Marina Vaidotas1, Paula Kiyomi Onaga Yokota1, Alexandre R Marra2, Thiago Zinsly Sampaio Camargo3, Elivane da Silva Victor4, Deisy Morselli Gysi4, Flavio Leal5, Oscar Fernando Pavão dos Santos1, Michael B Edmond6. 1. Division of Medical Practice, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil. 2. Division of Medical Practice, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil. Electronic address: a.marra@uol.com.br. 3. Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil. 4. Instituto Israelita de Ensino e Pesquisa Albert Einstein, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil. 5. GOJO Latin America, Pindamonhangaba, Brazil. 6. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the importance of hand hygiene in the health care setting, there are no studies evaluating hand hygiene compliance at hospital entrances. METHODS: The study was prospectively performed over a 33-week period from March 30, 2014-November 15, 2014, to evaluate hand hygiene compliance in 2 hospital reception areas. We compared electronic handwash counters with the application of radiofrequency identification (GOJO SMARTLINK) (electronic observer) that counts each activation of alcohol gel dispensers to direct observation (human observer) via remote review of video surveillance. RESULTS: We found low hand hygiene compliance rates of 2.2% (99/4,412) and 1.7% (140/8,277), respectively, at reception areas A and D, detected by direct observation. Using the electronic observer, we measured rates of 17% (15,624/91,724) and 7.1% (51,605/730,357) at reception areas A and D, respectively. For the overall time period of simultaneous electronic and human observation, the human observer captured 1% of the hand hygiene episodes detected by the electronic observer. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed very low hand hygiene compliance in hospital reception areas, and we found an electronic hand hygiene system to be a useful method to monitor hand hygiene compliance.
BACKGROUND: Despite the importance of hand hygiene in the health care setting, there are no studies evaluating hand hygiene compliance at hospital entrances. METHODS: The study was prospectively performed over a 33-week period from March 30, 2014-November 15, 2014, to evaluate hand hygiene compliance in 2 hospital reception areas. We compared electronic handwash counters with the application of radiofrequency identification (GOJO SMARTLINK) (electronic observer) that counts each activation of alcohol gel dispensers to direct observation (human observer) via remote review of video surveillance. RESULTS: We found low hand hygiene compliance rates of 2.2% (99/4,412) and 1.7% (140/8,277), respectively, at reception areas A and D, detected by direct observation. Using the electronic observer, we measured rates of 17% (15,624/91,724) and 7.1% (51,605/730,357) at reception areas A and D, respectively. For the overall time period of simultaneous electronic and human observation, the human observer captured 1% of the hand hygiene episodes detected by the electronic observer. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed very low hand hygiene compliance in hospital reception areas, and we found an electronic hand hygiene system to be a useful method to monitor hand hygiene compliance.
Authors: Amit Singh; Albert Haque; Alexandre Alahi; Serena Yeung; Michelle Guo; Jill R Glassman; William Beninati; Terry Platchek; Li Fei-Fei; Arnold Milstein Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 4.497