Strategies to reduce the contraction and spread of infectious diseases by nurses

Infection, Disease & Health (2021) 26, 55e62

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/infection- disease-and-health/

Research paper

Nurses’ and midwives’ cleaning knowledge, attitudes and practices: An Australian study

Brett G. Mitchell a,b,*, Philip L. Russo c,d, Martin Kiernan a,e, Cassie Curryer a

a School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Newcastle, Ourimbah, New South Wales, Australia b School of Nursing, Avondale College of Higher Education, Wahroonga, New South Wales, Australia c Department of Nursing Research, Cabrini Institute, Malvern, VIC, Australia d Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Frankston, VIC, Australia e Richard Wells Research Centre, University of West London, Brentford, UK

Received 30 June 2020; accepted 7 September 2020 Available online 30 September 2020

KEYWORDS Cleaning; Infection prevention and control; Patient environment; Shared equipment; Education; Applied knowledge

* Corresponding author. School of N 2308, Australia. Tel: þ61 2 4349 4536

E-mail address: brett.mitchell@ne

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idh.2020.09 2468-0451/ª 2020 Australasian Colleg

Abstract Background: As frontline providers of care, nurses and midwives play a critical role in controlling infections such as COVID-19, influenza, multi-drug resistant organisms and health care associated infections. Improved cleaning can reduce the incidence of infection and is cost effective but relies on healthcare personnel to correctly apply cleaning measures. As nurses and midwives have the most contact with patients and as an important first step in improving compliance, this study sought to explore nurses’ and midwives’ knowledge on the role of the environment in infection prevention and control and identify challenges in maintaining clean patient environments. Methods: Cross-sectional online survey of 96 nurses (RN/EN) and midwives (RW) employed in clinical settings (e.g. hospital, aged care, medical centre, clinic) in Australia. Results: Nurses and midwives broadly stated that they understood the importance of cleaning. However, cleaning responsibilities varied and there was confusion regarding the application of different disinfectants when cleaning after patients with a suspected or diagnosed infection post-discharge. Most would not be confident being placed in a room where a previous patient had a diagnosed infection such as multi-drug resistant organism. Conclusion: Greater organisational support and improving applied knowledge about infection control procedures is needed. This includes correct use of disinfectants, which disinfectant to use for various situations, and cleaning effectively following discharge of a patient with known infection. The cleanliness of shared medical equipment may also pose current risk due to lack of cleaning. ª 2020 Australasian College for Infection Prevention and Control. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

ursing and Midwifery, The University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, New South Wales, . wcastle.edu (B.G. Mitchell).

.002 e for Infection Prevention and Control. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

56 B.G. Mitchell et al.

Highlights

� Improved cleaning reduces incidence of healthcare associated infection but relies on cor- rect application.

� Nurses and midwives expressed confusion regarding disinfectant use and cleaning responsibility.

� Most would not be confident being placed in a room where a previous patient had a diag- nosed infection.

Introduction

As frontline providers of care, nurses and midwives play a vital role in prevention and control of infections such as COVID19, influenza, multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs) and health care associated infections (HCAIs) more broadly. However, nurses’ and midwives’ compliance with infection control policies can vary between settings and individual workers [1e3]. Subjective indicators such as visible dirt, personal appearance and whether a patient had been identified as being infectious, can inform nurses’ decision-making regarding even basic standard precautions such as hand- washing [1,3e6]. This reliance on personal judgement rather than consistent application of clinical standards for infection prevention and control could potentially lead to cross- contamination and subsequently, increase rates of infection. Experience, organisational structure (including staffing ratios and training), individual knowledge, and personal account- ability may also impact on compliance with optimal infection control practice and governance [7e11].

Beyond individual factors, the hospital environment has been shown to be a contributing factor in the spread of HCAIs and MDROs [12,13]. Moreover, pathogens can survive for days or months on surfaces that have not been cleaned, posing an ongoing risk for transmission [14]. Consequently, there is a higher risk of a patient acquiring a pathogen from the previous room occupant [15,16]. Improved cleaning can reduce the incidence of HCAIs and is cost effective [12,17], but relies on healthcare personnel to correctly and consis- tently apply cleaning measures. Nurses and midwives have the most contact with patients across healthcare settings. Therefore, they have a critical role in infection prevention and control. As an important first step in improving compliance and precursor to further work, this study sought to explore:

1. What are enrolled nurses, registered nurses and mid- wives’ knowledge on the role of the environment in the infection prevention control, and

2. What are the barriers and challenges for nurses and midwives to maintaining a clean patient environment?

Methods

Study design

This paper reports findings from a cross-sectional, online survey of nurses and midwives employed in clinical roles.

