Article Type : Research Article
Authors : Ja Na H
Keywords : Dental hygienist; Infection control; Standard precautions; Infection control Performance ability
Objective: In this study, knowledge of
standard management guidelines for dental hygienists who have a lot of direct
and indirect contact with patients and have a high risk of infection exposure
and spread of infection due to aerosols, by grasping the safety environment and
performance capabilities, it was intended to prepare measures for the
improvement of knowledge and performance of standards guidelines and efficient
dental infection management.
Methods: This study targets dental workers
at Y Dental Clinic, I Dental Clinic, and S Dental Hospital in Gwangju from May
1 to May 10, 2022 a survey was conducted on a total of 200 people in the
experimental group and 100 in the control group. The survey participants
understood the purpose of the study and agreed to participate in the study a
self-entering survey was conducted. If t-test analysis is selected based on the
general significance level of .05 and effect size of 0.3 power of 0.95, using
the G-power 3.1 program, the appropriate number of samples is 200. The
questionnaire was measured on a Likert 5-point scale Likert's 5 points for
"very important" and 5 points for "not important at all"
One point is given, and the higher the score, the higher the degree of
practice. The mean and standard deviation were calculated to analyse the
generalities the t-test of the standard knowledge, standard education method,
and standard guidance performance was analysed at the significance level of
.05. Cross-analysis test of gender controls and mask wearing controls,
cross-analysis test of gender controls and protective gear wearing, Gender and
surface disinfection experiments Glove exchange experimental group before and
after blood fluid mucosa treatment, results of regression analysis of the
isolation gown wearing experimental group and regression analysis of the age
control group and the employee safety control group were analysed at the
significance level of .05.
Conclusion: In the standard teaching
method control group, 16 students 54.6%, The theoretical practice is 38.0% for
28 people, and the simulation is 92.6% for 56 people, The mean and standard
deviation of the control group are 2.400±.752 and t=25.263, p=.000. The mean
and standard deviation of the standard knowledge experiment group were 54.6%
for 59 people with "yes" and 38.0% for 41 people with "no"
and 41 people with "no" were 4.100±.494, t=18.409, p=.000. The mean
and standard deviation of the standard knowledge control group are 60.2% of 65
people with "yes" and 32.4% of 35 people with "no" and
1.350±.479 to t=17.732, p=.000. Experimental group for performing standard
knowledge protective gear wear in response sample analysis (p=.000), Standard
training methods Mask wearing experimental group (p=.000), Perform standard
instructions Injector treatment experimental group (p=.000), It was
statistically significant as an experimental group (p=.000) for performing
standard knowledge protective equipment wear. In addition, cross-analysis was
conducted to determine whether there was a significant difference between the
gender control group and the mask wearing control group. x2 = 10.670, The
significance probability is .031, which is the significance level. In 2005, it
can be said that there is a significant difference between the gender control
group and the mask wearing control group. Subsequently, cross-analysis was
conducted to find out whether there was a significant difference between the
gender control group and the control group performing protective gear wearing.
x2=10.592, p=It can be said that there is a significant difference at the
significance level of .05 as 032. Results of regression analysis of the gender
experimental group, surface disinfection experimental group, gloves exchange
experimental group before and after blood fluid mucosa treatment, and
quarantine gown wearing experimental group. F statistic is 7.690, significance
probability. At the significance level of the gender experimental group of .05
as 000. Surface disinfection experimental group (t=-4.483, p=.000). Glove
exchange experimental group before and after blood fluid mucosa treatment
(t=3.851, p=.000). Isolation gown wearing experimental group (t=2.589, p=).000)
is a significant description of .194% of the total change in the gender experimental
group (according to the correction factor).169%). In the regression analysis of
the age control group and the employee safety control group, the F statistic
value is 12.953, and the probability of significance. At the age control
significance level of .05 with 000. Employee safety control (t=3.599, p=.000)
appeared .117% of the total change in the age group (according to the
correction factor).342%).
Discussion: 1. Standard knowledge
Protective gear wearing experiment group (p=.000), Standard education method
Mask wearing experiment group (p=.000), Standard instruction performance
Injection processing experiment group (p=.000), Standard knowledge Protective
gear wearing experiment group (p=.000).
2. There is a significant difference
between the gender control group and the mask wearing control group (p=.031).
3. In the gender control group and the
protective gear wearing control group (p=.032) There is a significant
difference.
4. Results of regression analysis of
gender experimental group, surface disinfection experimental group, gloves
exchange experimental group before and after blood fluid mucosa treatment, and
quarantine gown wearing experimental group F statistic is 7.690, significance
probability. At the significance level of the gender experimental group of .05
as 000, Surface disinfection experimental group (t=-4.483, p=.000), Glove
exchange experimental group before and after blood fluid mucosa treatment
(t=3.851, p=.000), Isolation gown wearing experimental group (t=2.589, p=).000)
is described significantly.
5. In the regression analysis of the age
control group and the employee safety control group, the F statistic is 12.953,
p=.000, Employee safety control at age control significance level .05 (t=3.599,
p=.000).
The hospital environment can cause infections to dental consumers and dental hygienists through several transmission paths by pathogens. Accordingly, blood-borne infections caused by exposure to blood or body fluids are higher in medical personnel than other infections [1]. The main route of infection is often due to an accident in which the patient's contaminated blood comes into contact with mucous membranes or wounds, or is stabbed by needles or various sharp instruments used in the patient [2]. The reason why infection control activities are important in the dental treatment process is that blood and saliva components are easily diffused into the air in the form of aerosol and dust due to the operation of the hand piece, water, and air injector It can be easily mediated by various secretions that occur during the treatment process, and infections occur frequently through wounds caused by sharp dental instruments or equipment [3]. The purpose of infection control is to protect people exposed to the hospital environment, such as patients, medical institution workers, guardians, and visitors from developing medical-related infections [4]. The standard revised in 2007 has seven areas of respiratory etiquette and safe injection behaviour infection control in existing hand hygiene, personal protective equipment, patient placement, treatment equipment and supplies, environmental management, linen management, and employee safety [5]. Standard is the most effective way to prevent dental-related infections between patients and medical personnel [6], Studies on standard performance were conducted on hospital workers, and it was confirmed that repetitive education programs were needed to promote standard performance [7]. In addition, efficient response to COVID-19 infection control can significantly reduce the incidence of medical-related infections, and active infection control activities for the prevention and management of medical-related infections are very important [8]. In previous studies, the most basic of management activities for infection prevention Standard was first published in 1996 by the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) the patient's blood to prevent the spread of pathogens, all secretions from the patient, including body fluids, are considered potential sources of infection by avoiding exposure, it is recommended to comply with the disease regardless of infection even before the disease is diagnosed [5]. The Korea Centres for Disease Control and Prevention uses the standard guidelines for medical infections, not only patients and medical workers in medical institutions, Infection control education is recommended for visitors entering and leaving the hospital, as well as dental workers, dental college, and dental hygiene college trainees [9]. The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and From the Hospital Infection Control Practice Advisory Committee (HICPAC), It is recommended that all patients comply with standard guidelines when dealing with body fluids or blood as a result of compliance with standards, it has been reported that the average number of Exposure to blood by medical institution workers in one year was lowered from 35.8 to 18.1 [10]. As a result, it was reorganized into a medical institution certification system in Korea the infection control sector was importantly reflected. Apply standards guidelines to each medical institution an infection control system is established and improvements are expressed to satisfy the infection control evaluation criteria [11]. Standard guidelines are applied to all patients' blood and body fluids (excluding sweat), secretions, excrement, mucous membranes, and damaged skin, which are the criteria for infection control evaluation, and are likely to spread in hospitals. Therefore, it is very important for all medical institution workers to comply with the standards guidelines. However, for dental care workers, knowledge of infection control and A Study on the Performance of Standard in the Half-Century of Korea. It is no exaggeration to say that it has just begun. Therefore, in this study, there are many direct and indirect contacts with patients among dental institution workers Knowledge of standard management guidelines for dental hygienists who are at high risk of infection and infection spread due to sharp instrument use and aerosol by grasping the safety environment and performance capabilities, it was intended to prepare measures for the improvement of knowledge and performance of standards guidelines and efficient dental infection management.
