BACKGROUND: The importance of hand hygiene in the prevention of health care-associated infection is well known. Experience with hand hygiene compliance (HHC) evaluation in hemodialysis units is scarce. METHODS: This study was a 3-phase, prospective longitudinal intervention study during a 5-month period in a 13-bed hemodialysis unit at a university hospital in Northern Mexico. The unit performs an average of 1,150 hemodialysis procedures per month. Compliance was evaluated by a direct observer and a video assisted observer. Feedback was given to health care workers in the form of educational sessions and confidential reports and video analysis of compliance and noncompliance. RESULTS: A total of 5,402 hand hygiene opportunities were registered; 5,201 during 7,820 minutes of video footage and 201 by direct observation during 1,180 minutes. Lower compliance during the baseline evaluation was observed by video monitoring compared with direct observation (P <0.05). Discrepancy between both methods was 29.2% (0.4%-59.8%); the average improvement in compliance during the study was 30.6% (range, 7.3%-75.5%). Global and Individual results for each subject revealed a statistically significant Improvement in the majority. Noncompliance according to WHO's 5 Moments for HH was greater for moment 5 (30.1%). We estimated that a health care worker in a hemodialysis unit could take 22-44.3% of working hours for proper hand hygiene compliance. CONCLUSIONS: Video-assisted monitoring of hand hygiene is an excellent method for the evaluation of HHC in a hemodialysis unit; enhanced HHC can be achieved through a feedback program to the hemodialysis staff that includes video examples and confidential reports.
BACKGROUND: The importance of hand hygiene in the prevention of health care-associated infection is well known. Experience with hand hygiene compliance (HHC) evaluation in hemodialysis units is scarce. METHODS: This study was a 3-phase, prospective longitudinal intervention study during a 5-month period in a 13-bed hemodialysis unit at a university hospital in Northern Mexico. The unit performs an average of 1,150 hemodialysis procedures per month. Compliance was evaluated by a direct observer and a video assisted observer. Feedback was given to health care workers in the form of educational sessions and confidential reports and video analysis of compliance and noncompliance. RESULTS: A total of 5,402 hand hygiene opportunities were registered; 5,201 during 7,820 minutes of video footage and 201 by direct observation during 1,180 minutes. Lower compliance during the baseline evaluation was observed by video monitoring compared with direct observation (P <0.05). Discrepancy between both methods was 29.2% (0.4%-59.8%); the average improvement in compliance during the study was 30.6% (range, 7.3%-75.5%). Global and Individual results for each subject revealed a statistically significant Improvement in the majority. Noncompliance according to WHO's 5 Moments for HH was greater for moment 5 (30.1%). We estimated that a health care worker in a hemodialysis unit could take 22-44.3% of working hours for proper hand hygiene compliance. CONCLUSIONS: Video-assisted monitoring of hand hygiene is an excellent method for the evaluation of HHC in a hemodialysis unit; enhanced HHC can be achieved through a feedback program to the hemodialysis staff that includes video examples and confidential reports.
Authors: Min S Park; Andrea Brock; Vance Mortimer; Philipp Taussky; William T Couldwell; Edward Quigley Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Ksenia Gorbenko; Afrah Mohammed; Edward I I Ezenwafor; Sydney Phlegar; Patrick Healy; Tamara Solly; Ingrid Nembhard; Lucy Xenophon; Cardinale Smith; Robert Freeman; David Reich; Madhu Mazumdar Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2022-08-16 Impact factor: 7.942
Authors: Qian Xu; Yang Liu; Darius Cepulis; Ann Jerde; Rachel A Sheppard; Kaitlin Tretter; Leah Oppy; Gina Stevenson; Sarah Bishop; Sean P Clifford; Peng Liu; Maiying Kong; Jiapeng Huang Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: A S H M van Dalen; M Jansen; M van Haperen; S van Dieren; C J Buskens; E J M Nieveen van Dijkum; W A Bemelman; T P Grantcharov; M P Schijven Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Tjallie van der Kooi; Hugo Sax; Hajo Grundmann; Didier Pittet; Sabine de Greeff; Jaap van Dissel; Lauren Clack; Albert W Wu; Judith Davitt; Sofia Kostourou; Alison Maguinness; Anna Michalik; Viorica Nedelcu; Márta Patyi; Janja Perme Hajdinjak; Milena Prosen; David Tellez; Éva Varga; Fani Veini; Mirosław Ziętkiewicz; Walter Zingg Journal: Antimicrob Resist Infect Control Date: 2022-10-05 Impact factor: 6.454