Observed Hand Hygiene Compliance Research Articles

Action research on promoting hand hygiene practices in an intensive care unit.

Evaluate the intensive care acquired infections incidence and the change over time in infection practices in one intensive care unit. We used an action research approach with cyclical activities. Our study included two cycles with hand hygiene observation based on the WHO's five-moments observation tool, observing hand hygiene practices, analysing the observations, and giving feedback on observations, intensive care acquired infection rates, and alcohol-based hand rub consumption. The Revised Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence is the basis for this research report describing research aimed at improving patient safety and quality of care. During the study, annual alcohol-based hand rub consumption increased by 6.7 litres per 1000 patient days and observed hand hygiene compliance improved. In the first cycle of the study, there was a decrease in critical care acquired infection rates, but the improvement was not sustainable.

Compliance and constraints of hand hygiene among healthcare workers in Bangladesh

Background: Hand hygiene (HH) is a core element of patient safety and the single most essential strategy for preventing healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Adherence to HH among healthcare workers (HCWs) varies greatly depending on a range of factors, including risk perceptions, institutional culture, auditing mechanisms, and availability of HH supplies. We observed HH compliance among HCWs to determine the factors influencing practices in tertiary healthcare facilities in Bangladesh. Methods: During September 2020–February 2021, we conducted nonparticipatory observations at 11 tertiary-care hospitals in Bangladesh using the WHO “Five Moments for Hand Hygiene” tool to record compliance among physicians, nurses, and cleaning staff. We also performed semistructured interviews to determine the key barriers to complying with hand hygiene. Furthermore, we noted the presence, location, and functionality of existing HH stations within each hospital ward. Results: We observed 14,668 HH opportunities among HCWs. The overall HH compliance was 25.3%, and compliance differed significantly by professional category (P < .001). Physicians had the highest HH compliance at 28.5% (2,264 of 7,930), followed by nurses at 25.4% (1,272 of 5,008). Cleaning staff had the lowest rates of HH at 9.9% (171 of 3,221). HCWs of public hospitals had significantly higher odds of complying with HH practices than those in private hospitals (27.4% vs 17.9%; aOR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.55–1.93; P < .001). HH compliance also varied by WHO Five Moments indicators. HCWs were 3 times more likely to perform HH ‘after touching a patient’ than ‘before touching patient’ (aOR, 3.36; 95% CI, 2.90–3.90; P < .001). Common barriers to using hand sanitizer were insufficient supply (57.9%), skin reaction (26.3%), shortage of time (14.5%), and lack of awareness (11.9%). Regarding handwashing with soap, inadequate supplies (27.0%), high workload (26.3%), and lack of facilities (22.7%) were the key factors for low adherence. The HH infrastructure observation in 82 wards showed that running water and soap were available in 168 (86.2%) of 195 HCW-designated basins, compared to 51 (35.9%) of 142 for the patient- and attendant-assigned basins. Handwashing posters were found in only 44 (13.1%) of 337 basin surroundings, and no hand drying supplies were observed for patients or attendants. Conclusions: Hand hygiene compliance among HCWs fall significantly short of the standard for safe patient care. Inadequate HH supplies in a resource-constrained setting like Bangladesh demonstrates a lack of leadership in prioritizing, promoting, and investing in infection prevention and control. The findings of this study might help to motivate and design interventions for HH compliance, which will help reduce HAIs in the hospital setting.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

