Thea van de Mortel1, Margherita Murgo. 1. School of Nursing and Health Care Practices, Southern Cross University, Lismore, Australia. tvandemo@scu.edu.au
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many studies have examined hand hygiene (HH) frequency and adherence in response to various interventions. This study used 2 methods to determine HH frequency and adherence to see how well the outcomes correlated. METHODS: HH frequency was measured over 4, 1-month periods (phases 1-4), using 2 methods: an audit of HH solution used during each phase adjusted for patient-days and covert observation of HH adherence. The number of x-ray technician contacts with patients (a known quantity) across the study period was retrospectively compared with the number of observations made of x-ray technicians' HH behavior to see what proportion of contacts were observed. RESULTS: HH solution use doubled in phase 2 and was 65% and 55% higher than the baseline level in phases 3 and 4, respectively. Observed HH adherence fell from 51% to 37% in phase 2 and then rose to 58% in phases 3 and 4. Three percent of x-ray technicians' patient contacts were observed across the 4 phases. CONCLUSION: Observation of HH may not adequately sample patient contacts to provide an accurate measure of HH adherence. Further studies are needed to confirm this finding.
BACKGROUND: Many studies have examined hand hygiene (HH) frequency and adherence in response to various interventions. This study used 2 methods to determine HH frequency and adherence to see how well the outcomes correlated. METHODS: HH frequency was measured over 4, 1-month periods (phases 1-4), using 2 methods: an audit of HH solution used during each phase adjusted for patient-days and covert observation of HH adherence. The number of x-ray technician contacts with patients (a known quantity) across the study period was retrospectively compared with the number of observations made of x-ray technicians' HH behavior to see what proportion of contacts were observed. RESULTS: HH solution use doubled in phase 2 and was 65% and 55% higher than the baseline level in phases 3 and 4, respectively. Observed HH adherence fell from 51% to 37% in phase 2 and then rose to 58% in phases 3 and 4. Three percent of x-ray technicians' patient contacts were observed across the 4 phases. CONCLUSION: Observation of HH may not adequately sample patient contacts to provide an accurate measure of HH adherence. Further studies are needed to confirm this finding.
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: Philip M Polgreen; Christopher S Hlady; Monica A Severson; Alberto M Segre; Ted Herman Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2010-10-25 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Mark Petticrew; Sean Semple; Shona Hilton; Kaen S Creely; Douglas Eadie; Deborah Ritchie; Catherine Ferrell; Yvette Christopher; Fintan Hurley Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2007-08-10 Impact factor: 3.295