Setting

Registered nurses (RN), enrolled nurses (EN) and registered midwives (RM) who are currently employed in clinical set- tings in Australia.

Recruitment

Participants were recruited via advertisements placed in written and electronic materials published by professional associations (such as the Australian College of Nursing and the Australian Nurses and Midwives Association), via work- place emails and newsletters, and through social media (Facebook, twitter) targeting nurses and midwives. The advertisements provided broad information about the sur- vey, and included an online link to the study information, electronic consent form, and non-identifiable survey. Ten $20 gift cards were randomly allocated as a participation incentive. Participants who were not registered nurses, midwives or enrolled nurses were excluded from the study, in addition to those currently unemployed or not working in clinical roles (e.g. hospital, residential aged care facility, medical centre, or clinic).

Data collection

The survey was open for responses between 1st December 2019and13thMarch2020; at whichtimethesurveywas closed due to dwindling response rates. Interested participants accessed the online link as provided in the study invitation. Screening questions were used to exclude individuals who did not meet criteria for eligibility. Eligible participants then completedanonlineconsentformbeforegainingaccesstothe survey. The online survey contained questions (multiple choice, yes/no and open-ended) relating to their perceptions and knowledge about infection control and cleaning. The survey was developed by three infection control experts and piloted informally on a small group of registered nurses to enable refinement of survey questions. Demographic infor- mation was collected, including nursing association affilia- tion, age, gender, years of nursing experience (post qualification) and highest (completed) qualification. No identifiable information was collected. The survey is available as supplementary material.

Data analysis

Descriptive and exploratory analysis of survey results was performed. Qualitative (free-text) responses to open-

Table 1 Participant demographic data (n Z 96).

Number Percentage

Gender Male 8 8 Female 88 92 Prefer not to say 0 0

Age group (years) 20-29 5 5 30-39 11 11 40-49 28 29 50-59 33 34 >60 years 19 20

Highest qualification Diploma 12 12 Bachelor level 30 31 Post graduate certificate/diploma 28 29 Masters degree 25 26 PhD 1 1

Usual place of work Hospital e public 56 58 Hospital - private 16 17 Residential aged care 8 8 GP practice 6 6 Medical centre/clinic 10 10

How long working for current employer <1 year 12 12 1e5 years 34 35 6e10 years 16 17 10 years plus 34 35

State or Territory of Australia Australian Capital Territory 5 5 New South Wales 37 39 Northern Territory 2 2 Queensland 7 7 South Australia 3 3 Tasmania 19 20 Victoria 13 14 Western Australia 10 10

Nurses’ and midwives’ cleaning knowledge and practice. 57

ended questions were collated and each response read individually. Qualitative analysis (constant comparison, frequency counts/ranking) was used to identify and group responses into common themes.

Results

Overview

132 participants accessed the online survey. Of these, 28 were subsequently excluded from the survey (n Z 19 not currently working in a clinical setting; n Z 6 not RN, EN or RM; and n Z 3 did not provide consent). Of the 104 eligible participants, 96 consented to participate and commenced the survey, representing our sample size. 79 participants completed the full survey. The use of IP address cross referenced against demographic information suggested there were no repeat responses from the same individual. Participant demographic data is presented in Table 1. There was representation across all age groups, with diversity in the highest qualification obtained, the length of time at their current employer and the jurisdiction in which they worked. Most participants worked in a hospital setting.

Cleaning knowledge

Importance of cleaning Participants were asked to nominate the most important reasons for cleaning the environment in healthcare set- tings. Seventy-four (94%) participants indicated that the main reason for cleaning was to reduce the risk of infection transmission. Healthcare accreditation was found to be the least important reason for cleaning (n Z 35, 44%).

Cleaning responsibility We asked participants to indicate who was responsible for cleaning four items, two frequently touched items (bed rails and nurse call bells) and two items of shared medical equipment (IV pole and IV pump). The majority of partici- pants indicated that nursing/midwifery staff were respon- sible for cleaning the IV pole (73%, n Z 58) and pump (79%, n Z 62). There was less certainty about who was respon- sible for cleaning bed rails and nurse call bells. Forty- percent (40%, n Z 32) indicated it was a nursing/midwifery responsibility. Ten percent of participants did not know who was responsible for cleaning shared medical equip- ment (IV pole and pump). Participants were asked to nominate what method or product they would use to clean in various situations. Results are presented in Table 2.

Knowledge and practice Using a Likert scale, participants were asked to indicate how much they agreed with four statements relating to the use and application of disinfectant products in clinical settings (Fig. 1). While the effectiveness on patient safety was well understood, there was less certainty about disin- fectants and their use.

Participants were shown four visual representations of how to clean a surface, using different directional move- ments such as circular, up and down, one-directional or S- shaped (serpentine). Of those that answered, 61% (n Z 48)

correctly identified the best way to clean a surface (i.e., answer Z C, serpentine). Regarding cleaning of shared medical equipment such as a blood pressure cuff, a small number reported ‘probably don’t clean’ (14%, n Z 11) this equipment. The majority (81%, n Z 64) reported using wipes to clean shared medical equipment (supplementary material, Table S1).

Participants were shown pictures of three patient hos- pital rooms (Fig. 2). Room A showed a patient lying present in the bed with various equipment. Room B appeared to be empty, with the bed looking slightly rumpled. Room C showed a patient lying in bed and was less cluttered in appearance than Room A. Participants were then asked to nominate which room presented the lowest risk of infection (A, B, C, or ‘don’t know’). The majority chose Room A, a cluttered room occupied by a patient.

Using a free text option, participants were asked what one item/piece of equipment they thought posed the greatest risk of infection transmission from the environ- ment. The most common responses were hospital furniture

Table 2 Method and product used for cleaning in different situations (n Z 79)a.

Detergent based product only

Disinfectant only

Sporicidal disinfectant

Automated system e.g. Ultraviolet, Hydrogen peroxide vapour

Detergent/disinfectant combined

Detergent followed by a disinfectant

Don’t know Total

N % n % n % n % n % n % n % n

Routinely for patient without a known infection

36 45.6% 11 14.0% 3 3.8% 1 1.2% 17 21.5% 6 7.6% 5 6.3% 79

Patient with VRE

3 3.8% 7 8.9% 10 12.7% 5 6.3% 28 35.4% 19 24.1% 7 8.9% 79

Patient with C.difficile

4 5.1% 4 5.1% 19 24.1% 3 3.8% 17 21.5% 23 29.1% 9 11.4% 79

Patient with a multi-drug resistant GRAM negative bacteria

6 7.6% 7 8.9% 10 12.7% 10 12.7% 24 30.4% 15 19.0% 7 8.9% 79

a Not all questions were answered.

5 8

B .G

. M itc

h e ll e t a l.

Fig. 2 Examples of patient rooms and infection risks from environment. 96% of respondents (n Z 76) indicated Room A posed the greatest risk, 1% (n Z 1) for Room C and 3% (n Z 2) indicated they don’t know.

Fig. 1 Level of agreement to cleaning and disinfectant knowledge.

Nurses’ and midwives’ cleaning knowledge and practice. 59

60 B.G. Mitchell et al.

(beds, bedside tables, curtains, call bells, door handles), peoples’ hands, and patient observation machines. Other suggestions included clinical staff, nursing stations and items frequently used by nurses. Participants also high- lighted the role of nursing and other staff behaviours in either spreading or containing infection. For example, one participant commented:

‘boxes of wall mounted gloves. Seen people pull gloves out, too many come out, they fall on the floor, so people pick up [the] gloves and put them back in the box!’

Barriers and challenges to cleaning effectiveness

The themes from participants around barriers to cleaning effectively were a lack of information and training, re- sources (cleaning products and equipment), lack of dedi- cated cleaning staff, and organisational structures. The free-text survey comments (supplementary material, SQ1- 2) stressed the need for more readily accessible informa- tion including simple wall charts with information about which product to use and where and improved labelling on wipes and cleaning agents. More education was needed about which products were recommended for patients presenting with infections such as C. difficile or multi-drug resistant organism (MDRO). Product useability was impor- tant, with single-use disinfectant wipes preferred, espe- cially where staff experienced competing time pressures. A lack of policies and guidelines to inform infection control practices and lack of clear role definitions and staff accountability were also identified. In contrast to most comments, seven participants perceived that ‘nothing’ impacted their ability to clean equipment between pa- tients, i.e., cleaning always occurred even when staff were pressed for time.

