboratory instructors and their students who will be audited as to what the auditors want them to do (the innovated hand washing laboratory), what they are presently doing and what they need to do change their practice. According to the Department of Health (DOH) [1], it is hoped that clinical audits improve processes or procedures that also seeks to improve quality outcomes through systematic review of care against explicit criteria and the implementation of change. The challenge of DOH [1] for all clinical auditors worldwide deems this study necessary to be conducted in a private university in peninsular Malaysia. According to Jones and Cawthorne [2], when clinical audit is conducted well, it provides improved methods and/or systems (hand washing laboratory) in which the quality of procedures for service users becomes supportive and developmental. That is why hand washing laboratory was audited so that it can improve and develop the practice of hand washing among allied health laboratory users. This applied science of Microbiology integrates health promotion with the innovated system called hand washing laboratory. Specifically, this study applies the Hawthorne effect to observe in secret how the allied health science laboratory users wash their hands with provided laboratory apparatuses in a private university in Peninsular Malaysia. To explain further, aspect of behaviors in response to awareness of being observed measures how individuals improve methods and/or systems, i.e. observing the method and techniques of hand washing laboratory. This study hopes to identify an unbiased behavior of hand washing in the laboratories which also leads to an unbiased evaluation of the effectiveness of hand washing in the laboratory in decreasing the spread of infection. A conclusion is offered.

A Clinical Audit on The Compliance On Hand Washing Laboratory In a Private University In Peninsular Malaysia (IJIRST/ Volume 1 / Issue 7 / 013)

II. RATIONALE There is a high incidence of sickness specifically among laboratory allied health users in the selected private university in peninsular Malaysia. In addition, the seventh goal of the environmental health that discusses environmental threats to health in low- and middleincome countries is to ensure environmental sustainability [3]. This is also in link with the 2005 Millennium Development Goal Plan according to the United Nations (UN) [4] with a goal to improve water supply, sanitation and personal hygiene, promote sustainability, especially when they are carried out in the community.

III. BACKGROUND In 1996 the first priority in preventing infection worldwide according to Nelson [5] is hand washing because Riley in 1960 [6] discovered airborne infection which can be transmitted through direct or indirect hand contact. Curtis in 1966 [7] contributed on the promotion of hand washing who also discussed that viruses is being controlled from spreading rapidly by washing hands. In 1988, Collins [8] says that hospitals should promote hand washing in order to control airborne spread of infection [6] most especially viral infections [5,7,8]. Sox [9] in 1986 said that hand washing was effective in reducing the spread of microorganism through direct hand contact. Preventive health services then emphasized that hand washing is the most important method in reducing the spread of infection [10]. As a part of improving the control of the spread of infection, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) [11] in 1996 recommended Standard Precaution (SPs) that includes hand washing in the laboratory. In 1997, Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP) [12] reiterated that hand washing in the laboratories control the spread of all types of microorganisms. The CDC [11] and the CDCP [12] gave a strong influence on making all laboratory users wash their hands [8]. This influence also inspired this audit since there are many incidences of sick leaves occurring in the laboratory work place after exposure to laboratory procedures. Another inspiring event was on 1997 with a research on a university hospital on blood exposure incidents such as HIV in Sweden that was due to the lack of compliance with hand washing [13]. That is why antimicrobial solutions for hand washing in the laboratory were innovated further by Ya-Ning et al [14] in 2005. The World Health Organization (WHO) [15] in 2007 supported Ya-Ning et alâ&#x20AC;&#x;s [14] bacteriostatic solutions used for hand washing and made a worldwide Practical Guidelines for Infection Control in Health Care Facilities. Finally in 2009, the WHO [16] standardized worldwide guidelines on hand hygiene in healthcare as the first global laboratory service usersâ&#x20AC;&#x; safety challenge. Table 1 shows the contemporary issues of waterborne microorganisms that are health hazards according to the WHO [16]. Table - 1 Contemporary Issues of Waterborne Microorganisms That Are Health Hazards [16] Pathogen Health significancePersistence in water suppliesRelative infectivity Bacteria Campylobacter jejuni, C. coli

High

Moderate

Pathogenic Escherichia coli

High

Moderate

Low

Enterohaemorrhagic E. coli

High

Moderate

High

Legionella spp.

High

Multiply

Moderate

Non-tuberculosis mycobacteria

Low

Multiply

Low

Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Moderate

May multiply

Low

Salmonella typhi

High

Moderate

Low

Other salmonellae

High

Short

Low

Shigella spp.

