Aiman El-Saed1, Seema Noushad2, Elias Tannous3, Fatima Abdirizak4, Yaseen Arabi5, Salih Al Azzam6, Esam Albanyan7, Hamdan Al Jahdalil7, Reem Al Sudairy8, Hanan H Balkhy9. 1. Infection Prevention and Control Department, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Community Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt. 2. Infection Prevention and Control Department, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 3. Quality and Patient Safety Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. 4. School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA. 5. King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Intensive Care Department, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 6. King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Department of Surgery, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 7. King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Department of Medicine, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 8. Department of Oncology, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 9. Infection Prevention and Control Department, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: balkhyh@hotmail.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although direct human observation of hand hygiene (HH) is considered the gold standard for measuring HH compliance, its accuracy is challenged by the Hawthorne effect. OBJECTIVES: To compare HH compliance using both overt and covert methods of direct observation in different professional categories, hospital settings, and HH indications. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in 28 units at King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, between October 2012 and July 2013. Compliance was defined as performing handrubbing or handwashing during 1 of the World Health Organization 5 Moments for HH indications (ie, opportunities). Overt observation was done by infection preventionists (IPs) who were doing their routine HH observation. Covert observation was done by unrecognized temporarily hired professionally trained observers. RESULTS: A total of 15,883 opportunities were observed using overt observation and 7,040 opportunities were observed using covert observation. Overall HH compliance was 87.1% versus 44.9% using overt/covert observations, respectively (risk ratio, 1.94; P < .001). The significant overestimation was seen across all professional categories, hospital settings, and HH indications. CONCLUSION: There is a considerable difference in HH compliance being observed overtly and covertly in all categories. More work is required to improve the methodology of direct observation to minimize the influence of the Hawthorne effect.
INTRODUCTION: Although direct human observation of hand hygiene (HH) is considered the gold standard for measuring HH compliance, its accuracy is challenged by the Hawthorne effect. OBJECTIVES: To compare HH compliance using both overt and covert methods of direct observation in different professional categories, hospital settings, and HH indications. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in 28 units at King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, between October 2012 and July 2013. Compliance was defined as performing handrubbing or handwashing during 1 of the World Health Organization 5 Moments for HH indications (ie, opportunities). Overt observation was done by infection preventionists (IPs) who were doing their routine HH observation. Covert observation was done by unrecognized temporarily hired professionally trained observers. RESULTS: A total of 15,883 opportunities were observed using overt observation and 7,040 opportunities were observed using covert observation. Overall HH compliance was 87.1% versus 44.9% using overt/covert observations, respectively (risk ratio, 1.94; P < .001). The significant overestimation was seen across all professional categories, hospital settings, and HH indications. CONCLUSION: There is a considerable difference in HH compliance being observed overtly and covertly in all categories. More work is required to improve the methodology of direct observation to minimize the influence of the Hawthorne effect.
Authors: Rebecca Anderson; Alexandra Rosenberg; Swati Garg; Jennifer Nahass; Andrew Nenos; Natalia Egorova; John Rowland; Joseph Mari; Vicki LoPachin Journal: J Patient Saf Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 2.243
Authors: Jaffar A Al-Tawfiq; Rana Abdrabalnabi; Alla Taher; Shantymole Mathew; Kamal Abdul Rahman Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2018-11-28 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Rasha S Almahmoud; Maha A Alfarhan; Walaa M Alanazi; Farah K Alhamidy; Hanan H Balkhy; Majid Alshamrani; Aiman El-Saed; Betule A Sairafi; Salim A Bahron Journal: J Infect Public Health Date: 2020-07-31 Impact factor: 3.718