Hand Hygiene Compliance at Two Tertiary Hospitals in Freetown, Sierra Leone, in 2021: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Hand hygiene actions are essential to reduce healthcare-associated infections and the development of antimicrobial resistance. In this cross-sectional study at two tertiary hospitals, Freetown, Sierra Leone, we observed hand hygiene compliance (defined as using handwash with soap and water or alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) amongst healthcare workers between June and August 2021. Using the WHO Hand Hygiene tool, observations were made in relation to the type of opportunity, different wards and types of healthcare worker. Overall, 10,461 opportunities for hand hygiene were observed, of which 5086 (49%) resulted in hand hygiene actions. ABHR was used more often than handwash (26% versus 23%, p < 0.001). Overall, compliance was significantly better: after being with a patient/doing a procedure than before (78% after body fluid exposure risk compared with 24% before touching a patient—p < 0.001); in Paediatric (61%) compared with Medical wards (46%)—p < 0.001; and amongst nurses (52%) compared with doctors (44%)—p < 0.001. Similar patterns of compliance were observed within each hospital. In summary, hand hygiene compliance was sub-optimal, especially before being with a patient or before clean/aseptic procedures. Improvement is needed through locally adapted training, hand hygiene reminders in wards and outpatient departments, uninterrupted provision of ABHR and innovative ways to change behaviour.

Application of the gold standard direct observation tool to estimate hand hygiene compliance among healthcare providers in Dessie referral hospital, Northeast Ethiopia

ABSTRACT This study aims to assess hand hygiene compliance and associated factors among healthcare providers in Dessie referral hospital (Ethiopia) using the gold standard WHO’s observational checklist and self-administered questionnaire. Hand hygiene practices of 230 healthcare providers from ten hospital wards were observed over 24 hours period. The required numbers of sample were proportionally allocated among the different professions and wards. The overall observed hand hygiene compliance was only 17.6%. Hand hygiene training , availability of functional sink , knowledge about hand hygiene , attitude towards hand hygiene , availability of water and soap , and availability of alcohol-based hand rub were positively associated with hand hygiene compliance. As lower levels of compliance were observed for indications that have potential risk for patients, healthcare providers need to follow the WHO’s multimodal hand hygiene improvement strategies. This study also indicated the important prerequisites that could help improve hand hygiene.

Access to Alcohol-Based Hand Rub Is Associated With Improved Hand Hygiene in an Ebola-Threatened District of Western Uganda

Background: Ebola virus disease (EVD) is highly transmissible and has a high mortality rate. During outbreaks, EVD can spread across international borders. Inadequate hand hygiene places healthcare workers (HCWs) at increased risk for healthcare-associated infections, including EVD. In high-income countries, alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) can improve hand hygiene compliance among HCWs in healthcare facilities (HCF). We evaluated local production and district-wide distribution of a WHO-recommended ABHR formulation and associations between ABHR availability in HCF and HCW hand hygiene compliance. Methods: The evaluation included 30 HCF in Kabarole District, located in Western Uganda near the border with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where an EVD outbreak has been ongoing since August 2018. We recorded baseline hand hygiene practices before and after patient contact among 46 healthcare workers across 20 HCFs in August 2018. Subsequently, in late 2018, WHO/UNICEF distributed commercially produced ABHR to all 30 HCFs in Kabarole as part of Ebola preparedness efforts. In February 2019, our crossover evaluation distributed 20 L locally produced ABHR to each of 15 HCFs. From June 24–July 5, 2019, we performed follow-up observations of hand hygiene practices among 68 HCWs across all 30 HCFs. We defined hand hygiene as handwashing with soap or using ABHR. We conducted focus groups with healthcare workers at baseline and follow-up. Results: We observed hand hygiene compliance before and after 203 and 308 patient contacts at baseline and follow-up, respectively. From baseline to follow-up, hand hygiene compliance before patient contact increased for ABHR use (0% to 17%) and handwashing with soap (0% to 5%), for a total increase from 0% to 22% (P &lt; .0001). Similarly, hand hygiene after patient contact increased from baseline to follow-up for ABHR use (from 3% to 55%), and handwashing with soap decreased (from 12% to 7%), yielding a net increase in hand hygiene compliance after patient contact from 15% to 62% (P &lt; .0001). Focus groups found that HCWs prefer ABHR to handwashing because it is faster and more convenient. Conclusions: In an HCF in Kabarole District, the introduction of ABHR appeared to improve hand hygiene compliance. However, the confirmation of 3 EVD cases in Uganda 120 km from Kabarole District 2 weeks before our follow-up hand hygiene observations may have influenced healthcare worker behavior and hand hygiene compliance. Local production and district-wide distribution of ABHR is feasible and may contribute to improved hand hygiene compliance among healthcare workers.Funding: NoneDisclosures: Mohammed Lamorde, Contracted Research - Janssen Pharmaceutica, ViiV, Mylan

Impact of improved observed hand hygiene on bloodstream infection rates in Ireland. A prospective segmented regression analysis, 2009-2016.