This study was conducted from May 1st to May 10th,
2022 at Y Dental Clinic, I Dental Clinic, and S Dental Hospital in Gwangju,100
people in the experimental group, 100 people in the control group, 200 people
in total I conducted a survey conducted survey. The experimental group and the
control group in this study were randomly participated in the experiment. The
survey participants understood the purpose of the study and agreed to
participate in the study a self-entering survey was conducted. This study was
conducted with the consent of IRB (NO1041223-HR-04) at Honan University's
Bioscience Ethics Committee. If t-test analysis is selected based on the
general significance level of .05 and effect size of 0.3 power of 0.95, using the
G-power 3.1 program, the appropriate number of samples is 200. The
questionnaire was measured on a 5-point scale of Likert, and the 5-point scale
of Likert gave 5 points to 'very important' and 1 point to 'not important at
all', meaning that the higher the score, the higher the practice.
A
general characteristic
The age, gender, standard education method, and
standard education knowledge of the study subjects were investigated using a
self-written questionnaire.
Standard
Guidance Experimental Group
Standard knowledge measurement is based on standard
(Siegel et al., 2007) [5] A tool supplemented by Oh et al. (2016) [6] was used.
This tool has a total of 14 questions, including 3 questions for hand hygiene,
5 questions for personal protective equipment, 2 questions for safe injection,
2 questions for employee safety, and 2 questions for respiratory etiquette, and
the composition questionnaire was measured on a 5-point scale of Likert the
5-point scale of Likert gives 5 points to 'very important' and 1 point to 'not
important at all', meaning that the higher the score, the higher the
practicality. The tool reliability Cronbach's ? value was .677.
Standard
Guidelines Control
Standard knowledge measurement is based on standard
(Siegel et al., 2007) [5] A tool modified and supplemented by Oh et al. (2016)
was used. This tool consists of 14 questions, including 3 questions for hand
hygiene, 5 questions for personal protective equipment, 2 questions for safe
injection, 2 questions for employee safety, and 2 questions for respiratory
etiquette the questionnaire was measured on the Likert 5-point scale. The
5-point scale of likert gives 5 points to 'very important' and 1 point to 'not
important at all', meaning that the higher the score, the higher the
practicality. The tool reliability Cronbach's ? value was .636.
Ability
to perform infection control
The ability to perform infection control was revised
in 2007 (Siegel et al) [5] Korea Centres for Disease Control and Prevention's
standard prevention guidelines for medical-related infections (Yoo et al) and
[12] Care guidelines (Disease Management Headquarters, 2017) as [6] It was
measured using a tool developed by the researcher according to the scenario
situation. The contents of the questions consisted of 14 questions in total: 3
questions for hand hygiene, 5 questions for personal protective equipment, 2
questions for safe injection, 2 questions for employee safety, and 2 questions
for respiratory etiquette The configuration questionnaire was measured on a
Likert 5-point scale The 5-point scale of likert gives 5 points to 'very
important' and 1 point to 'not important at all', meaning that the higher the
score, the higher the practicality. The tool reliability Cronbach's ? value was
.736.
General
information
In the gender test group, 35 men were 32.4%, there are
65 women, 60.2%, and the average and standard deviation of the experimental
group are 1.650±.479. Also, in the gender control group, there are 20 men
18.5%, and 80 women 74.1% the average and standard deviation of the control
group were 1.800±.402. In the experimental group of age, 1 person was 20 years
old, 4 people were 21 years old, 4 people were 21 years old, 41 people were 22
years old, 35 people were 23 years old, 35 people were 32.4%, 13 people were 24
years old, 4 people were 25 years old, 3.7%, 26 years old, and 1 person was 27
years old. In the age control group, 2 people aged 21 were 1.9%, 15 people aged
22 were 13.9%, 19 people aged 23 were 17.6%, 28 people aged 24 were 25.9%, 17
people aged 25 were 15.7%, 11 people aged 26, 10.6%, 4 people aged 27 were
3.7%, and 4 people aged 28 were 3.7%. In the standard teaching method
experimental group, 15 people, 13.9 percent. The theoretical practice is 28.9%,
and the simulation is 57.5 52.8%, the mean and standard deviation of the
experimental group are 2.420±.741, t=25.911, p=.000.
