Table 2 Factors related to perceived hand hygiene compliance of good quality among the EMS cohort
Self-reported hand hygiene compliance rate | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
< 80% | ≥ 80% | OR | P-value | |
Demographics/perceptions | Frequency (%) | |||
Q2. Qualification level | ||||
Basic-care | 17 (14) | 104 (86) | 1 | 0.542* |
Advanced-care | 54 (16) | 275 (84) | 0.8 | |
Q3. Gender | ||||
Male | 67 (17) | 339 (83) | 1 | 0.200* |
Female | 4 (9) | 40 (91) | 2 | |
Q4. Years of experience | ||||
1–5 years | 15 (15) | 88 (85) | 1 | 0.017* |
6–10 years | 20 (27) | 55 (73) | 0.5 | |
> 10 ten years | 36 (13) | 236 (87) | 1.1 | |
Q8 HCAI’s impact on patient outcome is.. | ||||
Very low/low | 2 (22) | 7 (78) | 1 | 0.035** |
High | 49 (19) | 207 (81) | 1.2 | |
Very high | 20 (11) | 165 (89) | 2.4 | |
Q9. HH’s preventive effect is.. | ||||
Very low/low | 3 (38) | 5 (62) | 1 | 0.026** |
High | 38 (19) | 161 (81) | 2.5 | |
Very high | 13 (12) | 213 (88) | 4.6 | |
Q10. The organizational priority is.. | ||||
Very low/low | 37 (28) | 93 (72) | 1 | 0.000* |
High | 30 (12) | 219 (88) | 2.9 | |
Very high | 4 (6) | 67 (94) | 6.7 | |
Q20. HH’s importance to managers | ||||
Not important | 26 (18) | 115 (82) | 1 | 0.349* |
Neutral | 18 (18) | 83 (82) | 1 | |
Important | 27 (13) | 178 (87) | 1.5 | |
Q21. HH’s importance to colleagues | ||||
Not important | 16 (35) | 30 (65) | 1 | 0.000* |
Neutral | 19 (26) | 55 (74) | 1.5 | |
Important | 36 (11) | 292 (89) | 4.3 | |
Q22. HH’s importance to patients | ||||
Not important | 5 (36) | 9 (64) | 1 | 0.005** |
Neutral | 8 (33) | 16 (67) | 1 | |
Important | 57 (14) | 353 (86) | 3.4 | |
Q23. Good quality HH requires.. | ||||
No extra effort | 19 (19) | 82 (81) | 1 | 0.000* |
Neutral | 19 (32) | 41 (68) | 0.5 | |
Moderate to big effort | 33 (12) | 254 (88) | 1.8 | |