16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Introduction of an electronic monitoring system for monitoring compliance with Moments 1 and 4 of the WHO "My 5 Moments for Hand Hygiene" methodology

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          MedSense is an electronic hand hygiene compliance monitoring system that provides Infection Control Practitioners with continuous access to hand hygiene compliance information by monitoring Moments 1 and 4 of the WHO "My 5 Moments for Hand Hygiene" guidelines. Unlike previous electronic monitoring systems, MedSense operates in open cubicles with multiple beds and does not disrupt existing workflows.

          Methods

          This study was conducted in a 6-bed neurosurgical intensive care unit with technical development and evaluation phases. Healthcare workers (HCWs) wore an electronic device in the style of an identity badge to detect hand hygiene opportunities and compliance. We compared the compliance determined by the system and an infection control nurse. At the same time, the system assessed compliance by time of day, day of week, work shift, professional category of HCWs, and individual subject, while the workload of HCWs was monitored by measuring the amount of time they spent in patient zones.

          Results

          During the three-month evaluation phase, the system identified 13,694 hand hygiene opportunities from 17 nurses, 3 physiotherapists, and 1 healthcare assistant, resulting in an overall compliance of 35.1% for the unit. The per-indication compliance for Moment 1, 4, and simultaneous 1 and 4 were 21.3% (95%CI: 19.0, 23.6), 39.6% (95%CI: 37.3, 41.9), and 49.2% (95%CI: 46.6, 51.8), respectively, and were all statistically significantly different (p < 0.001). In the four 20-minute sessions when hand hygiene was monitored concurrently by the system and infection control nurse, the compliance were 88.9% and 95.6% respectively (p = 0.34), and the activity indices were 11.1 and 12.9 opportunities per hour, respectively. The hours from 12:00 to 14:00 had a notably lower compliance (21.3%, 95%CI: 17.2, 25.3) than nearly three quarters of the other periods of the day (p < 0.001). Nurses who used shared badges had significantly (p < 0.01) lower compliance (23.7%, 95%CI: 17.8, 29.6) than both the registered nurses (36.1%, 95%CI: 34.2, 37.9) and nursing officers (34.0%, 95%CI: 31.1, 36.9) who used named badges.

          Conclusion

          MedSense provides an unobtrusive and objective measurement of hand hygiene compliance. The information is important for staff training by the infection control team and allocation of manpower by hospital administration.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Effectiveness of a hospital-wide programme to improve compliance with hand hygiene

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effectiveness of a hospital-wide programme to improve compliance with hand hygiene. Infection Control Programme.

            Hand hygiene prevents cross infection in hospitals, but compliance with recommended instructions is commonly poor. We attempted to promote hand hygiene by implementing a hospital-wide programme, with special emphasis on bedside, alcohol-based hand disinfection. We measured nosocomial infections in parallel. We monitored the overall compliance with hand hygiene during routine patient care in a teaching hospital in Geneva, Switzerland, before and during implementation of a hand-hygiene campaign. Seven hospital-wide observational surveys were done twice yearly from December, 1994, to December, 1997. Secondary outcome measures were nosocomial infection rates, attack rates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and consumption of handrub disinfectant. We observed more than 20,000 opportunities for hand hygiene. Compliance improved progressively from 48% in 1994, to 66% in 1997 (p<0.001). Although recourse to handwashing with soap and water remained stable, frequency of hand disinfection substantially increased during the study period (p<0.001). This result was unchanged after adjustment for known risk factors of poor adherence. Hand hygiene improved significantly among nurses and nursing assistants, but remained poor among doctors. During the same period, overall nosocomial infection decreased (prevalence of 16.9% in 1994 to 9.9% in 1998; p=0.04), MRSA transmission rates decreased (2.16 to 0.93 episodes per 10,000 patient-days; p<0.001), and the consumption of alcohol-based handrub solution increased from 3.5 to 15.4 L per 1000 patient-days between 1993 and 1998 (p<0.001). The campaign produced a sustained improvement in compliance with hand hygiene, coinciding with a reduction of nosocomial infections and MRSA transmission. The promotion of bedside, antiseptic handrubs largely contributed to the increase in compliance.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The efficacy of infection surveillance and control programs in preventing nosocomial infections in US hospitals.

              In a representative sample of US general hospitals, the authors found that the establishment of intensive infection surveillance and control programs was strongly associated with reductions in rates of nosocomial urinary tract infection, surgical wound infection, pneumonia, and bacteremia between 1970 and 1975-1976, after controlling for other characteristics of the hospitals and their patients. Essential components of effective programs included conducting organized surveillance and control activities and having a trained, effectual infection control physician, an infection control nurse per 250 beds, and a system for reporting infection rates to practicing surgeons. Programs with these components reduced their hospitals' infection rates by 32%. Since relatively few hospitals had very effective programs, however, only 6% of the nation's approximately 2 million nosocomial infections were being prevented in the mid-1970s, leaving another 26% to be prevented by universal adoption of these programs. Among hospitals without effective programs, the overall infection rate increased by 18% from 1970 to 1976.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Infect Dis
                BMC Infectious Diseases
                BioMed Central
                1471-2334
                2011
                26 May 2011
                : 11
                : 151
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Microbiology, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China
                [2 ]Infection Control Team, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China
                [3 ]Department of Neurosurgery, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China
                Article
                1471-2334-11-151
                10.1186/1471-2334-11-151
                3129590
                21612666
                20e73b06-68ca-44d6-a882-7f022e328de0
                Copyright ©2011 Cheng et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 2 October 2010
                : 26 May 2011
                Categories
                Research Article

                Infectious disease & Microbiology
                Infectious disease & Microbiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article