Surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most common problems in healthcare, typically occurring in the emergency care hospital setting. This specifically affects patients admitted to the first-aid facilities due to serious health implications demanding surgical interventions. Infections are caused by numerous factors, including germs, unsterile equipment, contaminated wounds, and others. In order to eradicate the issues, it is vital to develop a PICOT question that would contrast two means of mitigating the problem. The PICOT question is the following:
In adult surgical patients (population), how does the implementation of antiseptics (intervention), compared to a regular hand hygiene routine using soap (comparison), impact the number of SSI (outcome) within a month post operation (time)?
Since the problem affects many emergency care departments, it is indispensable to develop an evidence-based question employing the PICOT question. Surgical site infections mainly appear due to improper hygiene. Hence, there is a need to introduce new methods of sterilizing hands. As a result, the evidence-based question will be the following: How does antiseptic soap add sterility in comparison to regular hygiene methods and impact the number of SSI?
The article titled “Antiseptic irrigation as an effective interventional strategy for reducing the risk of surgical site infections” describes the role of antiseptics in SSI prevention. Wound care has been long discussed in healthcare and the major treatment strategy is to use antiseptics (Edmiston et al., 2018). The purpose of this study is to determine how antiseptic agents prevent the emergency of surgery-associated infections (Edmiston et al., 2018). The researchers used descriptive and comparative methods in a study in order to define the role of antiseptics and their types and different dosages. The Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice (JHNEBP) model views the research in terms of practice questions, evidence, and translation. Therefore, the selected article’s practice question is discovered by reviewing various literature sources, while the evidence is propped by relevant citations, and the data is interpreted concisely, stating the major pros of using antiseptics in SSI prevention. Therefore, the quality rating is high because the authors provide up-to-date evidence and interpret it in a logical manner.
The data was processed by performing a qualitative analysis of medical journals’ studies. What is more, some quantitative information was placed in tables for better interpretation and comparison. The ethical considerations are partially present in the article; for example, all credentials are stated. Nonetheless, it was not experimental research and no participants were involved in the study, thereby excluding the principle of confidentiality. The authors conclude that irrigation of surgical sites is vital for infection prevention and suggest that there is still a void in the standardization of such practices. The article helps to answer the posed question since it fully discloses its vitality for surgical interventions.
The next article, which is a clinical guideline, explores how surgical site infections have been predominant in healthcare for the past decades. Even though medical advances allow surgeons and nurses to avoid these mistakes, they are still present in the modern healthcare system. The major consequence is the increased cost of hospitalization and re-admission (Ling et al., 2019). The authors describe risk factors and microorganisms that incite infections (Ling et al., 2019). The purpose of the current research is to summarize data on SSI and its prevention measures.
Considering the article in terms of the JHNEBP model, it should be stated that the research has been done thoroughly. As per the model, the practice question of the article relates to the most efficient methods of reducing the number of SSI. The second part of the framework is evidence; in the chosen article, it is presented by excerpts from reliable medical journals. The translation stands for the results interpretation: in this research, the outcome is the compilation and sequence of the most effective measures against surgical site infections. The quality of the material can be claimed to be high because the author refers to credible sources, uses relevant materials, and suggests data interpretation.
In general, the results are presented logically; the sequence of preventive measures is listed based on the peer-reviewing method. On the whole, the author suggested a practical guide based on the proposed recommendations, which was published by the Center of Disease Control and Prevention. The article helps to explain the set question of how antiseptic sprays contribute to SST prevention and why it is the most efficient means.
In order to eradicate the issue, it is vital to raise awareness among the main stakeholders: the healthcare facilities, the Center for Disease Control (CDC), and surgeons. These parties should initiate a policy that would standardize the guidelines for using antiseptics at surgery sites. However, there is a time barrier: in order to implement such a change, numerous surgeons have to advocate for a policy promotion, which will take a while to reach administrative facilities. Nevertheless, there is a solution: every healthcare organization must stick to the most recent CDC guidelines to avoid an increase in the number of SSI. Once antiseptics are used at a surgical site, there is a chance of reducing cases of related infections.
References
Edmiston, C. E., Spencer, M., & Leaper, D. (2018). Antiseptic irrigation as an effective interventional strategy for reducing the risk of surgical site infections. Surgical Infections, 19, 1-7.
Ling, M. L., Apisarnthanarak, A., Abbas, A., Morikane, K., Lee, K. Y., Warrier, A., & Yamada, K. (2019). APSIC guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infections.Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control, 8, 174.