Education, personal efficacy and confidence Most participants reported having received information about cleaning importance, correct product usage and availability. Twenty-three percent (n Z 18) had received information within last 3 months, 19% (n Z 15) in the previous 3e12 months and 15% (n Z 12) reported having received information in the last 1e3 years. However, 32% (n Z 25) either ‘do not recall’ or have ‘never’ received any information about the importance of cleaning, product availability in their organisation, nor how to correctly apply products for infection control purposes. The majority of training received (25%, n Z 20) was provided by an Infec- tion Control Team (Table S2). Additionally, using a Likert scale, participants were asked to indicate level of agree- ment with four statements regarding cleaning effectiveness (Table S3). Despite the majority indicating confidence in their cleaning ability (usually 46%, n Z 36; always 23%, n Z 18), most did not feel comfortable being admitted to a room where the previous patient had a multi-drug resistant organism (never 42%, n Z 33; only sometimes 34%, n Z 18).

Discussion

It is well accepted that the clinical environment plays a role in the transmission of infections such as multi-drug resistant

organisms (MDROs) and healthcare associated infections (HCAIs) [2,7,8,12,14,15,17e20]. Ineffective cleaning prac- tices by nursing and midwifery staff may also contribute to a high pathogen-load being present within hospital settings [15,19,21]. As an important first step to improving environ- mental hygiene, this study found that nurses and midwives broadly stated that they understood the importance of cleaning, albeit, there is variation in cleaning responsibilities. Moreover, cleaning of shared medical equipment may pose current risk in terms of lack of cleaning.

In keeping with Aiken et al. [22], this study found that nursing and midwifery staff play a key role in cleaning duties as part of their working role. However, our findings suggest there was ambiguity about who was responsible for cleaning patient areas or certain items (such as IV pumps). There was also less certainty regarding how or when to use disinfectants and about the effectiveness of disinfectants on different groups of micro-organisms. These findings could be a result of any number of factors, including appropriateness of the product, lack of product information or of education. The implications of inappropriate product use may result in ineffective cleaning, thus increasing the risk of HCAIs. There are also health and safety implications for disinfectant use. In terms of the process of cleaning, 39% (n Z 31) of participants did not identify the correct way to clean (wipe) a surface (i.e. S-shaped or serpentine). Therefore, this finding, coupled with a lack of under- standing about product (disinfectant) choice, will result in less effective cleaning and increase transmission risks.

As pathogens can survive on uncleaned or inappropri- ately cleaned surfaces for long periods of time, it is vital that shared medical equipment is consistently and correctly cleaned to reduce the risk of HCAIs. Genomic analyses by Lee et al. [23] of VRE transmission pathways within an intensive care unit identified the key role shared medical equipment has in ICU. Factors for suboptimal cleaning of shared equipment may include insufficient stocks of equipment to allow for cleaning and rotation between pa- tients, lack of product at the point of use and perceived lack of time [1,7,19]. Understanding reasons for this are important and we will be following this up in future work. Survey participants called for more easily accessible infor- mation about the different types of cleaning products and what they were used for, greater accessibility to products, greater clarity around cleaning roles and who was respon- sible for maintaining particular items or patient areas, as well as increased accountability on the behalf of staff and hospital management.

Factors that may influence a decision for cleaning to take a secondary role include the perception of infection risk from the environment versus other competing patient care requirements, as well as understanding cleaning re- sponsibilities. When we asked participants to identify which room posed the highest infection risk, the majority of participants chose the most cluttered room. This indicates good understanding among respondents that cluttered en- vironments can hamper cleaning. However, the correct answer was ‘don’t know’, i.e., while this room may reflect challenges undertaking cleaning, it does not necessarily relate to risk. Pathogens are invisible to the naked eye and any of the rooms may pose an infection risk [15]. Factors influencing risk would include the type of infection or

Nurses’ and midwives’ cleaning knowledge and practice. 61

pathogen from an unknown but colonised patient, as well as the effectiveness of cleaning. None of the provided images illustrated this. The subjectivity of choosing a room which is cluttered is consistent with other work, which found that compliance with even basic infection protocols such as handwashing and wearing gloves was individually and sub- jectively based [3e5].