In the standard teaching method control group, 16 students 54.6%, 28 students 38.0%, and 56 students 92.6% were simulated. The mean and standard deviation of the control group are 2.400±.752 and t=25.263, p=.000. The mean and standard deviation of the standard knowledge experiment group were 54.6% for 59 people with "yes" and 38.0% for 41 people with "no" and 41 people with "no" were 4.100±.494, t=18.409, p=.000. In the standard knowledge control group, the mean and standard deviation of the experimental group were 60.2% of 65 people with "Yes" and 32.4% of 35 people with "No".479 to t=17.732, p=.000 (Table 1).
Table 1: General information (n=200).
item |
subitem |
N |
% |
experimental
group |
a
control group |
t |
p |
M±SD |
M±SD |
||||||
gender experimental group |
Man |
35 |
32.4 |
1.650±.479 |
1.800±.402 |
23.990 |
.000 |
woman |
65 |
60.2 |
|||||
gender control group |
Man |
20 |
18.5 |
1.800±.402 |
1.650±.479 |
32.337 |
.000 |
woman |
80 |
74.1 |
|||||
Age experimental group |
20years old |
1 |
.9 |
22.760± 1..074 |
24.1200±1.609 |
207.221` |
.000 |
21years old |
4 |
3.7 |
|||||
22years old |
41 |
38.0 |
|||||
23years old |
35 |
32.4 |
|||||
24years old |
13 |
12.0 |
|||||
25years old |
4 |
3.7 |
|||||
26years old |
1 |
.9 |
|||||
27years old |
1 |
.9 |
|||||
Age control group |
21years old |
2 |
1.9 |
24.120± 1.609 |
22.760 ±1.074 |
146.725 |
.000 |
22years old |
15 |
13.9 |
|||||
23years old |
19 |
17.6 |
|||||
24years old |
28 |
25.9 |
|||||
25years old |
17 |
15.7 |
|||||
26years old |
11 |
10.2 |
|||||
27years old |
4 |
3.7 |
|||||
28years old |
4 |
3.7 |
|||||
Standard Education Methodology
Experimental Group |
Theory |
15 |
13.9 |
2.420±.741 |
2.400±.752 |
25.911 |
.000 |
Theoretical practice |
28 |
25.9 |
|||||
Simulation |
57 |
52.8 |
|||||
Standard Education Methodology control
group |
Theory |
16 |
54.6 |
2.400±.752 |
2.420±.741 |
25.263 |
.000 |
Theoretical practice |
28 |
38.0 |
|||||
Simulation |
56 |
92.6 |
|||||
Standard Knowledge Experiment Group |
yes |
59 |
54.6 |
4100±.494 |
1.350 ± .479 |
18.409 |
.000 |
no |
41 |
38.0 |
|||||
Standard Knowledge Control |
yes |
65 |
60.2 |
1.350± .479 |
4.100± .494 |
17.732 |
.000 |
no |
35 |
32.4 |
Results
of t-test on standard knowledge, standard education methods, and standard
guidelines
Table 2 shows the results of the t-test test for
standard knowledge, standard education methods, and standard guidance. The
average and standard deviation of the standard knowledge in response 1 are
1.410±.494. The mean and standard deviation of the experimental group
performing the wearing of protective gear is 3.840±1.178. Standard Caution
Knowledge the average and standard deviation of wearing protective gear
–2.430±1.233 and t=-19.708, p=.000. The average and standard deviation of the
standardized education method of response 2 are 2.420±.386, the mean and
standard deviation of the mask wearing experiment group is 4.040±1.109.