Participation in European surveillance for bloodstream infection (BSI) commenced in Ireland in 1999 with all laboratories (n = 39) participating by 2014. Observational hand hygiene auditing (OHHA) was implemented in 2011. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of OHHA on hand hygiene compliance, alcohol hand rub (AHR) procurement and the incidence of sensitive and resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus faecium and faecalis BSI. A prospective segmented regression analysis was performed to determine the temporal association between OHHA and outcomes. Observed hand hygiene improved from 74.7% (73.7-75.6) in 2011 to 90.8% (90.1-91.3) in 2016. AHR procurement increased from 20.1 l/1000 bed days used (BDU) in 2009 to 33.2 l/1000 BDU in 2016. A pre-intervention reduction of 2% per quarter in the ratio of methicillin sensitive Staphylococcus aureus BSI/BDU stabilized in the time period after the intervention (P < 0.01). The ratio of Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) BSI/BDU was decreasing by 5% per quarter pre-intervention, this slowed to 2% per quarter post intervention, (P < 0.01). There was no significant change in the ratio of vancomycin sensitive (P = 0.49) or vancomycin resistant (P = 0.90) Enterococcus sp. BSI/BDU post intervention. This study shows national OHHA increased observed hand hygiene compliance and AHR procurement, however there was no associated reduction in BSI.

Hand hygiene knowledge, perception and practice of healthcare workers in a Turkish university hospital intensive care unit.

While improvement of hand hygiene (HH) compliance is considered as the best approach to reduce healthcare-associated infections, the instructional interventions in HH among healthcare workers of intensive care unit (ICU) of our hospital was not successful enough. The following study was conducted to evaluate HH knowledge, perception, practice and effectiveness of the trainings among healthcare workers of ICU in our hospital. A cross-sectional study was conducted in the ICU containing 8 medical and 16 surgical beds with 284 filled questionnaires about HH knowledge and 1187 observed opportunities for HH compliance. Overall observed HH compliance rate was 40.6%; lowest compliance was 21.7% for "before clean/aseptic procedure" indication and highest compliance was 68.6% for "after touching a patient" indication. Although > 90% healthcare workers correctly identified the World Health Organization's five indications for HH, 82 - 85% failed to recognize non-indications, i.e. when it was not necessary to perform HH. Our study showed that 15.1% of healthcare workers neither received nor felt the need for HH training. Despite regular HH trainings, healthcare workers could not differentiate when HH was not required which suggested failure to understand HH rationale. This may explain poor HH compliance rates. A systematic study is needed in order to find out the reasons behind of this noncompliance and improve HH training methods for educating healthcare workers.

Efficacy of observational hand hygiene audit with targeted feedback on doctors' hand hygiene compliance: A retrospective time series analysis.

