PICO(T) Assignment: Hand Hygiene and Hospital-Acquired Infections

Course and Assessment Context

Course level: Undergraduate or RN–BSN Evidence-Based Practice / Nursing Research (Year 2–3)

Typical codes/titles: NURS 4030 Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing, NUR3206 Nursing Research for Clinical Practice, NURS3006 Evidence-Based Nursing and Research

Assessment name: Assessment 1: PICO(T) Question and Evidence Summary

Length: 800–1,050-word written paper (+ reference list)

Weighting: 20–25% of course grade

Mode: Individual written assignment (essay-style, APA 7th or Harvard referencing, double spaced)

Assessment Description

You will formulate and refine a focused PICO(T) clinical question on hand hygiene and hospital-acquired infections, then locate and summarise current evidence that addresses this question. The assignment uses the classic infection-prevention issue: whether consistent hand hygiene among healthcare workers reduces hospital-acquired infections (HAIs). You will demonstrate that you can translate a clinical problem into a searchable question, identify suitable evidence, and briefly appraise how that evidence informs practice around hand hygiene compliance and infection reduction in acute care settings.

[1][2]

Clinical Scenario

You are a registered nurse working on a busy medical-surgical unit that has recently reported an increase in hospital-acquired infections, including catheter-associated urinary tract infections and bloodstream infections. Although hand rub dispensers are available at every bedside, informal observations suggest that staff do not always perform hand hygiene at the recommended “5 Moments for Hand Hygiene”. Leadership has asked the nursing team to review current evidence and consider whether a more structured hand hygiene intervention could reduce HAIs among inpatients.

[2]

Set PICO(T) Question for This Assessment

For this task, you will work with the following PICO(T) question (do not change the core elements; you may slightly adapt wording for clarity, but the meaning must stay the same):

• P (Problem/Patient/Population): Hospitalised adult patients exposed to care from healthcare workers in acute care units (e.g., medical-surgical or intensive care units)
• I (Intervention/Indicator): Consistent hand hygiene by healthcare workers using soap and water and/or alcohol-based hand rub, implemented through an organised hand hygiene program or protocol
• C (Comparison): Usual practice with poor or inconsistent hand hygiene, lack of a structured intervention, or alternative approaches (e.g., glove use without systematic hand hygiene)
• O (Outcome): Reduced hospital-acquired infection (HAI) rates among inpatients (e.g., overall HAIs, device-related infections, or unit-specific infection rates)
• T (Time/Type of study – optional): Over a defined implementation period (e.g., 6–12 months) using recent primary research or systematic reviews

PICO(T) question: In hospitalised adult patients cared for on acute care units (P), does consistent hand hygiene among healthcare workers delivered as a structured hand hygiene program (I), compared with usual practice with inconsistent hand hygiene or no formal program (C), reduce hospital-acquired infection rates (O) over a defined implementation period (T)?

[1][2]

Assignment Task Instructions

Task 1: Deconstruct and Explain the PICO(T) Question (Approx. 200–250 words)

1. 1. Briefly explain, in your own words, the clinical problem of hospital-acquired infections and why hand hygiene is considered a core prevention strategy in acute care.

[2][1]

1. 1. Define each PICO(T) element for the given question (P, I, C, O, and optional T), using 1–2 sentences per element and linking back to the scenario.
   2. Justify why this PICO(T) question is clinically relevant for nursing practice, making specific reference to patient safety, quality of care, and healthcare costs.

[3][1]

Task 2: Locate and Select Evidence (Approx. 250–300 words)

1. 1. Using your university library databases (e.g., CINAHL, PubMed, Medline), identify two to three recent peer-reviewed research articles (published 2018–2026) that address the relationship between hand hygiene compliance among healthcare workers and hospital-acquired infection rates in acute care settings.

[3][1][2]

1. At least one article should be a primary quantitative study (e.g., cohort study, controlled before-and-after, quasi-experimental or RCT), and one may be a systematic review or high-quality evidence synthesis if available.
2. For each selected article, provide:
   • Full reference in APA 7th or Harvard style in the reference list.
   • In-text citation when you discuss it.
   • 1–2 sentences stating the study design, setting, and sample (e.g., “prospective cohort study conducted in a 20-bed ICU with 150 patients”).

Task 3: Summarise and Briefly Appraise the Evidence (Approx. 250–300 words)

1. For each selected study, summarise:
   • • The hand hygiene intervention or exposure (e.g., multimodal program, alcohol-based hand rub, education and feedback).

