Mixed methods study evaluating the implementation of the WHO hand hygiene strategy focusing on alcohol based handrub and training among health care workers in Faranah, Guinea.

INTRODUCTION: The most frequent adverse health events in healthcare worldwide are healthcare-associated infection. Despite ongoing implementation of the WHO multimodal Hand Hygiene (HH) Improvement Strategy, healthcare-associated infection rate continues to be twofold higher in low- than in high-income countries. This study focused on continued evaluation of HH compliance and knowledge. The mixed method approach, with inclusion of patients and care-givers, provided insight into challenges and facilitators of the WHO HH Improvement Strategy, and highlighted improvement points.
METHODS: An uncontrolled, before-and-after intervention, mixed methods study in Faranah Regional Hospital was conducted from December 2017 to August 2019. The intervention implemented the WHO HH Strategy including HH training for healthcare workers (HCWs), and the relaunch of the local production of alcohol-based handrub (ABHR). A baseline assessment of HH knowledge, perception and compliance of HCWs was done prior to the intervention and compared to two follow-up assessments. The second follow-up assessment was complemented by a qualitative component.
RESULTS: Overall compliance six months post-intervention was 45.1% and significantly higher than baseline but significantly lower than in first follow-up. Knowledge showed similar patterns of improvement and waning. The perception survey demonstrated high appreciation of the intervention, such as local production of ABHR. HCW's were concerned about overconsuming of ABHR, however simultaneous quantitative measurements showed that consumption in fact was 36% of the estimated amount needed for sufficient HH compliance. Potential fields for improvement identified by HCWs to enhance sustainability were permanent ABHR availability, having a dedicated person with ownership over continuous simulation HH trainings including simulations to improve technique.
CONCLUSION: The study shows that the WHO multimodal HH strategy has a positive effect on HCW compliance and knowledge. Improvement points identified by local staff like sensitization on appropriate ABHR amount per HH action should be considered for sustainable HH improvement.

Introduction

Patient safety is “the absence of preventable harm to a patient during the process of health care” [1] and a major challenge in public health. Healthcare-associated infections (HAI) are associated with a lack of awareness of hand hygiene (HH) standards, or the non-compliance with them [2]. Out of 100 hospitalized patients, ten will acquire one or more HAIs in low- and middle-income countries [3]. The WHO states that the HAI rate can be reduced by up to 55% through appropriate hand hygiene [4]. Therefore, the WHO launched the Multimodal Hand Hygiene Improvement Strategy in 2005. The strategy was increasingly implemented in Africa after the West African Ebola virus disease outbreak [5-7], often in settings facing challenges to hand hygiene, such as unsustainable supply of alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR), lack of running water and the difficulty of the application of “5 moments of hand hygiene” in overcrowded settings [8, 9]. Apart from the lack of appropriate infrastructure, other deterring factors previously identified are (i) belonging to a certain professional category (i.e. doctor, nursing assistant, physiotherapist, technician); (ii) working in specific care areas (i.e. intensive care, surgery, anesthesiology, emergency medicine); (iii) understaffing and over- crowding; and (iv) wearing gowns and/or gloves [10].

Despite ongoing implementations of the WHO multimodal HH Improvement Strategy, the HAI rate is still at least twofold higher in low- compared with high-income countries [8]. Further implementation research is thus necessary to explore possible barriers that affect the implementation or long-term effectiveness of the strategy.

Our study combines qualitative and quantitative research on the impact of the WHO Multimodal Hand Hygiene Improvement Strategy implemented in the Regional Hospital Faranah, Guinea.

This mixed method approach focused on continued evaluation of the strategy’s long-term-effectiveness as well as the inclusion of patients and care-givers perspectives to illuminate factors necessary for sustainability of local production of ABHR and to maintain HCW HH knowledge and compliance. We aspired to gain an in-depth insight on HH, its challenges in a low-resource setting and sustainability improvement points.

Materials and methods

Study setting

The study was conducted as part of the PASQUALE (Partnership to Improve Patient Safety and Quality of Care) project, which responds to the first (“Clean Care is Safer Care”) WHO Global Patient Safety Challenge [11]. The project took place in the Faranah Regional Hospital (FRH), Guinea, a reference hospital for a population of 300,000 inhabitants employing 91 healthcare and administrative staff-members. When the project started, the hospital had insufficient access to ABHR and water, and no running water at all: water was fetched from a borehole and distributed to the various points of use by buckets. Our project made an effort to improve the water supply, which over time improved indeed, albeit independently from our effort.

While the project covered all components of the WHO strategy [12], this paper focusses on the evaluation of “System change–ABHR at point of care”, and “Training and education”.

Quantitative study

The results of baseline and first follow-up of this study have been reported in detail elsewhere [13]. To show long-term trends, including potential waning of knowledge and compliance, some results of baseline and first follow-up are cited and compared to results from second follow-up in the discussion section. Previously published results of baseline and first follow-up are clearly referenced.

The project consisted of five phases: preparatory phase, baseline evaluation, intervention, first and second follow-up. Preparatory phase (Phase 0): In December 2017, a participatory needs assessment was conducted in the FRH with self-evaluation of the facility’s hygiene level by the hospital director. Baseline evaluation (Phase I): From January to March 2018, a quantitative and qualitative HH baseline assessment took place. Intervention (Phase II): In December 2018, a tailored workshop on HH for healthcare workers (HCWs) was conducted and the local production of ABHR was reintroduced. Every HCW received a pocket bottle of 100 ml ABHR and every ward or consultation room a bottle of 500 ml ABHR. A bottle exchange station was installed at the local pharmacy. This paper focuses on the evaluation of the first two components of the multimodal WHO HH strategy: (1) system change, and (2) training and education [12]. But our intervention also addressed all other components: (3) monitoring and feedback, by direct HH observations and immediate feedback to the participants observed, (4) visual reminders in the workplace, by hanging up posters in the workplace and the distribution of flyers; and (5) creation of safety climate, by asking local staff for suggestion for improvement and patients for their personal opinion on HH. First follow-up (Phase III): From December 2018 to February 2019, the first quantitative follow-up assessment was done. The second quantitative follow-up assessment was complemented by a qualitative study (Phase IV) and was done six months after the training from June 2019 to July 2019.