Healthcare-associated infection compromises patient safety. Compliance with hand hygiene (HH) guidelines has been shown to be an effective method of reducing infection; however, it remains suboptimal and poorer among doctors compared to other healthcare workers. The aim of this study is to determine the relationship between an individualised observational hand hygiene audit (OHHA) and feedback intervention with observed HH compliance. We used a retrospective interrupted time series design using OHHA data from a five-year period, 2011-2015. OHHA indicated poorer HH compliance among doctors than other healthcare workers in a 345-bed acute private hospital. An increase in orthopaedic surgical site infection prompted additional auditing of the orthopaedic unit further identifying substandard HH compliance among orthopaedic surgeons. In addition to ongoing HH interventions, an individualised hand hygiene audit and feedback intervention focusing on consultant orthopaedic surgeons was implemented. Observed HH compliance improved. The intervention was then extended to include all consultant doctors at the study site. Audit was implemented by trained clinical nurse managers during clinical rounds. Written audit feedback was provided by the infection prevention and control team. HH compliance increased significantly among both orthopaedic surgeons and other consultant doctors, P < 0.05. An individualised audit and feedback intervention was effective in improving compliance. Incorporation of OHHA with individualised feedback into routine daily practice needs to be considered as a quality improvement opportunity. This study has the potential to inform other audit and feedback interventions to maximise effectiveness and ensure implementation.

Hand hygiene before donning nonsterile gloves: Healthcare workers' beliefs and practices

Understanding the perceptions and beliefs of health care workers (HCWs) regarding glove use and associated hand hygiene (HH) may be informative and ultimately improve practice. Research in this area is limited. This study examined the practices and beliefs of HCWs surrounding the use of nonsterile gloves and HH before gloving. The study was conducted at 3 large academic US hospitals using a parallel convergent mixed-method design. To estimate compliance rates, the gloving and HH practices of HCWs were observed at entry to patient rooms for 6 months. Interviews were conducted with 25 providers, nurses, and nursing assistants to investigate their beliefs and perceptions of these practices. Observed HH compliance rates before gloving were 42%, yet in the interviews most HCWs reported 100% compliance. Observed compliance with gloving before entering contact precaution rooms was 78%, although all HCWs reported always gloving for standard and contact precautions. Most HCWs described using gloves more often than necessary. HCWs generally use gloves for their own safety and sanitize hands before gloving for patient safety. Numerous barriers to compliance with HH before gloving were discussed, including beliefs that gloves provide enough protection. HH and glove use are highly intertwined in clinical practice and should be considered jointly in infection prevention improvement efforts.

Do wearable alcohol-based handrub dispensers increase hand hygiene compliance? - a mixed-methods study

BackgroundHand Hygiene (HH) compliance was shown to be poor in several studies. Improving the availability of alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) is a cornerstone for increasing HH compliance.MethodsIn this study, we introduced wearable dispensers for ABHR in an Emergency Department (ED) well equipped with mounted ABHR dispensers and accompanied this single-modal intervention by a quasi-experimental mixed-method study. The study was performed in the ED of the University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland, a 950-bed tertiary teaching hospital. During a five-week baseline period and a seven-week intervention period, we observed HH compliance according to the WHO ‘Five Moments’ concept, measured ABHR consumption, and investigated perceived ABHR availability, self-reported HH compliance and knowledge of HH indications by questionnaire. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent determinants for HH compliance. In addition, semi-structured interviews were conducted and thematically analyzed to assess barriers and facilitators for the use of the newly introduced dispensers.ResultsAcross 811 observed HH opportunities, the HH compliance for all moments was 56% (95% confidence interval (CI), 51–62%) during baseline and 64% (CI, 59–68%) during intervention period, respectively. In the multivariable analysis adjusted for sex, profession, and WHO HH moment, there was no difference in HH compliance between baseline and intervention (adjusted Odds ratio: 1.22 (0.89–1.66), p = 0.22), No significant changes were observed in consumption and perceived availability of ABHR. During intervention, 7.5% ABHR was consumed using wearable dispensers. HCP perceived wearable dispensers as unnecessary since mounted dispensers were readily accessible. Poor ergonomic design of the wearable dispenser emerged as a main barrier, especially its lid and fastening mechanism. Interviewees identified two ideal situations for wearable dispensers, HCP who accompany patients from ED to other wards, and HCP approaching a patient from a non-patient areas in the ED such as the central working station or the meeting room.ConclusionThe introduction of wearable dispensers did not increase observed hand hygiene compliance or ABHR consumption in an ED already well equipped with mounted dispensers. For broader acceptance and use, wearable dispensers might benefit from an optimized ergonomic design.