High

Short

Moderate

Vibrio cholerae

High

Short

Low

Burkholderia pseudomallei

Low

May multiply

Low

A Clinical Audit on The Compliance On Hand Washing Laboratory In a Private University In Peninsular Malaysia (IJIRST/ Volume 1 / Issue 7 / 013)

Yersinia enterocolitica

High

Long

Low

Adenoviruses

High

Long

High

Enteroviruses

High

Long

High

Hepatitis A

High

Long

High

Hepatitis E

High

Long

High

Noroviruses and sapoviruses

High

Long

High

Rotaviruses

High

Long

High

Acanthamoeba spp.

High

Long

High

Cryptosporidium parvum

High

Long

High

Cyclospora cayetanensis

High

Long

High

Entamoeba histolytica

High

Moderate

High

Giardia lamblia

High

Moderate

High

Naegleria fowleri

High

May multiply

High

Toxoplasma gondii

High

Long

High

Dracunculus medinensis

High

Moderate

High

Schistosoma spp.

High

Short

High

Viruses

Protozoa

Helminths

In Malaysia, Loh et al [17] saw a change in infection control practices by practicing hand washing in the hospital to combat the epidemic of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). Hand hygiene and hand decontamination then become a contemporary issue in Malaysia both in universities [18] and in hospital settings [19]. Tan et al [20] also contributed by researching on out of hospital hand hygiene benefits especially among the young people eating finger foods. A. Objectives and Aims On account of these hand washing issues, this clinical audit sees the need to evaluate the hand washing laboratory compliance among allied health laboratory users in a private university in peninsular Malaysia and identify which demography – gender, age and nationality – comply with the practice of hand washing. This innovation – hand washing laboratory – is a quality improvement process that aims to improve health outcomes by reducing the spread of microorganisms found in the hands of laboratory users. It is therefore necessary to primarily review its validity and reliability in achieving its aims and objectives.

IV. LITERATURE REVIEW The population, intervention, comparison and outcome (PICO) guide helped in focusing the search for literatures. Search terms are „clinical audit on hand washing laboratory‟ and „hand washing laboratory‟. Literatures that do not fall on the search terms are excluded. The search engine used is Proquest (4 studies) and Researchgate (2 studies). Table 2 shows the keywords and the distribution of the PICO that guided the search for literatures.

A Clinical Audit on The Compliance On Hand Washing Laboratory In a Private University In Peninsular Malaysia (IJIRST/ Volume 1 / Issue 7 / 013)

Table â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2 The Validity and Reliability of The Innovated Hand Washing Laboratory As Guided By The PICO Comparison

Intervention

Population (n)

Search terms

Outcome

Ya-ning et al Use of bacteriostatic liquid soap More adults uses bacteriostatic Laboratory technologists (2005) in a pump dispenser liquid soap for handwashing Hand washing laboratory on researchgate Ohmori et al Use of tap water that are elbow Healthcare workers More adults uses tap water (2006) or knee operated Gendron et al Use of air dryers or paper Non-healthcare More adults uses dryers (2012) towels after hand washing professional adults Tanner et al Female laboratory More females uses nail brush than Use of nail brushes (2009) technicians males Clinical audit on hand washing laboratory on proquest Use of the seven steps of hand Intensive care unit More males demonstrates the seven Yin et al (2007) washing workers steps Hospital laboratory Abor (2012) Use of waste basins More males uses waste bins waste dispatchers