Variations in product use and cleaning practices [21,24,25], information transfer and communication path- ways [26e28], and organisational culture [20], can all influ- ence cleaning outcomes. Improving staff knowledge around product use, communication, training, audit and utilising an implementation framework have been shown to improve cleaning outcomes, reduce risks for patients and are cost- effective [12,17,29]. In our study, most participants (68%, n Z 54) indicated that they had received information about the importance of cleaning, the types of products available in their organisation and product application. However, 11% (n Z 9) had last received that information more than 3 years prior and a further 32% (n Z 25) did not recall or had never received any cleaning information. Another key theme emerging from survey comments was the lack of simple in- formation about particular cleaning products. Participants called for easy instructions to support correct product usage and application. These findings suggest the need for improved and structured education of nurses and midwives around cleaning on a regular basis, as well as improved communication. Education could be provided in any number of ways, including from nurse educators, online platforms or from representatives from industry supplying products and equipment. Of course, nurses are only one professional group in healthcare. Shared medical equipment is also used by medical and allied health. Potentially the same issues exist in these professional groups regarding knowledge of cleaning and responsibilities around who cleans equipment they use.

This study is limited by the use of a cross-sectional study design and the accuracy of self-report responses provided. The vast majority of surveys were undertaken prior to the COVID-19 pandemic taking hold in Australia, so biases associated with this are expected to be limited. The sample size, while not large is a further limitation. Nonetheless, this study provides a useful snapshot of nurses’ and mid- wives’ knowledge of infection control and cleaning pro- cesses, something that to our knowledge has not been undertaken before. We identified gaps in training and knowledge, as well as unclear responsibilities for cleaning certain objects. These findings can be used to inform workforce education and planning and hospital cleaning policies. Similarly, the findings lay the foundation for future research exploring solutions to try and improve the cleaning of shared medical equipment.

Conclusion

Greater organisational support, clear policies detailing cleaning responsibility, and improving the applied knowl- edge and personal efficacy of nurses and midwives regarding infection prevention and control is needed. This includes the correct use of disinfectants, which disinfectant to use for various situations, and how to clean effectively following

discharge of a patient with a suspected or known infection. The cleanliness of shared medical equipment may also pose current risk due to lack of cleaning.

Ethical considerations

Ethics approval for this study was granted by [blinded for review].

Authorship statement

BM, MK and PR designed the project. BM is the Chief Investigator for the project. BM and CC drafted the paper. All authors provided critical input into the paper. All au- thors approved the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

Two of the authors (BM and PLR) are editorial board members with the journal. All authors were blinded to this submission in the journal’s electronic editorial manage- ment system and none of the authors played any editorial role in handling this paper whatsoever. One author (MK) has paid employment from a company which sells cleaning products, as well as university appointments. No company played no any role in the design, analysis, interpretation or presentation of this paper.

Funding

In kind support is provided by the higher education in- stitutions with which the Chief Investigators are affiliated. PLR is supported by National Health and Medical Research Council Early Career Fellowships APP1156312.

Provenance and peer review

Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to the participants in this survey.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idh.2020.09.002.

References

[1] Efstathiou G, Papastavrou E, Raftopoulos V, Merkouris A. Factors influencing nurses’ compliance with Standard Pre- cautions in order to avoid occupational exposure to microor- ganisms: a focus group study. BMC Nurs 2011;10(1):1.

[2] Koh Y, Hegney DG, Drury V. Comprehensive systematic review of healthcare workers’ perceptions of risk and use of coping strategies towards emerging respiratory infectious diseases. Int J Evid Base Healthc 2011;9(4):403e19.

62 B.G. Mitchell et al.

[3] Whitby M, McLaws M-L, Ross MW. Why healthcare workers don’t wash their hands: a behavioral explanation. Infect Contr Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27(5):484e92.

[4] Bouchoucha SL, Moore KA. Infection prevention and control: who is the judge, you or the guidelines? J Infection Prevention 2017;19(3):131e7.

[5] Jackson C, Griffiths P. Dirt and disgust as key drivers in nurses’ infection control behaviours: an interpretative, qualitative study. J Hosp Infect 2014;87(2):71e6.

[6] Jackson C, Lowton K, Griffiths P. Infection prevention as “a show”: a qualitative study of nurses’ infection prevention behaviours. Int J Nurs Stud 2014;51(3):400e8.

[7] Alyahya MS, Hijazi HH, Al Qudah J, AlShyab S, AlKhalidi W. Evaluation of infection prevention and control policies, pro- cedures, and practices: an ethnographic study. Am J Infect Contr 2018;46(12):1348e55.

[8] Mitchell BG, Gardner A, Stone PW, Hall L, Pogorzelska- Maziarz M. Hospital staffing and health careeassociated in- fections: a systematic review of the literature. Joint Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2018;44(10):613e22.