Standard teaching methods the mean and standard deviation of wearing a mask are
–1.620±1.032 and t=-15.689, p=.000. The average and standard deviation of the
standard guidance in response 3 are 1.80±.386, the mean and standard deviation
of the syringe treatment experimental group are 3.510±1.473. Performance of
standard caution instructions the mean and standard deviation of injection
treatment are –2.330±1.484 and t=-15.698, p=.000. New content of standard in
response 4 the mean and standard deviation of the failure experimental group
are 3.110±1.455, the mean and standard deviation of the employee safety
experiment group is 3.360±1.446. Standard New Content Failure the mean and
standard deviation of employee safety is -.250±1.908 and t=-1.310, p=.000.
Results
of cross-analysis of gender control and mask wearing control x2=10.670a
(df=4, p=.031)
According to the cross-analysis results of the gender
control group and the mask wearing control group in Table 3, the gender male
mask wearing control group was 'Yes and Very Yes' The frequency was 33.9% with
eight people, and the frequency of "Not and Very Not" was 85.5% with
five people. In the control group wearing a gender mask, the frequency of
"yes" is 87.5% for 28 people there were 30 people who said "Very
Yes" and 88.6% the frequency of "Not so" is 75.6% with 6 people
the frequency is 40.0% with two people. To find out if there is a significant
difference between the gender control and the mask wearing control, as a result
of cross-analysis, x2 = 10.670a, the significance probability is .031, which is
the significance level From .05. It can be said that there is a significant
difference between the gender control group and the mask wearing control group.
Cross-analysis
of gender controls and protective gear wearing controls x2=10.592a
(df=4, p=.032)
In the cross-analysis of the gender control group and
the control group performing protective gear wear in Table 4, Gender control
The number of men in the control wearing protective gear "yes" and
"very yes" were 12 people, showing 39.8% The frequency of "yes"
for women in the control group wearing gender controls protective gear is 77.8%
for 21 people, and the frequency of "very yes" is 82.4% for 28
people. As a result of conducting cross-analysis to find out whether there is a
significant difference between the gender control group and the control group
performing protective gear wearing It can be said that there is a significant
difference at the significance level of .05 as x2=10.592a and p=.032.
Regression
analysis of gender experimental group, surface disinfection experimental group,
glove exchange experimental group before and after blood fluid mucosa
treatment, and isolation gown wearing experimental group R2 (adj,
R2=.194(.169), F=7.690
In Table 5, gender experimental groups and surface
disinfection experimental groups, Glove exchange experimental group before and
after blood fluid mucosa treatment, As a result of regression analysis of the
isolation operation experiment group, the F statistic is 7.690, Experimental
group performing surface disinfection at a significance level of .05 in the
gender chamber group with a significance probability of .000 (t=-4.483,p=.000),
Glove exchange experimental group before and after the blood fluid mucosa
treatment(t=3.851, p=.000), Isolation Wear Experimental Group(t=2.589, p=.000)
is a significant description of .194% of the total change in the gender
experimental group (according to the correction factor).169%).
Regression
Analysis of Age Control and Employee Safety Control R2 (adj, R2=.117(.342),
F=12.953
In Table 6, in the
regression analysis of the age control group and the employee safety control
group, the F statistic value is 12.953, and the significance probability by
.000, Age control Employee safety control at significance level .05 (t=3.599,
p=.000) appeared .117% of the total change in the age group (according to the
correction factor).342%). If we conclude by the zero hypothesis of the
regression coefficient and the coefficient of determination, At significance
level .05, the regression coefficient is not zero‘ Or 'At significance level .05,
the coefficient of determination is not zero'.