Ya-ning et al [14] validated that hand washing with bacteriocidal soap is more effective than regular soap in a quantitative approach. The quantitative research material of this Yan-ning et al [14] tested laboratory results on bacteriostatic efficacy and storing stability using simulated on-the-spot trials with a probability result of >0.10 which means that there is a significant difference between regular soap and bactericidal soap [14]. This research is credible because it showed that the results to the participants, focusing on bacteriocidal soap used against regular soap when washing hands in laboratory. The population in this study was more than 110 Chinese [14] had a 95% confidence interval mathematically expressing a precision of 0.05 probability. However, the research of Ya-ning et al [14] did not state what water system used in order to see the effectiveness of the bacteriocidal soap against regular soap. That is why the next scale of this auditing tool evaluates tap water that is used in the washing of the hands of laboratory users. Ohmori et al [22] compared the use of tap water on hand washing in the laboratory with sterile water. The standard deviations of the free chlorine levels in the tap water and in the sterile water were 0.30 +/- 0.05 and 0.07 +/- 0.03 respectively, and a probability of <0.03 was found which means that there is no significant difference between the use of tap water and sterile water. The hand washing test using tap water showed immediate, persistent, and cumulative bacteria activity within the minimum limits [22]. This research examined the water pipes and measured the free chlorine content in the tap water in the operating room [22]. The 40 volunteers were adults who participated in a hand washing test using tap water and most likely complied. However, the research of Ohmori et al [22] did not mention whether the participants used dryers or paper towels after washing their hands making the reliability questionable. That is why this audit added the use of air dryer and paper towel to dry off the washed hands as another method of evaluating the effectiveness of hand washing in the laboratory in reducing the spread of microorganisms found in the hands of laboratory users. Gendron et al [23] says that air dryers are better used after hand washing in the laboratory compared with paper towels. Airborne samples were taken next to a paper towel dispenser during a 5-minute period while an individual pulled out a total of 25 sheets of paper and used them, one by one, to dry hands. When comparing culture results from air samples obtained after dispensing and using paper towels to the control test (same location but with no paper dispensing activity), no significant differences were observed in bacterial counts (table 3), indicating that paper dispensing does not appear to release bacterial cells or spores. Non healthcare professional adults use air dryers more often than medical practitioners who prefer paper towels. However, the reliability of using paper towels is questionable since it did not mention whether the paper towels where thrown below waist level of the participants or if the participants touched the waste bins/trash bins while wiping their hands before the process of culturing the hands are done. In order to ensure that this audit tool will not create discrepancies among laboratory users, the method of the hand washing in the laboratory added apparatuses such as the nail scrubs in order to surgically remove [24] bad microorganisms found on tap waters regardless of the additional method such as the use of air dryers or paper towels in drying off washed hands. Table â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 3 Bacteria Found From Using Paper Towels And Air Dryers Before Hand Washing [23]. Bacillus licheniformis Bacillus megaterium Bacillus simplex Bacillus subtilis Bacillus circulans Bacillus herbersteinensis Bacillus siralis Bacillus vallismortis Bacillus psychodurans Bacillus amyloliquefaciens Bacillus firmus Bacillus cereus Paenibacillus illinoisensis

A Clinical Audit on The Compliance On Hand Washing Laboratory In a Private University In Peninsular Malaysia (IJIRST/ Volume 1 / Issue 7 / 013)

Paenibacillus Paenibacillus polymyxa Paenibacillus lautus Exiguobacterium

Tanner et al [25] validated that use of nail scrubs that is important in the method of hand washing in the laboratory using a quantitative research design. The randomized controlled trial determined the effect of nail brushes on the surgical hand scrub. Fifty-four adult participants were required on each group and equally divided the subjects to evaluate effectiveness of using the nail pick and nail scrubs. Bacterial hand counts were measured on the dominant hand immediately before the scrub and one hour after the scrub. More females use nail brush than males. The population of 54 was appropriate because it was divided into (n) 27 in each group having each subjects get the chance of being selected. However, the research of Tanner et al [25] using nail scrub can be questionable. Since proper techniques on hand washing was not demonstrated and most of the subjects of different genders doing laboratory hand washing had a different system washing of their hands. That is why this study uses a tool to evaluate the effectiveness of hand washing in reducing the spread of microorganism found in the hands of laboratory users using a standardized technique found on fig. 1 by Yin et al [26].

Fig. 1: Seven Steps of Hand Washing [26]

Yin et al [26] validated the compliance and effect of quick hand disinfection that were no different from than seven steps of hand washing (P=0.000). Even though the time of quick hand disinfection was shorter than the seven steps hand washing both are still effective in reducing the spread of microorganism found in the hands of laboratory users (P=0.000). This research used a quantitative design randomizing doctors and nurses in the Intensive Care Unit in a private hospital in China to explore the effective method of hand hygiene and compared it with the 7 steps of hand washing. The 100 participants‟ hands were placed on a petri dish and sent to laboratories to examine the amount of microorganisms after drying their washed hands with paper towels. However, this study did not evaluate the proper technique on throwing waste materials after drying the hands with paper towels. Abor [27] validated that waste bins are important to be available after washing hands in the laboratory in an observational research design. The study adopted a multiple case approach, using two public and two private hospitals and evaluated the proper technique in throwing paper towels after washing the hands in order to prevent the spread of microorganism after hand washing in the laboratory. Abor‟s [27] findings shows a probability value of 0.001 which means that throwing paper towels after washing hands reduces the further spread of microorganism if subjects do not place their hands below waist level. In addition, bio-hazard symbols should be painted on waste containers and/or waste trolleys and suitable system for securing the load during transport should be ensured so that dispatchers will also not be infected. Such a vehicle should be easily cleanable with rounded corners when dispatching waste containers and/or waste trolleys. Lastly, on site collection requires staff to close the waste bags when they are three quarters full either by tying the neck or by sealing the bag.