For HH knowledge, a score was calculated equaling the number of correct answers (maximum score 25 points), this score was the primary outcome variable of the knowledge assessment. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were performed to compare median knowledge score at first and second follow-up with the baseline and to compare the HH perception of HCWs at first and second follow-up with each other. HCWs’ perception on the impact of project intervention was assessed in phase III and phase IV.

HH compliance was observed directly and overtly without prior announcement and was calculated as the number of HH actions performed divided by the number of opportunities requiring HH according to the WHO “5 Moments of HH”. χ2 tests was applied to compare proportions such as, compliance at follow-ups to baseline and compliance at first to second follow-up. As most health care professionals had more than one HH opportunity, the observations were not independent. For confidentiality purposes workers were not identified during observation. To account for this lack of independence a design effect of two was assumed and accounted for by doubling the standard error [14], in the same way as it was done in a similar study [15]. Two-tailed p-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Multivariable logistic regression was performed. The initial model included confounders proposed in the literature such as “type of ward”, “hand hygiene indication” and “professional category”. These confounders were maintained if the crude OR differed substantially from the adjusted one. All quantitative data was analyzed using Stata 15.2 (StataCorp LLc, College Station, Texas USA).

Qualitative study

In phase IV, one of the authors [BSC], who was not previously known to participants, conducted a qualitative study with 22 in-depth semi-structured interviews (IDIs) and 6 focus group discussions (FGDs) with 4–8 participants each. In order to ensure maximum variation of the study population, potential study participants were purposely sampled by another author [AOKD] to separate between professions and to represent various services of the hospital with both genders and an array of patients and caregivers. Following a presentation of the qualitative research’s objectives to all HCWs working at the hospital, participants of the IDIs were contacted individually before the interview to arrange interview appointments at their time and place of each participant’s convenience. For the FGDs, an appointment was arranged at least one day in advance with each profession and/or service of the hospital in order to guarantee maximum participation. Both IDIs and FGDs were recorded and transcribed verbatim; they had a typical duration of 45 minutes and 60 minutes respectively. All field work, transcription and analysis were carried out in French; verbatim quotations were translated into English by the authors. Coding and thematic content analysis were performed using Microsoft Excel for Windows 10 following the thematic framework of the quantitative component. The analysis of the data concentrated on exploring perceptions and opinions about the project’s impact on the knowledge, perception and compliance vis-à-vis HH. The thematic framework identification included perceptions on ABHR production and consumption, as well as prospects of sustainability. A preliminary analysis was done during the data collection phase, facilitating gradual adaptation of the questions and initial reach of data saturation.

Ethics

Ethics approval was obtained from the Comité National d’Ethique pour la Recherche en Santé, Guinea (N°: 016/CNERS/19). Every participant obtained information about the study and signed a consent form.

Results

Characteristics of participants

Table 1 provides a description of the participants. A total of 81 out of 84 (96.4%) participated in the second follow-up assessment with a proportion of 51.9% female participants. Healthcare workers were categorized into five professional groups, with “Other” consisting primarily of smaller professional groups, such as dentists, pharmacists, biologists, auxiliary nurses and students, were grouped together because of the small size of each professional group.

Table 1

Study population of quantitative research.

		2nd Follow-up n (%)
Number of Respondents (N)		81
Gender: female		41 (51.9)
Profession:
	Medical doctor	14 (17.2)
	Nurse	12 (15.2)
	Midwife	7 (8.9)
	Technician	5 (6.3)
	Others	41 (51.9)
Department:
	Internal Medicine	7 (8.9)
	Surgery	12 (15.1)
	Emergencies	7 (8.9)
	Obstetrics	12 (15.1)
	Pediatrics	10 (12.7)
	Others	31 (39.2)

In total, 22 IDIs were carried out. Table 2 provides general information of the participants of the IDIs. Moreover, six FGDs were done, each with different professional groups (8 members of the operating theater, 8 nurses, 6 laboratory workers, 6 midwives, 5 doctors and 4 members of the maintenance team).

Table 2

Study population of IDIs.

		IDI HCW n (%)		IDI patients/caregivers n (%)
Number of Respondents (N)		14		8
Gender: female		2 (14.3)		5 (62.5)
Profession:
		Medical doctor	6 (42.9)	Public servant	3 (37.5)
		Nurse	5 (35.7)	Seller	2 (25.0)
		Midwife	1 (7.1)	Worker	2 (25.0)
		Technician	1 (7.1)	Student	1 (12.5)
		Others	1 (7.1)
Department:
	Internal Medicine	1 (7.1)		1 (12.5)
	Surgery	4 (28.6)		4 (50.0)
	Emergencies	1 (7.1)		N.A.
	Obstetrics	2 (14.2)		2 (25.0)
	Pediatrics	1 (7.1)		1 (12.5)
	Others	5 (35.7)		N.A.

Hand hygiene knowledge

Quantitative

The median knowledge score of the second follow-up was 16.0/25 (IQR 15.0–18.0). Compared to previously published assessment rounds, second follow-up was significantly lower than first follow-up (-3.0, p<0.001), but significantly higher than in baseline (+6.0, p<0.001, Table 3) [13].

Table 3

Median hand hygiene knowledge score (IQR), Regional Hospital Faranah; maximum score: 25.