1. In the gender experiment group, 35 men were 32.4%,
there are 65 women, 60.2 percent the mean and standard deviation of the
experimental group are 1.650±.479. Also, in the gender control group, men are
18.5% and women are 74.1% the average and standard deviation of the control
group were 1.800±.402. In the standard teaching method experimental group, 15
people, 13.9 percent, 28 students, 25.9 percent the simulation is 52.8% of 57
people The mean and standard deviation of the experimental group are
2.420±.741, t=25.911, p=.000. In the standard teaching method control group, 16
students 54.6%, 28 students, 38.0 percent the simulation is 92.6% of 56 people
The mean and standard deviation of the control group are 2.400±.752 and
t=25.263, p=.000. In the standard knowledge experiment group, "Yes"
was 54.6 percent of 59 people The mean and standard deviation of the 38.0%
experimental group of 41 people with "none" is 4.100±.494, t=18.409,
p=.000. In the standard knowledge control group, 65.2% said "yes" and
32.4% said "no" The mean and standard deviation of the control group
are 1.350±.479 to t=17.732, p=.000 (Table 1).
2. Table 2 shows the results of the t-test test for
standard knowledge, standard education methods, and standard guidance The mean
and standard deviation of the standard attention knowledge of corresponding 1
are 1.410±.494, The mean and standard deviation of the experimental group
performing the wearing of protective gear is 3.840±1.178. The mean and standard
deviation of the experimental group performing the wearing of standard care
protective gear is –2.430±1.233, t=-19.708, p=.000. The average and standard
deviation of the standard teaching methods in response 2 are 2.420±.386, The
mean and standard deviation of the mask wearing experiment group is
4.040±1.109, Standard training method The mean and standard deviation of the
mask wearing experiment group are –1.620±1.032 and t=-15.689, p=.000. The mean
and standard deviation of performing the standard instruction in response 3 are
1.80±.386, The mean and standard deviation of the syringe treatment experiment
group are 3.510±1.473, Performing standard guidelines Injector treatment
experimental group The mean and standard deviation are –2.330±1.484 and
t=-15.698, p=.000. New content of standard in response 4 the mean and standard
deviation of the failure experimental group are 3.110±1.455, the mean and
standard deviation of the employee safety experiment group is 3.360±1.446.
Standard New Content Failure Experimental group the mean and standard deviation
of the employee safety experimental group are -.250±1.908 t=-1.310, p=.000. In
other words, the experimental group performing standard knowledge protective
gear wearing (p=.000), Standard training methods Mask wearing experimental
group (p=.000), Perform standard instructions Injector treatment experimental
group (p=.000), It was statistically significant as an experimental group
(p=.000) for performing standard knowledge protective equipment wear.
3. According to the cross-analysis results of the
gender control group and the mask wearing control group in Table 3, the gender
male mask wearing control group is "Yes and Very Yes" The frequency
was 8 people, 33.9% The frequency of "Not and Very Not" is 85.5% with
five people. In the control group wearing a gender mask, the frequency of
"yes" is 87.5% for 28 people There were 30 people who said "Very
Yes" and 88.6% The frequency of "No" is 75.6% with 6 people The
frequency of "very not" is 40.0% with two people. As a result of
conducting cross-analysis to find out whether there is a significant difference
between the gender control group and the mask wearing control group x2 =
10.670a, significance probability is .031. It can be said that there is a
significant difference between the gender control group and the mask wearing
control group at the significance level of .05.
4. In Table 4, gender controls and protective gear
wear performance control cross-analysis test Gender control The number of men
in the control wearing protective gear "yes" and "very yes"
were 12 people, showing 39.8% The frequency of "yes" for women in the
control group wearing gender controls protective gear is 77.8% for 21 people,
and the frequency of "very yes" is 82.4% for 28 people. as a result
of conducting cross-analysis to find out whether there is a significant
difference between the gender control group and the control group performing
protective gear wearing It can be said that there is a significant difference
at the significance level of .05 as x2=10.592a and p=.032.
5. In Table 5, gender experimental groups and surface
disinfection experimental groups, Glove exchange experimental group before and
after blood fluid mucosa treatment, the results of regression analysis of the
wearing experiment group in isolation F statistic 7.690, significance
probability.by 000. experimental group performing surface disinfection at a
significance level of .05 in the gender chamber group (t=-4.483, p=.000) Glove
exchange experimental group before and after blood fluid mucosa treatment
(t=3.851, p=.000) Experimental group on wearing quarantine gowns (t=2.589,
p=.000) is significantly described and the gender experimental group .194% of
the total change (according to the correction factor).169%).