Comparing brief, covert, directly observed hand hygiene compliance monitoring to standard methods: A multicenter cohort study

Hand hygiene compliance is subject to the Hawthorne effect, which may be attenuated by covert observers and brief observation periods. This study demonstrated that hand hygiene compliance rates were between 8% and 29% greater when reported by infection prevention programs than when reported by covert observers over brief observation periods.

Comparison of Perceived and Observed Hand Hygiene Compliance in Healthcare Workers in MERS-CoV Endemic Regions.

This study investigated healthcare workers’ perceptions of hand hygiene practices by comparing personal reports, as assessed by questionnaires, to direct observations of the workers’ hand hygiene practices. The study employed a cross-sectional research design. Observations were made using a 16-item checklist, based on three sources: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), World Health Organization (WHO), and Boyce and Pittet’s guidelines of hand hygiene. The checklist was used for both direct-observation and self-reported data collection purposes. Pearson correlation and Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) were utilized to statistically determine the relationship between healthcare workers’ reports of hand hygiene practices and observed hand hygiene behaviors. The study was conducted in the outpatient examination rooms and emergency departments of three types of hospitals in the Eastern region of Saudi Arabia where Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) is endemic and is observed in routine cases and outbreaks. The total sample size included 87 physicians and nurses recruited while on duty during the scheduled observation periods, with each healthcare worker being observed during individual medical examinations with at least three patients. No statistically significant correlations between the healthcare workers’ perceptions of hand hygiene practices and healthcare workers’ actual behaviors were evident. Based on the self-report questionnaires, significant differences were found between physicians’ and nurses’ hand hygiene practices reports. Healthcare workers clearly understand the importance of careful hand hygiene practices, but based on researchers’ observations, the medical personnel failed to properly implement protocol-driven hand hygiene applications. However, the significant differences between physicians’ and nurses’ self-reports suggest further inquiry is needed to fully explore these discrepancies.

Identifying heterogeneity in the Hawthorne effect on hand hygiene observation: a cohort study of overtly and covertly observed results

BackgroundObservation and feedback are core strategies of hand hygiene (HH) improvement. Direct overt observation is currently the gold standard method. Observation bias, also known as the Hawthorne effect, is a major disadvantage of this method. Our aim was to examine the variation of the Hawthorne effect on HH observation in different healthcare groups and settings.MethodsA prospective cohort study was performed in a tertiary teaching hospital during a 15-month period. Up to 38 overt observers (82% nurses) and 93 covert observers (81% medical students) participated in HH observation. The HH events observed overtly were matched for occupation, department, observation time, and location with those observed covertly. The data of matched pairs were then analysed to detect possible Hawthorne effects on different variables.ResultsA total of 31,522 HH opportunities were observed (4581 overtly, 26,941 covertly). There were 3047 matched pairs after 1:1 matching of overt and covert observations. The overall HH compliance was higher with overt observation than with covert observation (78% vs. 55%, p < 0.001). The Hawthorne effect was nearly three times larger in nurses (30 percentage points) than in physicians (11 percentage points) and was significantly greater in outpatient clinics (41 percentage points) than in intensive care units (11 percentage points). The magnitude of the Hawthorne effect varied among healthcare worker occupations and observation locations (p values both < 0.001) but not among departments, observation times, or HH indications.ConclusionsHeterogeneity in the Hawthorne effect may influence the interpretation of overt observations and prevent the correct identification of target populations with poor HH compliance. Therefore, directly observed HH compliance may not be an adequate performance indicator for infection control.

Interventions to improve hand hygiene compliance in patient care.