V. METHODOLOGY Primarily the auditors requested assistance from qualified laboratory technologists for culturing the hand specimens of the laboratory users. Secondly, the auditors ensured that the innovation was presented to the operations management for approval. Operations managements‟ approval are then shown to the deans or heads of different allied health faculties because the laboratories that are to be audited must be operational and in coordination with the lecturers‟ or clinical laboratory instructors‟ schedule. The auditors will also make sure that the laboratories were supplied with facilities such as bactericidal soaps placed on the walls, the paper

A Clinical Audit on The Compliance On Hand Washing Laboratory In a Private University In Peninsular Malaysia (IJIRST/ Volume 1 / Issue 7 / 013)

towels place beside the sink, the air dryer on walls, the nail scrubs and the trash bins located below the waist line of the laboratory sinks. The 7 steps of washing the hands that are posted on the walls of the selected laboratories with the seal of approval from the university operations management will also be ensured. The posters are to be 3 feet long and 2 feet wide such as the A-3 sized papers and the letters are typed in big fonts [28], size 40 written in English language. It is anticipated that the laboratory instructors will emphasize to their students to comply with the approved innovated hand washing laboratory. Finally, an additional risk of safety for human subjects was approved by the department of research and gave a copy to the operations management to commence the audit. Three allied health faculties were used. The auditors (the authors) ensured that the audit will not be repeated on the same faculty since the prospective subjects both students and teachers, will already be informed that they are being secretly observed. The auditors (the authors) before starting the audit goes into a secured room with a glass window and sits inside while observing the participants. Subject selection should be simple and random. The participants who are coming from the private university in peninsular Malaysia will have no problems with the English language [29, 30, 31] encrypted on the posters hanged on the walls. The pictures found on fig. 1 communicate the manner of washing the hands [28]. Prospective subjects/participants who will not comply with the method of hand washing laboratory will belong to the category of the non-compliance, while those who comply will belong to the category of compliance. After the participants use the laboratory, whether they was their hands following the innovated hand washing laboratory or not, they were immediately asked for consent to have their 5 fingers placed on the different surface of nutrient agar in culture plate. The fingers are pressed into a non-selective agar plate which supports the growth of microorganisms, and the plate is incubated at 25oC found on fig. 2 [39]. The culturing of the microorganisms will be incubated for 48 hours [39].

Fig. 2: Method of Hand Specimen Collection [39]

Biochemical tests are not required for identification purpose as the auditors (the authors) are not looking for specific microorganism. The audit will be a maximum of 10 days per faculty. Since the auditors (the authors) used 3 different faculties in the allied health, then the total number of days for the audit was 30 days. The culture plates with nutrient agar are ready to be used immediately after the laboratory experiments are done and hand washing is performed. The petri dishes with agar after collecting the hand specimen from the human participants are labeled as compliance and noncompliance. Portfolios of the participants were organized [32] and it is ensured that it follows the guidelines of the Quality Assurance Agency [33]. Each participant was given index numbers for data analysis. Each index number will be given to the participants so that when they wish to refer back to the results of their published findings in this clinical audit, the portfolio will be easily accessed by the auditors (the authors) or by the operations management.

VI. FINDINGS Fifty participants were used. All of them gave consent to have their hands placed on a petri dish with agar immediately after wiping their hands so that it will be sent to the microbiology laboratory for 48 hours incubation. The participants who belong to the non-compliance category either miscommunicated the innovated hand washing laboratory posted on the walls or intentionally did not demonstrate the steps. Those who demonstrated all the steps of the innovation belong to the compliance category. The results of the cultured microorganisms are categorized as compliance and non-compliance. Table 4 shows the identified demographic distribution of the 50 participants categorized to be compliant and non-compliant with the method of hand washing in the laboratory. Of the 50, there were more participants who complied (28 or 56%) than those who did not comply (22 or 44%) with hand washing in the laboratory with a probability of 0.012.