6. In Table 6, the regression analysis of the age
control and employee safety control groups The F statistic is 12.953, p=.000,
at age control significance level .05. Employee safety control (t=3.599,
p=).000) appeared. .117% of the total change in the age group (according to the
correction factor).342%). By the zero hypothesis of the regression coefficient
and the coefficient of determination, the conclusion is that at significance
level .05, the regression coefficient is not zero or, at the significance level
of .05, the coefficient of determination is not zero.
The world is in a difficult situation due to
Covid, and dental medical institutions are also required to implement
systematic infection control through responsibility and empowerment of
infection managers and professional infection control education. Most hospital
infections can be reduced by practice through accurate knowledge. Workers at
dental institutions are thoroughly aware of infection prevention and require
efforts to control and cope with infection [13] all patients visiting the
dentist are likely to be infected, and preventive measures against infectious
diseases should be taken by examining the patient's medical history and
checking the overall health status [14]. In addition, personal protective
equipment such as hand washing, gloves, masks, and goggles must be worn during
each patient's treatment, and proper management such as disinfection,
sterilization, and extract is required [15]. Therefore, in this study,
knowledge of the standard guidelines for infection control of dental hygienists
engaged in dental institutions, the purpose was to prepare specific measures to
improve dental infection management by grasping the safety environment and
performance. According to the previous study, there was a study by Park et al.
(16), which showed that the larger the size of the working institution, the
higher the knowledge score on the standardization guidelines According to the
general characteristics of this study, the results of analysing the knowledge
of the standard guidelines were found in the standard knowledge experiment
group There are 59 people who said "Yes" 54.6% said "None"
The average and standard deviation of the 38% experimental group of 41 people
were 4.100±.494, t=18.409, p=.000. In the standard knowledge control group,
"Yes" means 65 people, 60.2 percent the average and standard deviation
of 35 people and 32.4% of the experimental group said, "None." 1.350±
.479 to t=17.732, p=.000<Table 1>. Result, it is believed that a
systematic infection control program should be established in dental hospitals
and dentists to improve the level of knowledge on standard guidelines. As a
result of analysing the performance of standardization guidelines according to
the general characteristics of previous studies, In the performance chart of
standards guidelines according to age and work experience, the age is high or
he more work experience, the higher the performance on the standard guidelines
[17, 18, 19, 20, 21]. In this study, the results of the t-test test for
standard knowledge, standard education methods, and standard guidelines were
also used of the standard knowledge of correspondence 1 the mean and standard
deviation are 1.410±.494, the mean and standard deviation of the experimental
group performing the wearing of protective gear is 3.840±1.178. Standard
knowledge Protective gear wearing performance of experimental group he mean and
standard deviation are –2.430±1.233, t=-19.708, p=.000. The average and
standard deviation of the standardized education method of response 2 are
2.420±.386, The mean and standard deviation of the mask wearing experiment
group is 4.040±1.109, Standard training method*The mean and standard deviation
of the mask wearing experiment group is -1.620±1.032, t=-15.689, p=.000. The
average and standard deviation of the standardized education method in response
2 are 2.420±.386, The mean and standard deviation of the mask wearing
experiment group is 4.040±1.109, Standard teaching methods*Mask wearing
experimental group The mean and standard deviation are -1.620±1.032 and
t=-15.689, p=.000. The average and standard deviation of the standard guidance
in response 3 are 1.80±.386, the mean and standard deviation of the syringe
treatment experimental group are 3.510±1.473. Performing standard guidelines
Injector treatment experimental group the mean and standard deviation is
-2.330±1.484, t= -15.698, p=.000. Standard in Response 4 New Content Failures
Experimental Group The mean and standard deviation are 3.110±1.455, the mean
and standard deviation of the employee safety experiment group is 3.360±1.446.