   [1][2][3]

   • • The main outcome(s) relevant to HAIs (overall infection rate, device-associated infections, specific pathogens).
     • The key findings in relation to the PICO(T) question (e.g., whether improved hand hygiene was associated with lower infection rates and by how much, if reported).

   [2][3][1]

2. Comment briefly (1–2 sentences per study) on:
   • • Any notable strengths (e.g., large sample size, clear definition of infection outcome, use of standardised surveillance methods).
     • Any key limitations (e.g., single-site design, potential Hawthorne effect, lack of randomisation, limited follow-up).

   [1][2]

Task 4: Apply the Evidence Back to Practice (Approx. 150–200 words)

1. 1. Synthesise the main messages across the studies in relation to your PICO(T) question: Does consistent hand hygiene among healthcare workers appear to reduce HAIs among hospitalised patients?

[3][2][1]

1. 1. Discuss how the evidence could inform a practical hand hygiene strategy or quality improvement initiative on your unit (e.g., staff education, audit and feedback, placement of hand rubs, leadership support).

[2]

1. 1. Identify any potential barriers and facilitators you might anticipate in your local context (e.g., workload, skin irritation, staff buy-in, availability of resources).

[2]

Task 5: Academic Writing and Referencing

• Write in an academic, clear, and concise style suitable for an upper-division nursing course.
• Use either APA 7th edition or Harvard consistently, as per your course or institutional guideline.
• Include a properly formatted reference list on a separate page; references do not count towards the word limit.
• Integrate in-text citations whenever you refer to specific evidence, data, or definitions.
• Adhere to the required word count of 800–1,050 words (±10%). Assignments that are substantially under or over this range may attract a penalty according to the School’s policy.

Formatting and Submission Requirements

• Length: 800–1,050 words (excluding title page and references).
• Structure: Use clear headings that mirror the tasks (e.g., “PICO(T) Question Explanation”, “Evidence Search and Selection”, “Summary of Evidence”, “Application to Practice”).
• Format: 12-point Times New Roman or Calibri, double-spaced, 2.5 cm (1 inch) margins.
• Referencing: APA 7th or Harvard (as directed by your unit outline).
• File type: Word document (.doc or .docx) or PDF as specified in your Learning Management System (LMS).
• Submission: Upload via the LMS by the due date; late penalties apply as per School policy.

Marking Rubric (Suggested / 100%)

1. PICO(T) Problem Framing and Clinical Relevance (20%)

• • High distinction (17–20): Provides a precise and well-articulated explanation of each PICO(T) element that is clearly aligned with the clinical scenario. Demonstrates insightful understanding of the burden of HAIs and the central role of hand hygiene in infection prevention for patient safety and quality outcomes.

[1][2]

• Credit–Distinction (13–16): Accurately defines most PICO(T) elements with minor gaps or superficial links to the scenario. Shows a sound understanding of why HAIs and hand hygiene matter in clinical practice.
• Pass (10–12): Identifies PICO(T) elements but some are vague, partially mismatched or not fully linked to practice. Discussion of clinical relevance is brief or somewhat generic.
• Fail (<10): PICO(T) elements misidentified or missing. Limited or no demonstration of understanding of HAIs and hand hygiene in nursing care.

2. Evidence Search and Selection (20%)

• • High distinction (17–20): Selects two to three current, peer-reviewed studies directly answering the PICO(T) question (including at least one primary study), clearly identifies database sources, and briefly explains inclusion rationale. Evidence is recent (2018–2026) and contextually appropriate to acute care settings.

[3][1][2]

• Credit–Distinction (13–16): Selects relevant peer-reviewed sources with minor issues (e.g., one older study or slightly less specific setting). Search approach is mentioned but not fully detailed.
• Pass (10–12): Uses at least two academic sources, but one or more are marginally relevant, older, or not clearly connected to the PICO(T) question.
• Fail (<10): Sources are inappropriate (e.g., blogs, non-scholarly websites) or do not address the PICO(T) focus.

3. Summary and Brief Appraisal of Evidence (30%)

• • High distinction (25–30): Provides succinct, accurate summaries of each study’s design, intervention, outcomes, and key results in relation to the PICO(T) question. Demonstrates emerging critical appraisal by identifying clear strengths and limitations (e.g., risk of bias, generalisability, follow-up period) and links these to confidence in the findings.

[3][1][2]

• Credit–Distinction (20–24): Summaries are mostly accurate and relevant, with some brief evaluation of strengths and limitations.
• Pass (15–19): Describes study findings but with limited or superficial critical appraisal. Some uncertainty in linking evidence to the PICO(T) question.
• Fail (<15): Misinterprets study findings or provides largely descriptive summaries with no appraisal.