A Clinical Audit on The Compliance On Hand Washing Laboratory In a Private University In Peninsular Malaysia (IJIRST/ Volume 1 / Issue 7 / 013)

Table - 4 The Findings Of Both Compliance And Non-Compliance To Hand Washing In The Laboratory Categories Age Males Females Malaysians Non-Malaysians 15 to 19 10 0 10 0 Compliance 20 to 25 8 0 8 0 26 above 2 8 10 0 16 to 19 0 2 0 2 20 to 25 5 2 5 2 Non- compliance 26 above 5 8 13 0

There were more Malaysians who complied (28) compared to the non-Malaysians (0). At the same time, there were more Malaysians who did not comply (18) as compared with the non-Malaysians (4). The selected private university has more Malaysians in the allied health compared to non-Malaysians. Participants who are male ages 15 to 19 years comply most on the method (10 compliance) followed by the same gender ages 20 to 25 years (8 compliance) and females ages 26 and above having the same value of compliance (8 compliance). Females who did not comply belongs to the age bracket of 26 and above (8 non-compliance) followed by the age bracket of 20 to 25 and 16 to 19 (2 non-compliance), while males who did not comply belongs to the age bracket 20 to 25 and 26 and above (5 noncompliance). Of the 50, 30 are male participants and 20 are female participants. Of the 20 females, 8 were compliant (40%) and 12 were non-compliant (60%). Of the 30 males, 20 were compliant (66.66%) and 10 were non-compliant (33.33%). The allied health has more male compliant than that of the females. The statistical figures identify compliance of hand washing in the laboratory regarding nationality, age and gender. Data analysis using percentage are appropriate on this clinical audit to easily convert a group of figures into one value and when it is dispersed into several values it is still easily averaged. Fig. 4 shows the comparison of compliance and non-compliance. The washed hands of the subjects showed a very few evidence of growth on agar plates after 48 hours incubation.

Fig. 4: Comparison of Compliance And Non-Compliance To Hand Washing Laboratory

Lack of compliance to laboratory hand washing can also be due to miscommunication of the pictures posted on the walls of the laboratory that addresses the barriers of communication [35, 36]. Age differences can be a factor on the perceptions of the participants towards the pictures (fig. 1). Non-Malaysians who are non-compliant may have also experienced communication barriers [37, 38]. Barriers to communication using posters are to be addressed in order to enhance the change management of laboratory hand washing [17].

VII. ACTION PLAN FOR CHANGE MANAGEMENT The innovated hand washing laboratory audited in this private university in peninsular Malaysia can be used as a handbook to enhance learning in the workplaces. However, the handbook must achieve the aim to identify and evaluate an element of professional practice pertinent to reducing the spread of infection by the proper practice of hand washing in the laboratory thus distinguishes the challenges of implementing hand washing laboratory in laboratory practice. Auditing the correct way of using the apparatuses to wash hands is the primary step. However, the process of change can be threatened by barriers to communicate the steps of hand washing using posters. In order to avoid this weakness the auditors after conducting the audit, ensure that the posters (fig. 3) are explained to the laboratory users. However, the observation started primarily without the participants knowing that they were being observed, which unbiasedly identified who among the laboratory users needed further explaining of what the posters are trying to communicate.

A Clinical Audit on The Compliance On Hand Washing Laboratory In a Private University In Peninsular Malaysia (IJIRST/ Volume 1 / Issue 7 / 013)

Fig. 3: Hand Washing Poster Placed On The Walls of The University Laboratory

On the other hand, in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the handbook, in making allied health laboratory users in a private university comply with hand washing in the laboratory, the auditors will give laboratory instructors seminars and trainings to emphasize on the innovated hand washing laboratory. Mirshamsy et al [34] says that microorganisms also increase its spread from trauma wounds when hand washing is not done, which needs to be emphasized during seminars and trainings. It is anticipated that the laboratory instructors will disseminate the information and/or their knowledge of the innovation to their own students who uses the laboratory as their work places after giving them seminars and trainings. These laboratory users â&#x20AC;&#x201C; both students and laboratory instructors â&#x20AC;&#x201C; will be identified as potential threats to the anticipated success of the change process, if they will not comply with the innovated hand washing laboratory after giving them seminars and trainings. Hence, clinical audits must be constantly conducted semi-annually to freeze the change process (table 5). Table â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 5 The clinical audit that must be constantly conducted What we want them to do What they are doing What they need to do (Innovated hand washing laboratory) (Findings) (Action plan) Use bacteriostatic liquid soap in a pump Read the handbook and disseminate dispenser Use the elbow or knee operated tap water

