You have accessJournal of UrologyGeneral & Epidemiological Trends & Socioeconomics: Quality Improvement & Patient Safety IV (MP83)1 Apr 2020MP83-19 HYGIENIC KEYBOARDS - DESIGNED TO REDUCE INFECTIONS, BUT AT WHAT PRICE? Phillip Stokes, Zahabiya Campwala, John Smith, Jeremy Brown, Arthur Goyne, Akin S. Amasyali, Ruth Belay*, Daniel Baldwin, Mohammad Hajiha, Muhannad Alsyouf, and D. Duane Baldwin Phillip StokesPhillip Stokes More articles by this author , Zahabiya CampwalaZahabiya Campwala More articles by this author , John SmithJohn Smith More articles by this author , Jeremy BrownJeremy Brown More articles by this author , Arthur GoyneArthur Goyne More articles by this author , Akin S. AmasyaliAkin S. Amasyali More articles by this author , Ruth Belay*Ruth Belay* More articles by this author , Daniel BaldwinDaniel Baldwin More articles by this author , Mohammad HajihaMohammad Hajiha More articles by this author , Muhannad AlsyoufMuhannad Alsyouf More articles by this author , and D. Duane BaldwinD. Duane Baldwin More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000975.018AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Currently, hospitals are under pressure to reduce hospital-acquired infections. One technique suggested to reduce infection is the use of a novel flat computer keyboard, which are easier to sterilize. In an attempt to reduce infections, our institution replaced all conventional keyboards with a flat “hygienic” keyboard covered by silicone. Although these keyboards are easily cleaned, lack of tactile feedback from conventional keys appeared to make typing more difficult and may increase the potential for errors. Medical errors cost $20 billion and kill 100 thousand people a year in the U.S. The purpose of this study is to compare accuracy, speed and error correction rates between a “hygienic” flat and conventional keyboard. METHODS: A prospective randomized study including 40 participants (physicians, nurses and medical students) was conducted in the perioperative setting. Subjects performed practice and recorded typing tests on the conventional and flat keyboard using a randomized, crossover design. Results were recorded as words per minute (WPM), accuracy, and error correction rates. Accuracy was determined by the number of incorrectly typed characters. The clinical impact of the two different keyboard types was determined by measuring the number of typed words for every patient admitted to the urology service for 30 days. The data for word count, accuracy and speed were compared between a conventional and “hygienic” keyboard when employed for a 1 year period. RESULTS: Subjects typed significantly faster using the conventional keyboard (58 WPM) compared to the flat keyboard (50 WPM; p<0.001). In addition accuracy was significantly higher using the conventional (94.5% vs. 90%; p=0.0236) compared to the flat keyboard. The percent error correction was similar (52% vs 52%; p=0.31). During the one month study period, the urology service typed an average of 526 (43-9480) words for 67 patients with a total of 35,245 words. Applying word and error rates to a one-year period, using the conventional keyboard would save 17.7 hours and 19,032 less errors compared to the flat “hygienic” keyboard. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal solution for reducing infection transmission would not compromise speed or accuracy. This study demonstrates that any potential benefit from reduced infection seen with the flat keyboard comes at the price of a 16% reduction in typing speed and 5% greater error rate. Source of Funding: None © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 203Issue Supplement 4April 2020Page: e1263-e1263 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Phillip Stokes More articles by this author Zahabiya Campwala More articles by this author John Smith More articles by this author Jeremy Brown More articles by this author Arthur Goyne More articles by this author Akin S. Amasyali More articles by this author Ruth Belay* More articles by this author Daniel Baldwin More articles by this author Mohammad Hajiha More articles by this author Muhannad Alsyouf More articles by this author D. Duane Baldwin More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...