Abstract

BackgroundHealthcare worker hand hygiene is thought to be one of the most important strategies to prevent healthcare-associated infections, but compliance is generally poor. Hand hygiene improvement interventions must include audits of compliance (almost always with feedback), which are most often done by direct observation - a method that is expensive, subjective, and prone to bias. New technologies, including electronic and video hand hygiene monitoring systems, have the potential to provide continuous and objective monitoring of hand hygiene, regular feedback, and for some systems, real-time reminders. We propose a systematic review of the evidence supporting the effectiveness of these systems. The primary objective is to determine whether hand hygiene monitoring systems yield sustainable improvements in hand hygiene compliance when compared to usual care.Methods/DesignMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and other relevant databases will be searched for randomized control studies and quasi-experimental studies evaluating a video or electronic hand hygiene monitoring system. A standard data collection form will be used to abstract relevant information from included studies. Bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Studies will be reviewed independently by two reviewers, with disputes resolved by a third reviewer. The primary outcome is directly observed hand hygiene compliance. Secondary outcomes include healthcare-associated infection incidence and improvements in hand hygiene compliance as measured by alternative metrics. Results will be qualitatively summarized with comparisons made between study quality, the measured outcome, and study-specific factors that may be expected to affect outcome (for example, study duration, frequency of feedback, use of real-time reminders). Meta-analysis will be performed if there is more than one study of similar systems with comparable outcome definitions.DiscussionElectronic and video monitoring systems have the potential to improve hand hygiene compliance and prevent healthcare-associated infection, but are expensive, difficult to install and maintain, and may not be accepted by all healthcare workers. This review will assess the current evidence of effectiveness of these systems before their widespread adoption.Study registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42013004519

Highlights

  • Healthcare worker hand hygiene is thought to be one of the most important strategies to prevent healthcare-associated infections, but compliance is generally poor

  • The morbidity, mortality, and costs associated with Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are increased further when they are caused by antibiotic-resistant organisms (AROs) [2]

  • To qualify as an electronic monitoring systems (EMS), the described system must be able to perform at least one of the following functions: (1) count the number of hand hygiene events within a given geographic hospital area; (2) count the number of hand hygiene events associated with room entry and/or room exit events; (3) count the number of hand hygiene events associated with specific Healthcare worker (HCW); or (4) estimate hand hygiene compliance using data from recorded hand hygiene events linked to HCW movement

Read more

Summary

Discussion

This systematic review will assess whether hand hygiene monitoring technology improves hand hygiene compliance and reduces HAI rates. The misdirection of infection control resources and budgets towards unproven and ineffective technology; or the inadvertent selection of a specific technological product that lacks one or more key element and may lack efficacy, has the potential to worsen, rather than improve, this situation. In this context, we believe this systematic review is ‘post-mature’ and is urgently needed as hospitals in the US and Canada are already beginning to adopt hand hygiene monitoring technology despite a lack of systematic evidence of its benefit. Is the hand hygiene technology being compared to usual care and/or promotion efforts not involving monitoring technology? YES _____ NO _____ UNCLEAR _____

Background
Is the study a randomized controlled trial or quasiexperimental design?
12. Boyce JM
16. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group
21. GRADE Working Group
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call