Health care-associated infection is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Hand hygiene is regarded as an effective preventive measure. This is an update of a previously published review. To assess the short- and long-term success of strategies to improve compliance to recommendations for hand hygiene, and to determine whether an increase in hand hygiene compliance can reduce rates of health care-associated infection. We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL. We conducted the searches from November 2009 to October 2016. We included randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) that evaluated any intervention to improve compliance with hand hygiene using soap and water or alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR), or both. Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias for each included study. Meta-analysis was not possible, as there was substantial heterogeneity across studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach and present the results narratively in a 'Summary of findings' table. This review includes 26 studies: 14 randomised trials, two non-randomised trials and 10 ITS studies. Most studies were conducted in hospitals or long-term care facilities in different countries, and collected data from a variety of healthcare workers. Fourteen studies assessed the success of different combinations of strategies recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) to improve hand hygiene compliance. Strategies consisted of the following: increasing the availability of ABHR, different types of education for staff, reminders (written and verbal), different types of performance feedback, administrative support, and staff involvement. Six studies assessed different types of performance feedback, two studies evaluated education, three studies evaluated cues such as signs or scent, and one study assessed placement of ABHR. Observed hand hygiene compliance was measured in all but three studies which reported product usage. Eight studies also reported either infection or colonisation rates. All studies had two or more sources of high or unclear risks of bias, most often associated with blinding or independence of the intervention.Multimodal interventions that include some but not all strategies recommended in the WHO guidelines may slightly improve hand hygiene compliance (five studies; 56 centres) and may slightly reduce infection rates (three studies; 34 centres), low certainty of evidence for both outcomes.Multimodal interventions that include all strategies recommended in the WHO guidelines may slightly reduce colonisation rates (one study; 167 centres; low certainty of evidence). It is unclear whether the intervention improves hand hygiene compliance (five studies; 184 centres) or reduces infection (two studies; 16 centres) because the certainty of this evidence is very low.Multimodal interventions that contain all strategies recommended in the WHO guidelines plus additional strategies may slightly improve hand hygiene compliance (six studies; 15 centres; low certainty of evidence). It is unclear whether this intervention reduces infection rates (one study; one centre; very low certainty of evidence).Performance feedback may improve hand hygiene compliance (six studies; 21 centres; low certainty of evidence). This intervention probably slightly reduces infection (one study; one centre) and colonisation rates (one study; one centre) based on moderate certainty of evidence.Education may improve hand hygiene compliance (two studies; two centres), low certainty of evidence.Cues such as signs or scent may slightly improve hand hygiene compliance (three studies; three centres), low certainty of evidence.Placement of ABHR close to point of use probably slightly improves hand hygiene compliance (one study; one centre), moderate certainty of evidence. With the identified variability in certainty of evidence, interventions, and methods, there remains an urgent need to undertake methodologically robust research to explore the effectiveness of multimodal versus simpler interventions to increase hand hygiene compliance, and to identify which components of multimodal interventions or combinations of strategies are most effective in a particular context.

Feasibility of monitoring compliance to the My 5 Moments and Entry/Exit hand hygiene methods in US hospitals

We compared the ability to observe hand hygiene opportunities using the World Health Organization My 5 Moments method to the Entry/Exit method. Under covert direct observation, Entry/Exit method opportunities were observed at all times. My 5 Moments were observable in 32.3% of episodes, with a lower rate in wards versus intensive care units (28.0% vs 39.4%; P < .01). In US hospitals, the Entry/Exit method appears to be more feasible for directly observed hand hygiene compliance monitoring due to line-of-sight issues and other barriers.

Handrub Consumption Mirrors Hand Hygiene Compliance.

We assessed handrub consumption as a surrogate marker for hand hygiene compliance from 2007 to 2014. Handrub consumption varied substantially between departments but correlated in a mixed effects regression model with the number of patient-days and the observed hand hygiene compliance. Handrub consumption may supplement traditional hand hygiene observations. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:707-710.