		2nd Follow-up	Difference to baseline**	P-value*, comparison with baseline**
Overall Knowledge Score		16.0 (15.0–18.0)	+ 6.0	<0.001
By professional categories
	Medical doctor	17.0 (15.0–19.0)	+ 7.5	0.001
	Nurse	16.0 (13.5–18.5)	+ 7.5	<0.001
	Midwife	16.0 (16.0–17.0)	+ 4.0	0.017
	Technician	17.0 (16.0–18.0)	+ 2.0	0.026
	Other	16.0 (14.0–18.0)	+ 4.0	0.247

* p-value calculated with Wilcoxon rank-sum test

** baseline results previously published [13].

All professional categories had significantly better knowledge in second follow-up compared to baseline, except the professional group “Other”. A majority of HCWs reported to have been trained within the last three years (83.5% second follow-up). A sub-analysis of knowledge scores was conducted using only questionnaires from HCWs who had participated in baseline and both follow-ups. This sub-analysis of 22 HCWs showed the same tri-phasic trend with significant increase from baseline (median 14.0; IQR 12.0–15.0) to first follow-up (median 20.5; IQR 19.0–22.0, p<0.001), significant increase from baseline to second follow-up (median 18.0; IQR 16.0–19.0, p<0.001) and significant decrease between the two follow-ups (p = 0.002). It was, therefore, decided to include all HCWs in the knowledge analysis (Table 3).

Qualitative

Participants reported that the PASQUALE project has improved the knowledge and practices of HH. HCWs said to have “benefited from a theoretical and practical training” (FGD 1, doctors, FRH, 13/08/2019) and to have learnt that “ABHR is faster [than handwashing] and does not cause dryness” (IDI 7, nurse, FRH, 13/08/2019). They also reported to have a new understanding that HH methods vary depending on the circumstances: “thanks to PASQUALE I now know when to use ABHR, [and when to] wash my hands with soap or wear gloves” (IDI 7, nurse, FRH, 13/08/2019).

HCWs’ and patients’ perception of HH

A total of 79 perception questionnaires were collected in the second follow-up. 53.1% of HCWs rated reminders by patients to perform HH to be effective. Table 4 shows that a majority of participants in the second follow-up selected 7 on a Likert Scale of 1 to 7 indicating a fully affirmative answer on different aspects of the impact of the intervention. ABHR use and educational activities were rated to have had a positive impact throughout.

Table 4

HCWs’ perception about impact of intervention.

	2nd Follow-up n (%)*
Number of Respondents (N)	79
Has the use of ABHR made hand hygiene easier to practice in your daily work?	69 (88.5)
Is the use of ABHR well tolerated by your hands?	67 (85.9)
Did knowing the results of hand hygiene observation in your ward help you to improve your hand hygiene practices?	68 (87.2)
Has the fact of being observed made you paying more attention to your hand hygiene practices?	63 (80.8)
Were the educational activities that you participated in important to improve your hand hygiene practices?	69 (89.6)
Has the improvement of the safety climate (…) helped you personally to improve your hand hygiene practices?	66 (84.6)
Has your awareness of your role in preventing HAIs by improving your hand hygiene practices increased during the current hand hygiene promotional campaign?	63 (80.8)

*results are shown as number of respondents out of total selecting seven on a seven-point Likert scale, indicating a fully affirmative answer.

In general, all participants gave a positive feedback on the intervention. HCWs felt that the language and content of the training were adequate and well-oriented to tackle the HH needs and challenges of the hospital. They considered the training to be very beneficial: “the training sessions were very good because they even gave us questionnaires to reflect on our knowledge” (IDI 10, surgeon, FRH, 13/08/2019). Participants agreed that producing ABHR locally improved its availability: “when one speaks about a main strength [of the intervention], everything turns around the availability of the solution (…). This availability (…) provides quality of care” (FGD 1, doctors FRH, 13/08/2019).

Participants also explored HH challenges encountered during the intervention. They identified as main challenge the insufficient access to running water in the entire hospital due to the intermittent failure of the borehole (FGD 1 and 2, nurses and doctors, FRH, 13/08/2019).

Patients stated that “hygiene gives health” and that respecting hygiene prevents them from contracting diseases (IDI 18, patient surgery, FRH, 11/08/2019). They reported that they were satisfied by the hygiene practices of HCWs but complained about the poor hygiene in the hospital environment, the abundance of insects inside wards and the unreliable electricity supply. Patient relatives stated that "Patient care is very good, but there are too many mosquitoes.” (IDI 14, patient relative, FRH, 11/08/2019), and that “there is no electricity and also there are too many mosquitoes” (IDI 15, patient relative, FRH, 11/08/2019).

Compliance

A total of 519 HH opportunities was assessed. HH compliance was 45.1% (95% CI 36.5–53.7) in second follow-up (S1 Table). Compared to previously published assessment round [13], compliance was significantly lower than in first follow-up (-26.4, p<0.001), but significantly higher than at baseline (+21.4, p<0.001). In the second follow-up compliance of “Technicians” was highest at 75.6% (95% CI 59.1–94.0) and compliance of “Midwifes” lowest at 13.3% (95% CI -22.3–48.9). Compliance was highest for the indication “after patient contact” (64.5%, 95% CI 48.7–80.3) and lowest for “before aseptic tasks” (25.0%, 95% CI -26.2–76.1). Compared to previously published baseline data, compliance of “Nurses”, “Technicians” and “Others” was significantly higher than in baseline (p = 0.002, P<0.001, p = 0.009 respectively). A non-significant deterioration of 5.6 was seen in “Medical doctors” (p = 0.439). Compliance “after patient contact” and “after contact with patient surrounding” was significantly better that in baseline assessment (p = 0.001, P<0.001, respectively). No deterioration was observed for any indication.

In multivariable analysis, compliance was associated with the intervention showing an OR of 2.3 in the second follow-up compared to baseline (95% CI 1.2–4.6; p<0.001) after adjustment for profession and indication group.

