Australian and New Zealand nurses' understanding and application of aseptic technique in clinical contexts: a cross-sectional mixed-method study.

IF 2.1 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Hannah M Kent, Joanne M Lewis, Sonja A Dawson, Brett G Mitchell
{"title":"Australian and New Zealand nurses' understanding and application of aseptic technique in clinical contexts: a cross-sectional mixed-method study.","authors":"Hannah M Kent, Joanne M Lewis, Sonja A Dawson, Brett G Mitchell","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2025-003921","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Aseptic technique remains fundamental in nursing practice and is essential in reducing hospital-acquired infections. Research shows that opportunities for nurses to update their knowledge and skills of aseptic technique are limited, and understanding of core principles can be inconsistent across healthcare and educational settings. Our aim was to capture the current understanding and application of aseptic technique among nurses in Australia and New Zealand.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We undertook a cross-sectional mixed-method survey design. Registered and enrolled nurses working in Australian or New Zealand healthcare or nursing education facilities were eligible to participate and were recruited between December 2024 and February 2025. Participants completed an anonymous online survey, informed by outcomes of a scoping review and adapted from existing surveys. Descriptive analysis was performed, with thematic analysis undertaken for open-ended questions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total 328 responses were received, primarily from Australia (n=275) and New Zealand (n=53). Respondents were predominantly from the public sector (62%), with 65% having more than 10 years of experience. While nearly all recognised the importance of aseptic technique for infection prevention, considerable variation was evident in how principles were described and applied. Terminology such as 'clean', 'sterile' and 'aseptic' was commonly misunderstood, and 48% of participants were unsure if their facility used a framework to guide aseptic technique. Less than half (47.2%) of nurses reported being reassessed on their aseptic technique skills in the past 5 years.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings reveal variability in nurses' understanding and practice of aseptic technique, highlighting opportunities for system-level improvement. Establishing standardised, evidence-based definitions and principles, supported by governance, may strengthen education, policy and clinical practice and promote patient safety. Further research is needed to reach a consensus on these definitions and principles.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":"15 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13331115/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Quality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2025-003921","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Aseptic technique remains fundamental in nursing practice and is essential in reducing hospital-acquired infections. Research shows that opportunities for nurses to update their knowledge and skills of aseptic technique are limited, and understanding of core principles can be inconsistent across healthcare and educational settings. Our aim was to capture the current understanding and application of aseptic technique among nurses in Australia and New Zealand.

Method: We undertook a cross-sectional mixed-method survey design. Registered and enrolled nurses working in Australian or New Zealand healthcare or nursing education facilities were eligible to participate and were recruited between December 2024 and February 2025. Participants completed an anonymous online survey, informed by outcomes of a scoping review and adapted from existing surveys. Descriptive analysis was performed, with thematic analysis undertaken for open-ended questions.

Results: In total 328 responses were received, primarily from Australia (n=275) and New Zealand (n=53). Respondents were predominantly from the public sector (62%), with 65% having more than 10 years of experience. While nearly all recognised the importance of aseptic technique for infection prevention, considerable variation was evident in how principles were described and applied. Terminology such as 'clean', 'sterile' and 'aseptic' was commonly misunderstood, and 48% of participants were unsure if their facility used a framework to guide aseptic technique. Less than half (47.2%) of nurses reported being reassessed on their aseptic technique skills in the past 5 years.

Conclusions: These findings reveal variability in nurses' understanding and practice of aseptic technique, highlighting opportunities for system-level improvement. Establishing standardised, evidence-based definitions and principles, supported by governance, may strengthen education, policy and clinical practice and promote patient safety. Further research is needed to reach a consensus on these definitions and principles.

澳大利亚和新西兰护士对临床无菌技术的理解和应用:一项横断面混合方法研究。
简介:无菌技术仍然是护理实践的基础,在减少医院获得性感染方面是必不可少的。研究表明,护士更新无菌技术知识和技能的机会有限,对核心原则的理解可能在医疗保健和教育环境中不一致。我们的目的是捕捉目前的理解和无菌技术的应用护士在澳大利亚和新西兰。方法:采用横断面混合方法进行调查设计。在澳大利亚或新西兰医疗保健或护理教育机构工作的注册和注册护士有资格参加,并在2024年12月至2025年2月期间招募。参与者完成了一项匿名的在线调查,根据范围审查的结果并根据现有调查进行了调整。进行了描述性分析,并对开放式问题进行了专题分析。结果:共收到328份回复,主要来自澳大利亚(n=275)和新西兰(n=53)。受访者主要来自公共部门(62%),其中65%拥有10年以上的工作经验。虽然几乎所有人都认识到无菌技术对预防感染的重要性,但在如何描述和应用原则方面存在相当大的差异。术语如“清洁”、“无菌”和“无菌”通常被误解,48%的参与者不确定他们的设施是否使用了指导无菌技术的框架。不到一半(47.2%)的护士报告在过去5年中对其无菌技术技能进行了重新评估。结论:这些发现揭示了护士对无菌技术的理解和实践的可变性,突出了系统层面改进的机会。建立标准化的、基于证据的定义和原则,在治理的支持下,可以加强教育、政策和临床实践,促进患者安全。需要进一步研究才能就这些定义和原则达成共识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Open Quality
BMJ Open Quality Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
226
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书