Auditing Hand Hygiene Compliance in Non-Traditional Care Areas

Many hospitals perform hand hygiene (HH) observations at entry to and exit from most inpatient rooms. In non-traditional care areas (e.g., psychiatric units, procedural areas and ambulatory clinics), this method of observation is impractical, as these areas may not have well defined patient rooms and fewer healthcare workers (HCW) to observe at any given time. We developed a process for observation HH compliance in these areas using the World Health Organization’s (WHO) 5 Moments for HH. An audit tool was developed for HH observations at the point of care, monitoring compliance with “before” (before patient contact and performing clean/aseptic tasks) and “after” (after risk for body fluid exposure and after contact with the patient or their environment) moments. The tool was trialed for 4 months in several areas. We modified the tool based on user feedback, and in August of 2013, the tool was implemented in 29 areas. The roll-out included staff HH education and in-depth observer training. Each observation set lasted 20 minutes or had a minimum of 10 observations, whichever came first. The results were shared monthly with each area. Between August 2013 and October 2014, 29 participating areas completed > 6 months of observations. Overall HH compliance was 85.2% (n= 4,486 observations). Compliance with the “before” moments was 85.4% (n=2,225) compared to 83.9% compliance (n= 2,261) with the “after” moments. Observed HH compliance for nurses (87.8%; n=2,006) was similar to observed compliance for other HCWs (83.1%; n=2,480 [P=0.2]). No statistical difference was noted in compliance between the areas (Ambulatory clinics =82.1%; n=1,062, psychiatric units =91.9%; n=1,006, Procedural areas = 84.6% n=2,695). This audit tool allowed efficient hh observations to be completed in non-traditional patient care areas.

Hand hygiene monitoring technology: protocol for a systematic review.

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

Variability in hand hygiene practices among internal medicine interns

Hand hygiene compliance remains suboptimal among physicians despite quality improvement efforts. We observed hand hygiene compliance among 29 medicine interns at 2 large academic institutions. Overall compliance was 75%. Although 4 interns averaged <40% compliance, 14 averaged at least 80%. Given variability observed among individuals in the same training programs, targeting those with poor performance may be important in improving overall compliance.

A hand hygiene intervention to decrease infections among children attending day care centers: design of a cluster randomized controlled trial

BackgroundDay care center attendance has been recognized as a risk factor for acquiring gastrointestinal and respiratory infections, which can be prevented with adequate hand hygiene (HH). Based on previous studies on environmental and sociocognitive determinants of caregivers’ compliance with HH guidelines in day care centers (DCCs), an intervention has been developed aiming to improve caregivers’ and children’s HH compliance and decrease infections among children attending DCCs. The aim of this paper is to describe the design of a cluster randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of this intervention.Methods/designThe intervention will be evaluated in a two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial among 71 DCCs in the Netherlands. In total, 36 DCCs will receive the intervention consisting of four components: 1) HH products (dispensers and refills for paper towels, soap, alcohol-based hand sanitizer, and hand cream); 2) training to educate about the Dutch national HH guidelines; 3) two team training sessions aimed at goal setting and formulating specific HH improvement activities; and 4) reminders and cues to action (posters/stickers). Intervention DCCs will be compared to 35 control DCCs continuing usual practice. The primary outcome measure will be observed HH compliance of caregivers and children, measured at baseline and one, three, and six months after start of the intervention. The secondary outcome measure will be the incidence of gastrointestinal and respiratory infections in 600 children attending DCCs, monitored over six months by parents using a calendar to mark the days their child has diarrhea and/or a cold. Multilevel logistic regression will be performed to assess the effect of the intervention on HH compliance. Multilevel poisson regression will be performed to assess the incidence of gastrointestinal and respiratory infections in children attending DCCs.DiscussionThis is one of the first DCC intervention studies to assess HH compliance of both caregivers and children, as well as the incidence of gastrointestinal and respiratory infections in children, as outcome measures. When an effect of the intervention on improving HH compliance and/or reducing incidence of infections is shown, (inter)national dissemination of the intervention in other DCCs may be considered.Trial registrationNetherlands trial registry: NTR3000