Elaine L Larson1, Sandra Albrecht, Mary O'Keefe. 1. School of Nursing, Columbia University and Department of Epidemiology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adherence to hand hygiene standards is poor. Approaches and systems to improve hand hygiene practices warrant testing. OBJECTIVE: To compare the frequency of use of manually operated and touch-free dispensers of sanitizer for hand hygiene. METHODS: Manual and touch-free dispensers of alcohol sanitizer were placed in the emergency department and an intensive care unit of a large pediatric hospital for two 2-month periods for each type of dispenser. Counting devices installed in each dispenser and direct observations were used to determine actual frequency of and indications for hand hygiene. RESULTS: The touch-free dispensers were used significantly more often than were the manual dispensers. The means for the number of episodes of hand hygiene per hour were 4.42 for the touch-free dispensers and 3.33 for the manual dispensers (P=.04); the means for the number of episodes per patient per hour were 2.22 and 1.79, respectively (P=.004); and the means for the number of uses of the dispenser per day were 41.2 and 25.6, respectively (P=.02). However, the overall compliance rate was 38.4% (2136 episodes of hand hygiene per 5568 indications for hand hygiene). CONCLUSIONS: The type of dispensing system influenced hand hygiene behavior. Nevertheless, overall hand hygiene compliance remained low. In order for interventions to have a major effect on hand hygiene, multiple factors must be considered.
BACKGROUND: Adherence to hand hygiene standards is poor. Approaches and systems to improve hand hygiene practices warrant testing. OBJECTIVE: To compare the frequency of use of manually operated and touch-free dispensers of sanitizer for hand hygiene. METHODS: Manual and touch-free dispensers of alcohol sanitizer were placed in the emergency department and an intensive care unit of a large pediatric hospital for two 2-month periods for each type of dispenser. Counting devices installed in each dispenser and direct observations were used to determine actual frequency of and indications for hand hygiene. RESULTS: The touch-free dispensers were used significantly more often than were the manual dispensers. The means for the number of episodes of hand hygiene per hour were 4.42 for the touch-free dispensers and 3.33 for the manual dispensers (P=.04); the means for the number of episodes per patient per hour were 2.22 and 1.79, respectively (P=.004); and the means for the number of uses of the dispenser per day were 41.2 and 25.6, respectively (P=.02). However, the overall compliance rate was 38.4% (2136 episodes of hand hygiene per 5568 indications for hand hygiene). CONCLUSIONS: The type of dispensing system influenced hand hygiene behavior. Nevertheless, overall hand hygiene compliance remained low. In order for interventions to have a major effect on hand hygiene, multiple factors must be considered.
Authors: Jason Fries; Alberto M Segre; Geb Thomas; Ted Herman; Katherine Ellingson; Philip M Polgreen Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2012-05-09 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: S Scheithauer; J Oude-Aost; C Stollbrink-Peschgens; H Haefner; B Waitschies; N Wagner; S W Lemmen Journal: Infection Date: 2011-06-30 Impact factor: 3.553
Authors: Onno K Helder; Johannes B van Goudoever; Wim C J Hop; Johannes Brug; René F Kornelisse Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2012-10-08 Impact factor: 3.090