4. Application to Practice (20%)

• • High distinction (17–20): Integrates key messages across studies to present a coherent, evidence-informed position on whether hand hygiene interventions reduce HAIs. Offers specific, realistic strategies for implementing or strengthening hand hygiene programs in the local setting, recognising potential barriers and enablers (e.g., leadership support, workflow, training, audit and feedback).

[1][2]

• Credit–Distinction (13–16): Links evidence to practice with some concrete suggestions but limited discussion of local barriers and facilitators.
• Pass (10–12): General comments on practice implications that are partially supported by evidence.
• Fail (<10): Minimal or no linkage between evidence and practice, or recommendations are not feasible.

5. Academic Writing, Structure, and Referencing (10%)

• High distinction (9–10): Writing is clear, logically structured, and coherent with accurate spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Headings match task components. Referencing is accurate and consistent in APA 7th or Harvard style for both in-text citations and reference list.
• Credit–Distinction (7–8): Minor lapses in expression or referencing, but meaning is clear and structure is sound.
• Pass (5–6): Some issues with organisation, academic tone, or referencing, though overall argument remains understandable.
• Fail (<5): Poor organisation, frequent language errors, and/or major referencing issues that impede understanding.

Hand hygiene continues to be recognised as one of the most effective measures for preventing hospital-acquired infections, yet compliance among healthcare workers often remains suboptimal in busy acute care environments. In the context of this PICO(T) question, the core issue is whether a structured hand hygiene program that combines access to alcohol-based hand rub, staff education, reminders, and audit with feedback actually leads to measurable reductions in infection rates on inpatient units. Recent studies in medical and intensive care settings suggest that when hand hygiene adherence improves, rates of HAIs either decline or stabilise despite increasing patient acuity, although effect sizes can vary across sites and infection types. This pattern indicates that the relationship between hand hygiene and HAIs is influenced not only by individual behaviour but also by organisational factors, such as leadership commitment, workload, and the reliability of surveillance data. For frontline nurses, understanding this evidence base can support more targeted quality improvement work that focuses on practical barriers like time pressure, skin irritation, and the visibility of reminders within the workflow.

[2][3][1]

When synthesising evidence to answer the PICO(T) question, it is worth noting that most intervention studies rely on quasi-experimental or before-and-after designs rather than large randomised trials, which means residual confounding and the Hawthorne effect are plausible concerns. Even with these limitations, the consistency of findings across multiple units and institutions, along with biological plausibility and international guidance from bodies such as the World Health Organization, strengthens the argument that improved hand hygiene is a reasonable and low-cost strategy for reducing preventable infections in hospitalised patients. In practice, local teams may need to combine generic hand hygiene initiatives with unit-specific strategies that address context, such as ensuring dispensers are placed at the point of care, involving nurse champions, and aligning audits with feedback that feels constructive rather than punitive. By framing the problem through a clear PICO(T) question and systematically reviewing the evidence, nursing students and clinicians can move beyond assumptions and make more deliberate decisions about how hand hygiene programs are designed, implemented, and sustained over time.

[3][1][2]

Suggested References / Learning Resources (APA 7th)

(Use as models; students should confirm access through their own library and may select similar articles.)

• Allegranzi, B., Kilpatrick, C., Storr, J., Kelley, E., Park, B. J., Donaldson, L. J., & Pittet, D. (2022). Global infection prevention and control priorities 2021–2030: A call for action. Lancet Global Health, 10(6), e861–e868. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00091-3
• Fox, C., Wavra, T., Drake, D. A., Mulligan, D., & Tucker, S. J. (2018). Use of a multimodal hand hygiene intervention in an intensive care unit: A quasi-experimental study. American Journal of Infection Control, 46(7), 830–835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2018.02.014
• Lam, B. C. C., Lee, J., & Lau, Y. L. (2019). Hand hygiene practices in a neonatal intensive care unit: A multimodal intervention and its impact on healthcare-associated infections. Journal of Hospital Infection, 102(1), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2019.02.004
• Nasution, R. A., & Cozean, J. (2019). Comparison of alcohol-based hand rub and traditional handwashing for reduction of bacterial hand contamination among healthcare workers. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 40(9), 1002–1008. https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2019.143
• World Health Organization. (2021). WHO guidelines on hand hygiene in health care: First global patient safety challenge – Clean care is safer care. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241597906