BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene is considered a critical factor in the prevention of health care-associated infections, and there have been many studies on ways to measure hand hygiene compliance. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the utility of estimating hand hygiene compliance using automated count technology versus direct human observation before and after a feedback intervention. We used a before and after quasi-experimental study over 30 weeks, in the setting of one 12-bed neurocare intensive care unit (NCICU) and one 15-bed cardiac intensive care unit (CCU) in a university, tertiary care hospital. METHODS: We assessed hand hygiene through a quasi-experimental study comparing estimated compliance using automated count technology and direct observation by a secret shopper with a feedback intervention at month 3. We used Poisson segmented regression and χ(2) tests to compare trends before and after the intervention. RESULTS: Over 30 weeks, we collected 424,682 dispenser counts and 338 hours of human observations that included 1,783 room entries. Electronic hand hygiene dispenser counts increased significantly in the post-intervention period relative to the pre-intervention period (average count/patient-day increased 22.7 in the NCICU and 7.3 in the CCU, both P < .001), but direct observation of compliance did not change significantly (percent compliant increased by 2.9% in the NCICU and decreased by 6.7% in the CCU, P = .47 and P = .07, respectively). CONCLUSION: Passive electronic monitoring of hand hygiene dispenser counts does not closely correlate with direct human observation and was more responsive than observation to a feedback intervention. Published by Mosby, Inc.
BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene is considered a critical factor in the prevention of health care-associated infections, and there have been many studies on ways to measure hand hygiene compliance. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the utility of estimating hand hygiene compliance using automated count technology versus direct human observation before and after a feedback intervention. We used a before and after quasi-experimental study over 30 weeks, in the setting of one 12-bed neurocare intensive care unit (NCICU) and one 15-bed cardiac intensive care unit (CCU) in a university, tertiary care hospital. METHODS: We assessed hand hygiene through a quasi-experimental study comparing estimated compliance using automated count technology and direct observation by a secret shopper with a feedback intervention at month 3. We used Poisson segmented regression and χ(2) tests to compare trends before and after the intervention. RESULTS: Over 30 weeks, we collected 424,682 dispenser counts and 338 hours of human observations that included 1,783 room entries. Electronic hand hygiene dispenser counts increased significantly in the post-intervention period relative to the pre-intervention period (average count/patient-day increased 22.7 in the NCICU and 7.3 in the CCU, both P < .001), but direct observation of compliance did not change significantly (percent compliant increased by 2.9% in the NCICU and decreased by 6.7% in the CCU, P = .47 and P = .07, respectively). CONCLUSION: Passive electronic monitoring of hand hygiene dispenser counts does not closely correlate with direct human observation and was more responsive than observation to a feedback intervention. Published by Mosby, Inc.
Authors: Elaine L Larson; Meghan T Murray; Bevin Cohen; Edwin Simpser; Marianne Pavia; Olivia Jackson; Haomiao Jia; R Gordon Hutcheon; Linda Mosiello; Natalie Neu; Lisa Saiman Journal: Behav Med Date: 2017-03-03 Impact factor: 3.104
Authors: Lisa L Pineles; Daniel J Morgan; Heather M Limper; Stephen G Weber; Kerri A Thom; Eli N Perencevich; Anthony D Harris; Emily Landon Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2013-12-17 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Nasia Safdar; Deverick J Anderson; Barbara I Braun; Philip Carling; Stuart Cohen; Curtis Donskey; Marci Drees; Anthony Harris; David K Henderson; Susan S Huang; Manisha Juthani-Mehta; Ebbing Lautenbach; Darren R Linkin; Jennifer Meddings; Loren G Miller; Aaron Milstone; Daniel Morgan; Sharmila Sengupta; Meera Varman; Deborah Yokoe; Danielle M Zerr Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Richard T Ellison; Constance M Barysauskas; Elke A Rundensteiner; Di Wang; Bruce Barton Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Nantasit Luangasanatip; Maliwan Hongsuwan; Direk Limmathurotsakul; Yoel Lubell; Andie S Lee; Stephan Harbarth; Nicholas P J Day; Nicholas Graves; Ben S Cooper Journal: BMJ Date: 2015-07-28