[9] Mitchell B, McBeth D, Halton K, Gardner A, Hall L. Resourcing hospital infection prevention and control units in Australia: a discussion paper. Infection, Disease & Health 2017;22(2):83e8.

[10] Morrow E, Griffiths P, Rao GG, Flaxman D. “Somebody else’s problem?” Staff perceptions of the sources and control of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Am J Infect Contr 2011;39(4):284e91.

[11] Halton K, Hall L, Gardner A, MacBeth D, Mitchell BG. Exploring the context for effective clinical governance in infection control. Am J Infect Contr 2017;45(3):278e83.

[12] Mitchell BG, Hall L, White N, Barnett AG, Halton K, Paterson DL, et al. An environmental cleaning bundle and health-care- associated infections in hospitals (REACH): a multicentre, rand- omised trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2019;19(4):410e8.

[13] Ledwoch K, Dancer SJ, Otter JA, Kerr K, Roposte D, Rushton L, et al. Beware biofilm! Dry biofilms containing bacterial path- ogens on multiple healthcare surfaces; a multi-centre study. J Hosp Infect 2018;100(3):e47e56.

[14] Dancer SJ. The role of environmental cleaning in the control of hospital-acquired infection. J Hosp Infect 2009;73(4):378e85.

[15] Mitchell BG, Dancer SJ, Anderson M, Dehn E. Risk of organism acquisition from prior room occupants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hosp Infect 2015;91(3):211e7.

[16] Mitchell BG, Digney W, Ferguson JK. Prior room occupancy increases risk of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus acquisition. Healthc Infect 2014;19(4):135e40.

[17] White NM, Barnett AG, Hall L, Mitchell BG, Farrington A, Halton K, et al. Cost-effectiveness of an environmental

cleaning bundle for reducing healthcare-associated in- fections. Clin Infect Dis 2020;70(12):2461e8.

[18] Brannigan ET, Murray E, Holmes A. Where does infection control fit into a hospital management structure? J Hosp Infect 2009;73(4):392e6.

[19] Henderson J, Willis E, Roderick A, Bail K, Brideson G. Why do nurses miss infection control activities? A qualitative study. Collegian 2020;27(1):11e7.

[20] Zingg W, Holmes A, Dettenkofer M, Goetting T, Secci F, Clack L, et al. Hospital organisation, management, and structure for prevention of health-care-associated infection: a systematic review and expert consensus. Lancet Infect Dis 2015;15(2):212e24.

[21] Mitchell BG, Farrington A, Allen M, Gardner A, Hall L, Barnett AG, et al. Variation in hospital cleaning practice and process in Australian hospitals: a structured map- ping exercise. Infection, Disease & Health 2017;22(4): 195e202.

[22] Aiken LH, Clarke SP, Sloane DM, Sochalski JA, Busse R, Clarke H, et al. Nurses’ reports on hospital care in five countries. Health Aff 2001;20(3):43e53.

[23] Lee AS, White E, Monahan LG, Jensen SO, Chan R, van Hal SJ. Defining the role of the environment in the emergence and persistence of vanA vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) in an intensive care unit: a molecular epidemiological study. Infect Contr Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39(6):668e75.

[24] Semret M, Dyachenko A, Ramman-Haddad L, Belzile E, McCusker J. Cleaning the grey zones of hospitals: a prospec- tive, crossover, interventional study. Am J Infect Contr 2016; 44(12):1582e8.

[25] Boyce JM, Havill NL, Lipka A, Havill H, Rizvani R. Variations in hospital daily cleaning practices. Infect Control Hosp Epi- demiol 2010;31(1):99e101.

[26] Raveis VH, Conway LJ, Uchida M, Pogorzelska-Maziarz M, Larson EL, Stone PW. Translating infection control guidelines into practice: implementation process within a health care institution. Qual Health Res 2014;24(4):551e60.

[27] Ong MS, Magrabi F, Post J, Morris S, Westbrook J, Wobcke W, et al. Communication interventions to improve adherence to infection control precautions: a randomised crossover trial. BMC Infect Dis 2013;13:72.

[28] Gurses AP, Carayon P. Exploring performance obstacles of intensive care nurses. Appl Ergon 2009;40(3):509e18.

[29] Hall L, White NM, Allen M, Farrington A, Mitchell BG, Page K, et al. Effectiveness of a structured, framework-based approach to implementation: the researching effective ap- proaches to cleaning in hospitals (REACH) trial. Antimicrob Resist Infect Contr 2020;9(1):1e9.