Standard New Content Failure Experimental Group*Employee Safety Experimental
Group the mean and standard deviation are -.250±1.908, t=-1.310, p=.000. In
other words, the experimental group performing standard knowledge* protective
gear wearing (p=.000), Standard training methods Mask wearing experimental group
(p=.000), Perform standard instructions Injector treatment experimental group
(p=.000), It was statistically significant as an experimental group (p=.000)
for performing standard knowledge protective equipment wear<Table 2>. The
results of cross-analysis of the gender control group and the mask wearing
control group in Table 3 show that The gender male mask wearing control group
has a "Yes, Very Yes" The frequency was 8 people, 33.9% The frequency
of "No, Wow, Very No" is 85.5% with five people. In the control group
wearing a gender mask, the frequency of "yes" is 87.5% for 28 people
There were 30 people who said "Very Yes" and 88.6% The frequency of
"No" is 75.6% with 6 people The frequency of "very not" is
40.0% with two people. As a result of conducting cross-analysis to find out
whether there is a significant difference between the gender control group and
the mask wearing control group x2=10.670a significance probability is .031,
which is the significance level from .05. It can be said that there is a
significant difference between the gender control group and the mask wearing
control group. It's because the infection control system is systematic It is
believed to be the result of regular training through infection control
personnel. As a result of analyzing the safety environment of the standardized
guidelines according to infection-related characteristics in previous studies,
the safety environment score was high if the standardized guidelines were
trained in the case of infection control education experience, the degree of
infection control practice of dental hygienists was high [21]. In this study, a
cross-analysis of the gender control group and the performance control group
wearing protective gear Gender control The number of men in the control wearing
protective gear "yes" and "very yes" were 12 people,
showing 39.8% The frequency of "yes" for women in the control group
wearing gender controls protective gear is 77.8% for 21 people, and the
frequency of "very yes" is 82.4% for 28 people. As a result of
conducting cross-analysis to find out whether there is a significant difference
between the gender control group and the control group performing protective
gear wearing It can be said that there is a significant difference at the
significance level of .05 as x2=10.592a and p=.032. <Table 4>. In Table 5
of this study, the gender experimental group and the surface disinfection
experimental group, Glove exchange experimental group before and after blood
fluid mucosa treatment, The results of regression analysis of the wearing
experiment group in isolation The F statistic is 7.690 The significance
probability is .000, and the gender experimental group has a significance level
of .05 Surface disinfection experimental group (t=-4.483,p=.000) Glove exchange
experimental group before and after blood fluid mucosa treatment (t=3.851,
p=.000) Isolation Wear Experimental Group (t=2.589, p=.000) is a significant
description of .194% of the total change in the gender experimental group
(according to the correction factor).169%). In addition, in Table 6 of this
study, the age control group and the employee safety control group, in
regression analysis, the F statistic is 12.953, Significance probability.000 at
age control significance level .05. Employee safety control (t=3.599, p=).000)
appeared. Therefore, in this study, it is believed that dental hygienists who
have experienced infection control education can recognize the safe environment
of the dental clinic and perform infection control well Since infection control
education affects infection control practice, infection control practice is
necessary to protect not only dental hygienists but also dental consumers It is
believed that systematic infection management education and program development
should be carried out for this. In order to practice infection control in
accordance with standardized guidelines in dental institutions, personal
knowledge and will of dental hygienists are important, but administrative and
physical support of hospitals and systematic programs must be established It is
believed that professional programs and institutional devices should be
prepared to train responsible and authorized dental hygienists specializing in
infection control. The limitations of this study are that the questionnaire, a
research tool, was limited to general dentists and analysed as standardized
guidelines, and there is a limit to discussing generalization because some
dental hygienists in Gwangju cannot represent all dental hygienists. Therefore,
in future studies, surveys should be conducted through questionnaire tools that
can reflect the treatment environment of large dental hospitals among dental
institutions, and it is considered necessary to expand and investigate
nationwide.
No potential conflict of
interest relevant to this article was reported.