Complied

Not complied

Complied

Not complied

Complied

Not complied

Use air dryers or paper towels after hand washing Use nail brushes during hand washing

Complied

Not complied

disseminate the information Read the handbook and attend

Complied

Not complied

Complied

Not complied

Do not touch waste basins that are below the waist line

Read the posters on the walls

Attend seminars and trainings and

Demonstrate the seven steps of hand washing

information

seminars and trainings Disseminate the information

VIII. CONCLUSION It is therefore concluded that auditing in secret this innovated hand washing laboratory is deemed necessary to identify and evaluate an unbiased outcome of health safety since washing hands after using the laboratories; decreases the spread of microorganisms. The innovated hand washing laboratory was successful with a probability of 0.012, although this audit still shows a percentage of deviation from the point of perfect compliance due to communication barriers. More participants complied (28 or 56%) than those who did not comply (22 or 44%). It is also concluded that the innovated hand washing laboratory is a contemporary issue that needs to be audited by healthcare professionals in order to achieve the MDGP to improve compliance with sanitation and hygiene. Special thanks to Diane Owen (Supervisor) and Eduardo Punay (Editor) for their support.

A Clinical Audit on The Compliance On Hand Washing Laboratory In a Private University In Peninsular Malaysia (IJIRST/ Volume 1 / Issue 7 / 013)

REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

Department of Health. “Standards for Better Health,” England: National Health Service Press. 2004. Jones, T. and Cawthorne, S. “What is Clinical Audit?‟ Vol.4. Issue 1, pp.1-9. 2002 Skolnik, R. “Essentials of Global Health. Essential Public Health,” USA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. 2008. United Nations. “The Millennium Development Goal Report 2005,” Available at: www.un.org/docs/summit2005/MDGBook.pdf. Accessed August 2014. 2006 Nelson, M. “It‟s As Easy As Washing Your Hands,” Home Health FOCUS. Vol.3. Issue 7, p.51. 1996. Riley, R. “Airborne infections,” American Journal of Nursing. Vol.60, p.1246. 1960 Curtis, H. “The Viruses,” New York: The natural history press. 1966. Collins, B.J. “The Hospital Enviroment: How clean should hospital be?” J.Hospital Infection, Vol.11, pp.53-56. 1988. Sox, H. C. “Probability theory in the use of diagnostic tests,” Annals of Internal Medicine. Vol.104, Issue1, pp. 60-65. 1986 Sox, H. C. “Preventive Health Services in adults,” New England Journal of Medicine. Vol.330 Issue 22 pp.1589-1595. 1994 Centers for Disease Control. “Prevention Guidelines for prevention of transmission of human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis B virus to health-care and public-safety workers,” Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1989, Vol.38 (suppl S6) pp. 1–37. 1996. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Recommendations for prevention of HIV transmission in health-care settings,” Morb Mortal Wkly Rep., Vol.36 (2S) pp. 1S–18S. 1987. Lymer U.-B., Antonsson Schu¨ tz A. & Isaksson B. “A descriptive study of blood exposure incidents among health care workers in a university hospital in Sweden,” Journal of Hospital Infection, Vol.35, pp.223–235. 1997. Ya-ning, X., Dong, K., Gao, Y. and Su, C. “Experimental observation on some properties of Lu-Er biological bacteriostatic hand washing solution,” Chinese Journal of disinfection. Vol.2: pp.1-5. 2005. World Health Organization. “Practical Guidelines for Infection Control in Health Care Facilities,” Geneva:WPRO Regional Publication. 2007. World Health Organisation, “WHO guidelines on hand hygiene in healthcare: first global patient safety challenge clean care is safer care,” Geneva: WHO. 2009. Loh, L.C., Chelliah, A., Ang, T.H. and Ali, M.A. “A change in infection control practices and awareness of hospital medical staff in the aftermath of SARS,” The Medical Journal of Malaysia. Vol.59 Issue 5, pp.659-664. 2005. Al-Naggar, R.A. and Al-Jashamy, K. “Perceptions and Barriers of Hands Hygiene Practice among Medical Science Students in a