The majority of HCWs interviewed during the 2nd follow-up identified HH as a routine practice that was reinforced by PASQUALE: “the use of the alcohol-based solution, that is, hand friction has become a reflex for us” (FGD 2, nurses, FRH, 13/08/2019). To describe the current situation, HCWs speak of a “culture of hand hygiene” (IDI 8, medical doctor, FRH, 18/08/2019). In that sense, HCWs explain that they have the motivation and discipline to do hand rubbing as indicated: "Health workers are motivated; they have the awareness for hand hygiene (…)" (IDI 8, medical doctor, FRH, 13/08/2019).

ABHR production and consumption

The local pharmacy produces 10L batches of ABHR four times a month. The average monthly ABHR consumption in 2019 was at 26.9L for the entire hospital. The recommended minimum monthly consumption at FRH is 74L based on national guidelines [16], assuming a disinfectant use of 3 ml per HH action, a minimum of eight HH actions per delivery, and a minimum of two HH actions per consultation. HCWs thus consumed only 36% of the recommended minimum ABHR quantity.

Participants of all FGDs concluded that the most important benefit of the project was the improved access to an easy-to-use and effective disinfectant. HCWs stated that they were “proud” of using a solution which was produced in their own facility and which fulfilled “international standards” (FGD 2, FRH, 13/08/2019). Furthermore, they report that “the use [of ABHR] is so easy that everyone is used to it.” (FGD 2, nurses, FRH, 18/07/2019). In the FGDs, medical doctors described the ABHR solution as a “weapon” for infection prevention: “But your weapon here is this little bottle that allows you to reduce the risks of contamination, but if you forget it, it’s like a soldier who forgets his weapon in the middle of a war.” (FGD 1, medical doctors, FRH, 13/08/2019).

Nurses reported in the FGD, that the reintroduction of ABHR production was “so successful” that they had concerns about the “excessive usage”: “they put a lot [of ABHR] in their hands, they even spread it in the palm of their hand as if it was water. That finishes very quickly the small 100 ml bottle” (FGD 2, nurses, FRH, 18/07/2019). Following this rationale, participants feel the need to introduce a more economical usage policy (FGD 2, nurses, FRH, 13/08/2019).

In the FGD with doctors, concerns about the misuse of ABHR at home were mentioned. The private use was confirmed in individual interviews with a doctor (IDI 3, doctor, FRH, 13/08/2019) and a nurse: “I’m protected [against infections] at the hospital and also at home because I pocket my small bottle. It is with me at home and here [at the hospital]” (IDI 7, nurse, FRH, 13/08/2019).

As a hindering factor of ABHR use, participants generally agreed on the difficulty in its procurement during night and holiday shifts: “we sometimes run out of ABHR; and that is because there are holidays. The supply point is closed and the pharmacist is absent” (IDI 2, medical doctor, FRH, 13/08/2019). In terms of a sustainable behavior change, participants spoke of a disinfection culture: “(…) and I would even say that it has become part of the culture to [clean hands] before and after the acts, or a contact [with a patient]”(IDI 8, medical doctor, FRH, 18/07/2019).

Improvement points and prospects of sustainability

HCWs suggested moving the ABHR bottle exchange facility from the pharmacy to the emergency department to overcome problems connected with opening hours. Due to a presumed excessive use of ABHR, nurses requested a further training on “rational” use of the solution: “stop wasting ABHR (…) the use must be rational and indicated” (FGD 2, nurses, FRH, 18/07/2019).

HCWs proposed to identify one hygiene focal point of the FRH whose duty would be to remind colleagues to obtain new ABHR flacons in time, and to organize HH trainings on a continuous basis. These trainings should address all HCWs, considering staff turnover and providing simulations related to WHO’s “five moments of hand hygiene”. Participants requested trainings on strategies for complying with HH rules during emergency situations (FGD 6, midwife, FRH, 18/07/2019). They found it necessary to increase knowledge transfer within teams by helping each other to improve HH compliance: “it takes teamwork, for example when you see a colleague without his bottle, he must be reminded so it becomes for him a reflex before every act” (FGD 1, medical doctors, 13/08/2019), “the nurses are used to ABHR before an act, even when she [the nurse] does not have it [ABHR], she asks her colleague to put some solution on her hands” (FGD 2, nurses, FRH, 18/07/2019). To sum up the improvement points one participant said “We must always make reminders and make friction solution available at all times.” (IDI 9, medical doctor, 13/08/2019).

Discussion

This study utilized a mixed method approach to assess the implementation of the WHO multimodal HH Strategy in a low-resource setting. This assessment focus on the long-term trends and challenges to sustainability, complementing a previous study on short term changes [13].

The knowledge score reached 64%, thus showed a significant decrease compared to the previously published first follow-up. This decrease may be partially due to high staff turn-over, which is reflected by the decreasing proportion of previously trained HCWs. Nevertheless, knowledge at the second follow-up was still significantly higher than at baseline in all professional groups (“Medical Doctor” 13.5, “Nurse” 11.5, “Midwife” 13.0, “Technician” 13.0) except for “Others”, consisting primarily of medical students and auxiliary nurses and presumably particularly affected by high staff turn-over [13]. The qualitative study also identified high staff turn-over as a problem. A HH study from Mali also showed a comparably low knowledge increase in nursing assistants, calling the attention to this professional group given its high number of HH opportunities [15]. A sub-analysis of knowledge scores was conducted using only questionnaires from HCWs who had participated in baseline and both follow-ups. This sub-analysis of 22 HCWs showed the same tri-phasic trend with significant increase from baseline to first follow-up, significant increase from baseline to second follow-up and significant decrease between the two follow-ups. It was, therefore, decided to include all HCWs in the full knowledge analysis. It can be theorized that similar results of the sub-analysis to the analysis of all participants are an effect of the culture of HH knowledge being shared between HCWs.

Perception of the WHO multimodal HH strategy was positive, especially on the component of local ABHR production and HH trainings for HCWs. The qualitative study confirmed these survey findings, and added evidence of high patient satisfaction with HH at FRH. The high appreciation of the project could partly be due to social desirability bias, a type of response bias previously reported in the Guinean context [17]. To minimize this bias the qualitative study was performed by a Guinean researcher [BSC], who was not project staff and not previously known to HCWs.

