Standard precautions perception and practice among health workers in the obstetrics-gynecology department of a referral hospital in Cameroon

  1. Fabrice Zobel Lekeumo Cheuyem
  2. Emilia Enjema Lyonga
  3. Innocent Takougang

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

Standard precautions are infection control and prevention (ICP) measures designed to reduce the risk of transmission of infectious agents in healthcare settings. In Cameroon, maternal and neonatal mortality remain a concern. Unsystematic compliance with these measures increases the risk of HAIs and other medical hazards. The present investigation aimed at assessing the baseline understanding of hand hygiene principles and perceptions, experience of occupational exposure to body fluids, and preventive vaccination coverage among HCWs in the obstetrics-gynecology ward of a referral hospital of Yaounde.

Methods

A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in the obstetrics-gynecology department of the health facility from April to July 2024. A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect data from consenting HCWs. It was adapted from the WHO Knowledge Questionnaire for Health Care Workers.

Results

A total of 41 healthcare workers participated in the study. Participants were predominantly female (78%) and ranged in age from 20 to 57 years. Staff knowledge of hand hygiene was average overall, with a median score of 60%. Most of respondents considered hand hygiene to be an essential part of their care (90%). Most of paramedical staff (82%) significantly agreed that they had been properly trained on hand hygiene during their training ( p =0.006). More than half of respondents (59%) experienced an accidental exposure to body fluids in the previous 12 months. A significant factor associated with the occurrence of occupational exposure to blood and other body fluids was a high level of education (aOR=14; p =0.044). The coverage of fully vaccinated HCWs was 27% for viral hepatitis B, 19% for COVID-19, and 0% for cholera. Factors associated with low adherence to vaccination included not having received training in ICP interventions (aOR=7.37; p =0.046) for hepatitis B vaccination and having completed tertiary education (aOR=14; p =0.043) for COVID-19. Half of the HCWs exposed (12/24=50%) to blood and body fluids were not fully vaccinated against viral hepatitis B.

Conclusions

This study revealed gaps in knowledge of hand hygiene, high occupational exposure to biological fluids and low vaccination. Health facility managers and national health authorities must therefore commit to implementing specific strategies to increase staff training in standard precautions and promote vaccination.

Article activity feed

  1. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a Structured PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/16933811.

    Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint? Yes The introduction clearly explains the objective of the study. However, the author can link the maternal and child mortality better as this stands as the concept for the research
    Are the methods well-suited for this research? Somewhat inappropriate The method is somewhat inappropriate owing to limitations on the sample size, sampling techniques. Also, there is no further justification for what was done following the 3 months of data collection. It would be much better if the larger sample size were utilized as it seems more like a pilot study. Furthermore, the data management wasn't stated and the study tool used was stated to be pre-tested but no information was given
    Are the conclusions supported by the data? Somewhat supported The conclusion was somewhat supported by the data as there is a high possibility of gender bias with most participants being female
    Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data? Highly appropriate and clear
    How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research? Somewhat clearly The discussion and the potential next step need to be strengthened in terms of justifying consequential findings such as, people of high experience less likely to uptake vaccines and other alarming findings. There should be a strong reason for the findings. Also, the comparison across different disciplines wasn't taken into consideration as there is diverse exposure based on different discipline captured.
    Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge? Not likely This Preprint contributes more to practices than academic knowledge. The limitation of to sample size isn't sufficient to drive policy or reform
    Would it benefit from language editing? Yes
    Would you recommend this preprint to others? Yes, but it needs to be improved It can be improved on with the concerns raised
    Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience? No, it needs a major revision

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2025.04.21.25326141 on medRxiv