Medical School in Malaysia,” International Medical Journal Malaysia. Vol.12, issue, 2, pp.11-14. 2013 [19] Katherason, S., Naing, L., Jaalam, K., Nik Mohamad, N.K., Bhojwani, K. Harussani, N. and Ismail, A. “Hand decontamination practices and the appropriate use of gloves in two adult intensive care units in Malaysia,” Journal of Infection in Developing Countries, Vol.4 Issue 2, pp.118-123. 2010. [20] Tan, S.L., Bakar, F., Karim, M. S., Lee, H and Mahyudin, N.A. “Hand hygiene knowledge and practices among food handlers at primary schools in Hulu Langat district, Selangor (Malaysia),” Food Control. Vol.34, Issue 2, pp.428-435. 2013. [21] Cochrane, J. “Infection control audit of hand hygiene facilities,” Nursing Standards. Vol. 17 pp.33-38. 2013. [22] Ohmori, Y., Tonouchi, H., Mori, Y., Kobayashi, M. and Kusunoki, M. “Evaluation of tap water for hand washing,” Surgery Today. Vol. 36, Issue 2, pp.119-124. 2006. [23] Gendron, L., Trudel, L. and Moineau, S. and Duchaine, C. “Evaluation of bacterial contaminants found on unused paper towels and possible postcontamination after handwashing: A pilot study,” American Journal of Infection Control. Vol. 40, pp.e5-e9. 2012. [24] Gillespie, B., Chaboyer, W. and Wallis, M. “The influence of personal characteristics on the resilience of operating room nurses: A predictor study,” International Journal of Nursing Studies. Vol.46, pp.968-976. 2009. [25] Tanner, J., Khan, D., Walsh, S., Chernova, J., Lamont, S. and Laurent, T. “Brushes and Picks used on nails during the surgical scrubs to reduce bacteria: a randomized trial,” Journal of Hospital Infection. Vol.71, pp. 234-238. 2009. [26] Yin, L., Wang Y., Yan, X., Yang L. and Shen F. “Quick Hand Disinfection versus Seven Steps of Hand Washing in ICU,” Chinese Journal of Nosocomiology, Vol.12, pp. 12-19. 2007. [27] Abor, P. “Managing healthcare waste in Ghana: a comparative study of public and private hospitals,” International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance. Vol.26, Issue 4, pp.375-386. 2012 [28] Pittet, D. “Improving adherence to hand hygiene: a multidisciplinary approach,” Vol.7 Issue 2, pp.234-240. 2001. [29] Wan Shahrazad, W., Wan Rafaei, A.R., and Ozulkifli, M.A. “Relationship between critical thinking dispositions, perceptions towards teachers, learning approaches and critical thinking skills among university students. The 4 th International Post-graduate Research Colloquium IPRC proceedings,” Malaysia: International Islamic University Press. 2005. [30] Malaysia, “The Benchmark Report on Higher Education: Towards Academic Excellence,” Shah Alam: Pusat Penerbitan Universiti Press. 2005. [31] Malaysia, “Education Guide Malaysia”, Edition: 10th. Kuala Lumpur: Challenger Concept. 2006. [32] Moore, L.J. “Professional portfolios: A powerful vehicle for reflective exercises and recording work-based learning,” Work-based learning in primary care. 4(1): (pp.25-35). 2006. [33] Quality Assurance Agency (2010). “Employer-responsive provision survey: a reflective report,” Gloucester: QAA. [34] Mirshamsi, M., Ayatollahi, J. and Dashti, M. “A comparison with traumatic wound infection after irrigating them with tap water and normal saline,” World Journal of Medical Sciences. Vol.2 Issue 1, pp. 58-61. 2007 [35] Burtis, J. O. and Turman, P.O. “Group Communication Pitfalls: Overcoming Barriers to an Effective Group Experience,” New York: Sage Publishing. 2005. [36] Ramsbotham, O., Miall, H. and Voodhouse, T. “Contemporary Conflict Resolution,” Cambridge: Polity Press. 2011 [37] Lee, M.N.N. “Education Change in Malaysia,” Penang: Universiti Sains Malaysia: Press. 2002 [38] Cunningham, I., Dares, G. and Bennett, B. “The handbook of work-based learning,” Burlington: Gower Publishing. 2004. [39] Codex Alimentarius Commission. “Recommended International Code of Practice,” (CAC/RCP 1-1969, Rev. 4-2003). 2009.