Compliance throughout the project timeline showed a threefold increase from baseline (23.7%) to first follow-up (71.5%) [13] and a significant decrease to 45.1% in the second follow-up six months post the intervention. To show trends, the second follow-up is compared to previously published assessment rounds. Fig 1 shows HH compliance overall and by indication.

Fig 1

Hand hygiene compliance at baseline, 1st and 2nd follow-up, overall and by indication.

** Baseline and 1st follow-up data from previous publication [13].

HH compliance was higher “after patient contact” than “before patient contact”, and remained significantly higher than at baseline only “after patient contact” and “after contact with patient surrounding”, suggesting that HCWs may be primarily concerned about their own protection than about protecting patients [18]. An alarmingly pronounced drop “before aseptic tasks” was observed, calling for further attention in future trainings given the importance of this indication for patient safety.

Fig 2 shows overall compliance and compliance by profession. The overall compliance of the second follow-up is almost two times higher than in comparable settings seven months post intervention [5].

Fig 2

Hand hygiene compliance at baseline, 1st and 2nd follow-up, by profession.

** Baseline and 1st follow-up data from previous publication [13].

However, the significant decrease compared to first follow-up is a downwards trend that should be countered by considering suggestions for improvement identified by our qualitative research. Highest decrease in compliance was seen for the professional group of medical doctors—a professional group known for its poor adherence following previous WHO studies [19]. The initial improvement for both compliance and knowledge may correspond to the first two phases of a tri-phasic learning pattern [20]. A tri-phasic learning curve is characterized by a rapid initial learning phase (right after the intervention), accompanied by a decline in the improvement and followed by a recovery to a steady state of improvement, which has already been described in a study assessing the learning curve of medical staff [20]. This tri-phasic pattern can be explained by the fact that new information can initially be quickly absorbed and reproduced, but its integration into everyday clinical practice occurs only gradually. Thus, the decline after initial improvement can be explained, which then leads to a steady state with increasing practice and the integration of new structures and methods. In our study both knowledge and compliance show signs of waning upon second follow-up. At least one further follow-up will be necessary to understand if the effect six months post intervention is the beginning of a steady state of improvement.

Taking into account the decrease in HH compliance and knowledge in the second follow-up, continuous and repeated trainings are thought to be beneficial to prevent further waning. Therefore, the hospital has introduced mini-trainings during staff meetings, as well as appreciation of good hygiene performance with the recognition of a “hygienist of the trimester”. A third follow-up will assess whether these measures can stabilize or even increase HH knowledge and compliance.

We used direct observations, as suggested by the WHO. However, its limited validity was addressed in a systematic review [21] where potential information and selection bias as well as confounding were discussed. The project team minimized information bias by thorough training of the local observer. Since direct observation was performed by a single researcher, inter-observer reliability was not an issue. The Hawthorne effect is believed to decrease over time as HCWs become more accustomed to being observed [22]. To minimize selection bias, HH compliance in the current study was not only assessed during normal working hours but also during night- and weekend-shifts. 86% of previous studies could not mitigate selection bias in this way [21]. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to control confounding. Profession group and indication were checked for multicollinearity to compliance and both variables were found to have a variance inflation factor (VIF) of 1.00, indicating no need for further investigation.

When addressing the same issues, qualitative and quantitative data came to the same conclusions, thus increasing validity by methodological triangulation. A further strength of the study is the high response rate of over 80% of HCWs in quantitative survey.

Qualitative analysis found a strong perceived need, in patients and HCWs alike, for infrastructural improvement to foster a safer hospital environment, requesting running water and renovation of wards. In the meantime, the hospital has been renovated by the Guinean Ministry of Health.

Our project emphasized the necessity to keep ABHR as easily accessible as possible to facilitate HH measures. The suggestion to move the ABHR supply facilities should be further explored, as it could also represent the search of an excuse for one’s own lack of foresight and non-compliance. In high-income countries an ABHR provision alone could only marginally increase HH compliance, and behavioral modification programs were required [23]. In low resource settings, however, studies showed that the availability of ABHR is critical, and barriers to access ABHR flacons should be minimized [15, 24]. Interestingly, the established barriers for HH compliance of “extra workload” and “time constraints” were not mentioned by study participants [6], nor was the investment in patient safety seen as a way of achieving financial savings, and such savings were not considered a major contributor to HCW motivation. The qualitative research component of our study included patients’ and caregivers’ opinion on HH and patient safety. As HH is not only an issue for HCWs, viewpoints of patients and caregivers enriched our study. Nevertheless, HCWs in this study rate the impact of patient reminders as low in terms of HH improvement, and do not seem to be receptive to patients’ and caregivers’ input. The low literacy rate in Faranah may have led to this low appreciation of the patients’ involvement.

Beyond the exploration of improvement points from the perspective of patients and HCWs, elucidating the HCW’s misconception on the quantity of ABHR use is another example how qualitative research complemented the quantitative survey.

HCWs’ take pride and ownership in the local production of disinfectant. This may have contributed to using it too sparingly in an effort to protect the supply. HCWs perceive ABHR as too precious to be used “excessively” and rate current consumption as too high. However, this perceived overconsumption does not match the average monthly consumption of 27L only, when 74L would be the estimated minimum consumption appropriate for the FRH. This low consumption rate can be due to either an inappropriate amount of ABHR used in each HH action, or missed HH actions. High HH compliance rates show that actions are being performed when needed, indicating that HCWs use less than the recommended amount of ABHR. HCW statements on concerns about economic and excessive usage further support this theory. As such, future trainings should also focus on the proper amount of ABHR used in each HH technique. This misconception should be addressed in future training sessions at HRF; more research is needed to find out whether this phenomenon is prevalent in other settings as well, so that it can be addressed in the WHO HH strategies, if appropriate.

