Implementation of the ANTT method reduced surgical site infection rates in postoperative patients, indicating improved compliance and safety.
Background: The surgical site infection (SSI) event is still the main cause of morbidity and increases the length of stay (LOS) in a hospital, costs, and deaths. One of the causes of SSI is nurses’ non-compliance with aseptic techniques. Exposure can be increased and variability in aseptic techniques can be minimized by implementing the aseptic non-touch technique (ANTT) strategy. This research investigated the effectiveness of implementing the ANTT method on reducing the number of SSI events in postoperative patients. Methods: This research used a pragmatic evaluation method with a mixed methods approach. The ANTT method was implemented through five stages i.e., planning, launching, educating, assessing, and monitoring. Data were collected using pre/post-questionnaires, structured interviews, and audit observations via the electronic audit. This research was conducted for 24 months and involved 138 nurses from three hospitals. Results: The mean compliance rate of aseptic techniques after implementing the ANTT method was 93%, with the glove use at 92%, contaminated gloves at 0%, aseptic area at 84%, contaminated aseptic area at 0%, disinfected procedure trays at 75%, protected keypart at 84%, contaminated keyparts by hands/ equipment at 2.6%, and hand hygiene after gloves at 98%. The rate of SSI events dropped from 0.3% to 0.1% in 12 months. There was a significant difference between the pre and post-implementation of the ANTT (P-value < 0.001). Moreover, implementing the ANTT method effectively reduced the SSI events in postoperative patients (P-value < 0.001). Conclusions: The implementation of ANTT improved compliance with safe and effective aseptic techniques. The ANTT compliance audit results reflect a reduction in the incidence of SSIs, thereby reducing costs and LOS in postoperative patients. The program will be expanded to five other group hospitals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Siti Indriani (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: