The effect of random voice hand hygiene messages delivered by medical, nursing, and infection control staff on hand hygiene compliance in intensive care

2006 ◽  
Vol 34 (10) ◽  
pp. 673-675 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maryanne McGuckin ◽  
Arlene Shubin ◽  
Patricia McBride ◽  
Stephen Lane ◽  
Kevin Strauss ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Hand Hygiene ◽  
Infection Control ◽  
Hand Hygiene Compliance ◽  
Hygiene Compliance

scholarly journals Hand hygiene and the sequence of patient care

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Nai-Chung Chang ◽  
Michael Jones ◽  
Heather Schacht Reisinger ◽  
Marin L. Schweizer ◽  
Elizabeth Chrischilles ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Hand Hygiene ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Intensive Care Units ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Hand Hygiene Compliance ◽  
Resistant Bacteria ◽  
Surgical Intensive Care ◽  
Hygiene Compliance ◽  
Hand Hygiene Opportunity

Abstract Objective: To determine whether the order in which healthcare workers perform patient care tasks affects hand hygiene compliance. Design: For this retrospective analysis of data collected during the Strategies to Reduce Transmission of Antimicrobial Resistant Bacteria in Intensive Care Units (STAR*ICU) study, we linked consecutive tasks healthcare workers performed into care sequences and identified task transitions: 2 consecutive task sequences and the intervening hand hygiene opportunity. We compared hand hygiene compliance rates and used multiple logistic regression to determine the adjusted odds for healthcare workers (HCWs) transitioning in a direction that increased or decreased the risk to patients if healthcare workers did not perform hand hygiene before the task and for HCWs contaminating their hands. Setting: The study was conducted in 17 adult surgical, medical, and medical-surgical intensive care units. Participants: HCWs in the STAR*ICU study units. Results: HCWs moved from cleaner to dirtier tasks during 5,303 transitions (34.7%) and from dirtier to cleaner tasks during 10,000 transitions (65.4%). Physicians (odds ratio [OR]: 1.50; P < .0001) and other HCWs (OR, 2.15; P < .0001) were more likely than nurses to move from dirtier to cleaner tasks. Glove use was associated with moving from dirtier to cleaner tasks (OR, 1.22; P < .0001). Hand hygiene compliance was lower when HCWs transitioned from dirtier to cleaner tasks than when they transitioned in the opposite direction (adjusted OR, 0.93; P < .0001). Conclusions: HCWs did not organize patient care tasks in a manner that decreased risk to patients, and they were less likely to perform hand hygiene when transitioning from dirtier to cleaner tasks than the reverse. These practices could increase the risk of transmission or infection.

Addressing Hand Hygiene Compliance in a Low-Resource Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: a Quality Improvement Project

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 408-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arunava Biswas ◽  
Sangeeta Das Bhattacharya ◽  
Arun Kumarendu Singh ◽  
Mallika Saha
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Hand Hygiene ◽  
Neonatal Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Neonatal Intensive Care ◽  
Hand Hygiene Compliance ◽  
Hand Washing ◽  
Root Cause ◽  
Hygiene Compliance

Abstract Objective Our goal for this study was to quantify healthcare provider compliance with hand hygiene protocols and develop a conceptual framework for increasing hand hygiene compliance in a low-resource neonatal intensive care unit. Materials and Methods We developed a 3-phase intervention that involved departmental discussion, audit, and follow-up action. A 4-month unobtrusive audit during night and day shifts was performed. The audit results were presented, and a conceptual framework of barriers to and solutions for increasing hand hygiene compliance was developed collectively. Results A total of 1308 hand hygiene opportunities were observed. Among 1227 planned patient contacts, hand-washing events (707 [58.6%]), hand rub events (442 [36%]), and missed hand hygiene (78 [6.4%]) events were observed. The missed hand hygiene rate was 20% during resuscitation. Missed hand hygiene opportunities occurred 3.2 times (95% confidence interval, 1.9–5.3 times) more often during resuscitation procedures than during planned contact and 6.14 times (95% confidence interval, 2.36–16.01 times) more often when providers moved between patients. Structural and process determinants of hand hygiene noncompliance were identified through a root-cause analysis in which all members of the neonatal intensive care unit team participated. The mean hand-washing duration was 40 seconds. In 83% of cases, drying hands after washing was neglected. Hand recontamination after hand-washing was seen in 77% of the cases. Washing up to elbow level was observed in 27% of hand-wash events. After departmental review of the study results, hand rubs were placed at each bassinet to address these missed opportunities. Conclusions Hand hygiene was suboptimal during resuscitation procedures and between patient contacts. We developed a conceptual framework for improving hand hygiene through a root-cause analysis.

scholarly journals Hand hygiene compliance in the intensive care unit of the Onderstepoort Veterinary Academic Hospital.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dikeledi Carol Sebola ◽  
Charlie Boucher ◽  
Caroline Maslo ◽  
Daniel Nenene Qekwana
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Hand Hygiene ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Hand Hygiene Compliance ◽  
Infection Prevention And Control ◽  
Patient Contact ◽  
Academic Hospital ◽  
Hand Wash ◽  
Hygiene Compliance

Abstract Hand hygiene compliance remains the cornerstone of infection prevention and control (IPC) in healthcare facilities. However, there is a paucity of information on the level of IPC in veterinary health care facilities in South Africa. Therefore, this study evaluated hand hygiene compliance of healthcare workers and visitors in the intensive care unit (ICU) at the Onderstepoort Veterinary Academic Hospital (OVAH). Method: A cross-sectional study was conducted among healthcare workers (HCWs) and visitors in the ICU using the infection control assessment tool (ICAT) as stipulated by the South African National Department of Health. Direct observations using the “five hand hygiene moments” criteria as set out by the World helath Organisation were also recorded. The level of compliance and a 95% confidence interval were calculated for all variables. Results: Individual bottles of alcohol-based hand-rub solution and hand-wash basins with running water, soap dispensers, and paper towels were easily accessible and available at all times in the ICU. In total, 296 observations consisting of 734 hand hygiene opportunities were recorded. Hand hygiene compliance was also evaluated during invasive (51.4%) and non-invasive (48.6%) procedures. The overall hand hygiene compliance was 24.3% (178/734). In between patients, most HCWs did not sanitize stethoscopes, leashes, and cellular phones used. Additionally, the majority of HCWs wore jewellery below the elbows. The most common method of hand hygiene was hand-rub (58.4%), followed by hand-wash (41.6%). Nurses had a higher (44%) level of compliance compared to students (22%) and clinicians (15%). Compliance was also higher after body fluid exposure (42%) compared to after patient contact (32%), before patient contact (19%), after contact with patient surroundings (16%), and before an aseptic procedure (15%). Conclusion: Hand hygiene compliance in this study was low, raising concerns of potential transmission of hospital-acquired infections and zoonoses in the ICU. Therefore, it is essential that educational programs be developed to address the low level of hand hygiene in this study.

scholarly journals Healthcare Professionals Perception of Mobile Phone Usage and Hand Hygiene Adhesion in Intensive Care Units

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s346-s346
Author(s):  
Evelyn Sanchez ◽  
Lauro Perdigão-Neto ◽  
Sânia Alves dos Santos ◽  
Camila Rizek ◽  
Maria Renata Gomez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Hand Hygiene ◽  
Mobile Phone ◽  
Mobile Phones ◽  
Hand Hygiene Compliance ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Molecular Testing ◽  
First Choice ◽  
Mobile Phone Usage ◽  
Hygiene Compliance

Background: The introduction of new technologies into the medical field has the duality of improvement and concerns about correct usage and cleaning. Mobile phones are used by healthcare professionals (HCPs) in the work place, and there is not an official policy about their use in health environment. Methods: We asked 60 intensive care unit (ICU) HCPs from 2 units (the burn unit and the internal medicine unit) to participate in an electronic survey about mobile phone usage and hand hygiene compliance; we also cultured the hands and mobile phones of the participants. Unfortunately, 13 HCPs did not participate. Susceptibility testing of the strains was conducted, as well as molecular testing. Results: Overall, 47 HCPs responded to the inquiry: 19% were nurses (9 of 47), 19% were resident physicians (9 of 47), 17% were nursery technicians (8 of 47), 17% were physiotherapists (8 of 47), 13% were cleaning staff (6 of 47), 11% were consultants (5 of 47), and 4% were technicians (2 of 47). Moreover, 26 of 47 participants (55%) were woman and 21 (45%) were men. From all HCP categories, 39 of 47 respondents (83%) reported that they had optimal hand hygiene compliance. However, 92% of respondents had a colonized hand and 90% had a colonized mobile phone. Also, 44 of 47 HCPs (94%) reported that the took their personal mobile phone into the workplace; 40 (85%) reported that they used it during the work day and 35 (74%) reported that they cleaned it. However, 8 HCPs (26%) reported that they had never cleaned the device. All of the HCPs understood that mobile phones can harbor bacteria, and 27 of 47 HCPs (57.45%) indicated that they use 70% alcohol to clean their mobile phones. In contrast, the first choice for hand hygiene was water and soap in 51% of HCPs (24 of 47). Also, 3 HCPs did not have any colonization in the hand culture but had healthcare-associated infection (HAI) pathogens in the mobile phone culture. Conclusions: A policy regarding mobile phone usage in the healthcare setting should be in place, and cleaning of electronic devices in hospitals should be standardized.Funding: NoneDisclosures: NoneFunding: NoneDisclosures: None

scholarly journals “The role as a champion is to not only monitor but to speak out and to educate”: the contradictory roles of hand hygiene champions

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cassie Cunningham Goedken ◽  
Daniel J. Livorsi ◽  
Michael Sauder ◽  
Mark W. Vander Weg ◽  
Emily E. Chasco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hand Hygiene ◽  
Infection Control ◽  
Informal Education ◽  
Hand Hygiene Compliance ◽  
Ethnographic Study ◽  
Health Administration ◽  
Improve Hand Hygiene ◽  
Frontline Staff ◽  
Hygiene Compliance

Abstract Background Implementation science experts define champions as “supporting, marketing, and driving through an implementation, overcoming indifference or resistance that the intervention may provoke in an organization.” Many hospitals use designated clinical champions—often called “hand hygiene (HH) champions”—typically to improve hand hygiene compliance. We conducted an ethnographic examination of how infection control teams in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) use the term “HH champion” and how they define the role. Methods An ethnographic study was conducted with infection control teams and frontline staff directly involved with hand hygiene across 10 geographically dispersed VHA facilities in the USA. Individual and group semi-structured interviews were conducted with hospital epidemiologists, infection preventionists, multi-drug-resistant organism (MDRO) program coordinators, and quality improvement specialists and frontline staff from June 2014 to September 2017. The team coded the transcripts using thematic content analysis content based on a codebook composed of inductive and deductive themes. Results A total of 173 healthcare workers participated in interviews from the 10 VHA facilities. All hand hygiene programs at each facility used the term HH champion to define a core element of their hand hygiene programs. While most described the role of HH champions as providing peer-to-peer coaching, delivering formal and informal education, and promoting hand hygiene, a majority also included hand hygiene surveillance. This conflation of implementation strategies led to contradictory responsibilities for HH champions. Participants described additional barriers to the role of HH champions, including competing priorities, staffing hierarchies, and turnover in the role. Conclusions Healthcare systems should consider narrowly defining the role of the HH champion as a dedicated individual whose mission is to overcome resistance and improve hand hygiene compliance—and differentiate it from the role of a “compliance auditor.” Returning to the traditional application of the implementation strategy may lead to overall improvements in hand hygiene and reduction of the transmission of healthcare-acquired infections.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document