HCWs themselves asked for further training on HH including the correct amount and time for ABHR use. They suggested that this training should be a continuous activity conducted by a local HCW, showing the wish for local ownership and a motivation to maintain training efforts. HCWs identified improvement points to sustainably enhance prospects of high compliance, including simulations of daily hospital scenarios. This request corresponds to the 2019 WHO approach on “Scenario-based simulation training”[25].

Conclusion

The current study suggests that especially the local production of ABHR and HH training of the WHO multimodal HH strategy may have a sustained positive effect on HCW compliance and knowledge in the FRH, but additional assessments are needed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness. This study identified improvement points via a mixed methods approach. To further enhance prospects of sustainability, we recommend focusing on the sensitization on appropriate ABHR consumption, the permanent ABHR availability and continuous trainings with local ownership. When aiming at sustainable improvement of HH in similar settings, the identified improvement points should be taken into consideration.

Hand hygiene compliance at baseline and follow-up, Faranah Regional Hospital, Guinea.

* width of CI adjusted for lack of independence by inflating standard error by a factor of 2. ** determined by χ2 test comparing with baseline with inflated standard error. ***determined by χ2 test comparing with 1st follow-up with inflated standard error.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

6 Jan 2021

Submitted filename: 01_06_rebuttal letter.docx

Click here for additional data file.

8 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-00332

Mixed methods study evaluating the implementation of the WHO Hand Hygiene Strategy

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. %Sophie Mueller%

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by %6th July 2021%. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mary Hamer Hodges, MBBS MRCP DSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

As reviewer #2 has pointed out you have ovnly addressed one of five aspects of the WHO HH strategy. Please consider the others before resubmission.

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This study was funded by the BMZ (Bundesministerium für Zusammenarbeit) as part of the GIZ (Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit) University and Hospital Partnerships in Africa (ESTHER) Program (Ensemble pour une Solidarité Thérapeutique Hospitalière en Réseau) (Award Number 81213469). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.”

a) Please provide an amended Funding Statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support received during this specific study (whether external or internal to your organization) as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.

b) Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funder. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please send your amended statements by return email; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

5. Please upload a copy of Supporting Information S1 Table which you refer to in your text on page 25.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Full Title: Reading through, the study is among “health workers” i suggest you include that please. I suggest you including study location too as the full title and short title still have same word count.

Abstract

L12: I suggest including that baseline here

L18: I suggest you include the word “of”

Conclusion

L3: This abbreviation has not been defined

Introduction

L23: Again, this is not defined, if it is referring alcohol-based hand-rub, define it first and continue using the abbreviation throughout.

L24: I suggest you continue using HH since it has be defined or stay with household through the manuscript rather than mixing the abbreviations with the full word.

Study Settings

L7: I suggest including literature on other sources and access of water in the hospital if there is no water running system.

Quantitative study

L20: This definition and abbreviation should have come above, as the abbreviation is used in the abstract and L23 in the introduction already.

Qualitative study L11: How many participant per FGDs?

Hand Hygiene Knowledge

L13: Typo, the letter "e" is left out

Reviewer #2: To be clear, below are the 5 WHO Hand Hygiene (HH) Strategies

1a. System change – alcohol-based handrub at point of care

1b. System change – access to safe, continuous water supply, soap and towels

2. Evaluation and feedback

3. Training and education

4. Reminders in the workplace

5. Institutional safety climate Baseline evaluation Implementation Follow-up evaluation Review and planning

TITLE: The topic seem to have a different understand as what’s in the context. The study is talking about the whole HH strategy of WHO while the focus is mostly on the first strategy “alcohol based handrub at point of contact. Again, study location should have been included in the topic to at least make it a bit clear. In that case, I advised you look and revise the topic.

ABSTRACT

L18, 19 and 21 alcohol -based handrub was used without the abbreviation. However, in conclusion L3 the abbreviation (ABHR) was used. Please correct this, the abbreviation should be introduced in the first instance (L18) and only used thereafter. This process must be repeated in the main text so that you do not interchange alcohol-based handrub with ABHR.

INTRODUCTION

L3-4 “Healthcare-associated infections (HAI) are the most frequent adverse events worldwide.” This statement is very odd. Frequent adverse event following what? Hospital admission? Reference cited is old. From WHO fact sheet, there was specific case as to Healthcare Delivery Worldwide. So there should have been a focus on the refusal /omission of compliance or lack of knowledge of HH as a cause HAI.

L9 lack of running water in the facility, is that a reason for the research to focus mainly on only one of the 5 WHO HH strategies?

L21, 22, 23-24 show the research focus which is “to illuminate factors necessary for sustainability of local production of ABHR and to maintain HCW HH knowledge and compliance.” This clearly show that the key to the research is the first WHO HH strategy not the other four.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Settings

L7 states that “the hospital lacks access to running water …” Is this the reason why Hand washing using soap, water and towel was not included, which is part 1b of the key WHO HH strategy?

Quantitative Study

L10-11 states that “The design, methods of the quantitative part and results of baseline and first follow-up of this study have been described in detail elsewhere.” Please indicate the where the details can be found? This is confusing!

L8-9 states that perception was compared with Wilcoxon rank-sum on phase III and IV while L10-13 stated that compliance was compared using WHO 5 Moment of HH strategy. Why are these different?

Qualitative study

L2 “In-depth semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions.” Both introduced without abbreviations but abbreviations were used in L6 and L8 respectively.

RESULTS

Hand Hygiene Knowledge

Qualitative

L8 states that one of the benefit form theoretical practical training was that “ABHR is faster (than handwashing) and does not cause dryness” Is this another reason for not considering hand washing as a key component of the strategy?

DISCUSSION

L7-8 states that “Nevertheless, knowledge at the second follow-up was still significantly higher than at baseline…” what is the baseline figure?

L19 states that “perception of the WHO multimodal HH strategy was positive throughout” This statement is not justified considering the fact that this study focuses mostly on just one aspect of the strategy

CONCLUSION

L20 states that “the WHO multimodal HH strategy may have a sustained positive effect on HCW compliance and knowledge in the FRH.” The positive effect suggested was mostly for 1a strategy: ABHR. Please review, perhaps describe the 5 point strategy first before focusing on only on point 1a.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

25 Jun 2021

Reviewer #1: Full Title: Reading through, the study is among “health workers” i suggest you include that please. I suggest you including study location too as the full title and short title still have same word count.

- Thank you, the new full title is “Mixed methods study evaluating the implementation of the WHO Hand Hygiene Strategy focusing on local production alcohol based handrub and training among health care workers in Faranah, Guinea” and short title “Mixed methods study evaluating the implementation of the WHO Hand Hygiene Strategy”

Abstract

L12: I suggest including that baseline here

- Thanks for this comment. However, baseline data have been published elsewhere, so we have removed them from this manuscript upon request by an earlier reviewer and the journal’s editor. Instead, we provide the reference in the manuscript where baseline results can be found: Müller et al. 2020 doi: 10.1186/s13756-020-00723-8

L18: I suggest you include the word “of”

- Thank you, we now state: “HCW’s were concerned about overconsuming of ABHR”

Conclusion

L3: This abbreviation has not been defined

- Thank you for spotting this mistake, abbreviation is now defined in L12 “(…) the relaunch of the local production of alcohol-based handrub (ABHR).”

Introduction

L23: Again, this is not defined, if it is referring alcohol-based hand-rub, define it first and continue using the abbreviation throughout.

- Thank you for spotting this mistake, abbreviation is now defined in L10 “(…) unsustainable supply of alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR),”

L24: I suggest you continue using HH since it has be defined or stay with household through the manuscript rather than mixing the abbreviations with the full word.

- Thank you, we now use the acronym HH for hand hygiene throughout the manuscript

Study Settings

L7: I suggest including literature on other sources and access of water in the hospital if there is no water running system.

- We added more details on page 5 L7ff: “When the project started, the hospital had insufficient access to ABHR and water, and no running water at all: water was fetched from a borehole and distributed to the various points of use by buckets.”

Quantitative study

L20: This definition and abbreviation should have come above, as the abbreviation is used in the abstract and L23 in the introduction already.

- Thank you, we introduced the abbreviation in L10 in the introduction.

Qualitative study L11: How many participant per FGDs?

- Thank you, we added “study with 22 in-depth semi-structured interviews (IDIs) and 6 focus group discussions (FGDs) with 4-8 participants each” in p7 L11ff and more detailed information can be found in p9, L 12ff “Moreover, six FGDs were done, each with different professional groups (8 members of the operating theater, 8 nurses, 6 laboratory workers, 6 midwives, 5 doctors and 4 members of the maintenance team).”

Hand Hygiene Knowledge

L13: Typo, the letter "e" is left out

- Thank you, we corrected this typo.

Reviewer #2: To be clear, below are the 5 WHO Hand Hygiene (HH) Strategies 1a. System change – alcohol-based handrub at point of care 1b. System change – access to safe, continuous water supply, soap and towels 2. Evaluation and feedback 3. Training and education 4. Reminders in the workplace 5. Institutional safety climate Baseline evaluation Implementation Follow-up evaluation Review and planning

TITLE: The topic seem to have a different understand as what’s in the context. The study is talking about the whole HH strategy of WHO while the focus is mostly on the first strategy “alcohol based handrub at point of contact. Again, study location should have been included in the topic to at least make it a bit clear. In that case, I advised you look and revise the topic.

- Thank you for this important point. You are right: in our paper we do not cover all components of the WHO strategy. Instead, we focus on (1) system change and (2) training - components where changes were most straightforward to measure. For your information: in the intervention: we also addressed (3) monitoring of practices and provision of feedback; (4) visual reminders in the workplace; and (5) creation of a safety climate within the institution.

We, therefore, clarified in the title “Mixed methods study evaluating the implementation of the WHO Hand Hygiene Strategy focusing on local production alcohol based handrub and training among health care workers in Faranah, Guinea”. We added further details to the method section p6 L5ff: “This paper focuses on the evaluation of the first two components of the multimodal WHO HH strategy: (1) system change, and (2) training and education [12]. But our intervention also addressed all other components: (3) monitoring and feedback, by immediate HH observations and direct feedback to the participants observed, (4) visual reminders in the workplace, by hanging up posters in the workplace and the distribution of flyers; and (5) creation of safety climate, by asking local staff for suggestions for improvement and patients for their personal opinion on HH.”

ABSTRACT

L18, 19 and 21 alcohol -based handrub was used without the abbreviation. However, in conclusion L3 the abbreviation (ABHR) was used. Please correct this, the abbreviation should be introduced in the first instance (L18) and only used thereafter. This process must be repeated in the main text so that you do not interchange alcohol-based handrub with ABHR.

- Thank you for spotting this mistake, abbreviation is now defined in L12 “(…) the relaunch of the local production of alcohol-based handrub (ABHR).” And used thereafter. In the main text the abbreviation is introduced in L10 and used thereafter.

INTRODUCTION

L3-4 “Healthcare-associated infections (HAI) are the most frequent adverse events worldwide.” This statement is very odd. Frequent adverse event following what? Hospital admission? Reference cited is old. From WHO fact sheet, there was specific case as to Healthcare Delivery Worldwide. So there should have been a focus on the refusal /omission of compliance or lack of knowledge of HH as a cause HAI.

- Thank you, we changed the statement and reference accordingly: “Healthcare-associated infections (HAI) are associated with a lack of awareness of hand hygiene (HH) standards, or the non-compliance with them [2].”.

L9 lack of running water in the facility, is that a reason for the research to focus mainly on only one of the 5 WHO HH strategies?

- As now clarified in method section p6 L5ff, our project addressed all components of the WHO HH strategy. Within the component “system change”, both sub-components 1) running water and 2) ABHR were addressed.

1)Running water: “Our project made an effort to improve the water supply, which over time improved indeed, albeit independently from our effort.” (p 5 L 9ff).

2) ABHR: To address the challenge of very unreliable ABHR supply within the hospital and the stated wish of the local staff for internal production of ABHR, our intervention focused on the local production of ABHR. However, we are well aware, that all WHO components complement and depend on each other. ABHR, therefore should not be seen as a substitute for reliable running water supply, but as one of the important HH strategy components to sustainably improve HH.

L21, 22, 23-24 show the research focus which is “to illuminate factors necessary for sustainability of local production of ABHR and to maintain HCW HH knowledge and compliance.” This clearly show that the key to the research is the first WHO HH strategy not the other four.

- Our paper focuses on the evaluation of two of the five WHO HH components, whereas all components were addressed in the intervention. For further detail please see method section p6 l5ff.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Settings

L7 states that “the hospital lacks access to running water …” Is this the reason why Hand washing using soap, water and towel was not included, which is part 1b of the key WHO HH strategy?

- Apologies for not being clear enough in the paper: hand washing using soap, water and towel was included in the intervention, but was not the focus of this paper. Please also see answer to comment above.

Quantitative Study

L10-11 states that “The design, methods of the quantitative part and results of baseline and first follow-up of this study have been described in detail elsewhere.” Please indicate the where the details can be found? This is confusing!

- An in-text reference, pointing to the publication where these details can be found, directly follows the quoted statement. The reference is: Müller et al. 2020 doi: 10.1186/s13756-020-00723-8

L8-9 states that perception was compared with Wilcoxon rank-sum on phase III and IV while L10-13 stated that compliance was compared using Chi square WHO 5 Moment of HH strategy. Why are these different?

- Thanks for asking this question. We used the Wilcoxon rank sum test for the comparison of medians, the Chi2-test for the comparison of proportions. Compliance was summarised by proportions, knowledge and perception by medians, whereby perception was not compared between assessment phases. The section now reads: “Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were performed to compare median knowledge score at first and second follow-up with the baseline and to compare the HH perception of HCWs at first and second follow-up with each other. HCWs’ perception on the impact of project intervention was assessed in phase III and phase IV. HH compliance was observed directly and overtly without prior announcement and was calculated as the number of HH actions performed divided by the number of opportunities requiring HH according to the WHO “5 Moments of HH”. Chi2 tests was applied to compare proportions such as, compliance follow-ups to baseline and compliance at first to second follow-up.” P6 L17ff

Qualitative study

L2 “In-depth semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions.” Both introduced without abbreviations but abbreviations were used in L6 and L8 respectively.

- Thank you, we introduced the abbreviations in L12: “conducted a qualitative study with 22 in-depth semi-structured interviews (IDIs) and 6 focus group discussions (FGDs) with 4-8 participants” and took out the introduction of these abbreviations on page 9 L 10.

RESULTS

Hand Hygiene Knowledge

Qualitative

L8 states that one of the benefit form theoretical practical training was that “ABHR is faster (than handwashing) and does not cause dryness” Is this another reason for not considering hand washing as a key component of the strategy?

- Hand washing was considered a key component of the strategy, and the project undertook efforts to improve water supply at the hospital. From the next quote the reader can take that hand washing had its place in the strategy: “thanks to PASQUALE I now know when to use ABHR, [and when to] wash my hands with soap or wear gloves”. Still, one respondent mentioned as something he/she had learned that “ABHR is faster [than handwashing] and does not cause dryness”. We made no change to this section.

DISCUSSION

L7-8 states that “Nevertheless, knowledge at the second follow-up was still significantly higher than at baseline…” what is the baseline figure?

- Thank you, we added “(…)higher than at baseline in all professional groups (“Medical Doctor” 13.5, “Nurse” 11.5, “Midwife” 13.0, “Technician” 13.0) except for “Others”, consisting primarily of medical students and auxiliary nurses and presumably particularly affected by high staff turn-over [12].”

L19 states that “perception of the WHO multimodal HH strategy was positive throughout” This statement is not justified considering the fact that this study focuses mostly on just one aspect of the strategy

- Thank you, we specified in the method section that other aspects of the WHO multimodal HH strategy, such as workplace reminders, monitoring and feedback were also addressed in the intervention. We changed the statement in the discussion section to: “Perception of the WHO multimodal HH strategy was positive, especially on the component of local ABHR production and HH trainings for HCWs” p 17, L 20ff.

CONCLUSION

L20 states that “the WHO multimodal HH strategy may have a sustained positive effect on HCW compliance and knowledge in the FRH.” The positive effect suggested was mostly for 1a strategy: ABHR. Please review, perhaps describe the 5 point strategy first before focusing on only on point 1a.

- Thank you, we introduced the 5 components in the methods section and specified how every component was or was not addressed by the intervention, the evaluation and this paper. L 20 in the conclusion was clarified to: “The current study suggests that especially the local production of ABHR and HH training of the WHO multimodal HH strategy may have a sustained positive effect on HCW compliance and knowledge in the FRH”.

Submitted filename: rebuttal letter.docx

Click here for additional data file.

16 Aug 2021

Mixed methods study evaluating the implementation of the WHO Hand Hygiene Strategy focusing on alcohol based handrub and training among health care workers in Faranah, Guinea

PONE-D-21-00332R1

Dear Dr. %Sophie Mueller%,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mary Hamer Hodges, MBBS MRCP DSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The research seem good now and all comment made have been appropriately addressed. I think it's good to go now from my side.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

18 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-00332R1

Mixed methods study evaluating the implementation of the WHO Hand Hygiene Strategy focusing on alcohol based handrub and training among health care workers in Faranah, Guinea

Dear Dr. Müller:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mary Hamer Hodges

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE