2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Identifying interventions to improve hand hygiene compliance in the intensive care unit through co-design with stakeholders

      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: Despite the effectiveness of hand hygiene (HH) for infection control, there is a lack of robust scientific data to guide how HH can be improved in intensive care units (ICUs).  The aim of this study is to use the literature, researcher, and stakeholder opinion to explicate potential interventions for improving HH compliance in the ICU, and provide an indication of the suitability of these interventions.

          Methods: A four-phase co-design study was designed. First, data from a previously completed systematic literature review was used in order to identify unique components of existing interventions to improve HH in ICUs. Second, a workshop was held with a panel of 10 experts to identify additional intervention components. Third, the 91 intervention components resulting from the literature review and workshop were synthesised into a final list of 21 hand hygiene interventions. Finally, the affordability, practicability, effectiveness, acceptability, side-effects/safety, and equity of each intervention was rated by 39 stakeholders (health services researchers, ICU staff, and the public).

          Results: Ensuring the availability of essential supplies for HH compliance was the intervention that received most approval from stakeholders. Interventions involving role models and peer-to-peer accountability and support were also well regarded by stakeholders. Education/training interventions were commonplace and popular. Punitive interventions were poorly regarded.

          Conclusions: Hospitals and regulators must make decisions regarding how to improve HH compliance in the absence of scientific consensus on effective methods. Using collective input and a co-design approach, the guidance developed herein may usefully support implementation of HH interventions that are considered to be effective and acceptable by stakeholders.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions

          Background Improving the design and implementation of evidence-based practice depends on successful behaviour change interventions. This requires an appropriate method for characterising interventions and linking them to an analysis of the targeted behaviour. There exists a plethora of frameworks of behaviour change interventions, but it is not clear how well they serve this purpose. This paper evaluates these frameworks, and develops and evaluates a new framework aimed at overcoming their limitations. Methods A systematic search of electronic databases and consultation with behaviour change experts were used to identify frameworks of behaviour change interventions. These were evaluated according to three criteria: comprehensiveness, coherence, and a clear link to an overarching model of behaviour. A new framework was developed to meet these criteria. The reliability with which it could be applied was examined in two domains of behaviour change: tobacco control and obesity. Results Nineteen frameworks were identified covering nine intervention functions and seven policy categories that could enable those interventions. None of the frameworks reviewed covered the full range of intervention functions or policies, and only a minority met the criteria of coherence or linkage to a model of behaviour. At the centre of a proposed new framework is a 'behaviour system' involving three essential conditions: capability, opportunity, and motivation (what we term the 'COM-B system'). This forms the hub of a 'behaviour change wheel' (BCW) around which are positioned the nine intervention functions aimed at addressing deficits in one or more of these conditions; around this are placed seven categories of policy that could enable those interventions to occur. The BCW was used reliably to characterise interventions within the English Department of Health's 2010 tobacco control strategy and the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence's guidance on reducing obesity. Conclusions Interventions and policies to change behaviour can be usefully characterised by means of a BCW comprising: a 'behaviour system' at the hub, encircled by intervention functions and then by policy categories. Research is needed to establish how far the BCW can lead to more efficient design of effective interventions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions.

            To test the feasibility of creating a valid and reliable checklist with the following features: appropriate for assessing both randomised and non-randomised studies; provision of both an overall score for study quality and a profile of scores not only for the quality of reporting, internal validity (bias and confounding) and power, but also for external validity. A pilot version was first developed, based on epidemiological principles, reviews, and existing checklists for randomised studies. Face and content validity were assessed by three experienced reviewers and reliability was determined using two raters assessing 10 randomised and 10 non-randomised studies. Using different raters, the checklist was revised and tested for internal consistency (Kuder-Richardson 20), test-retest and inter-rater reliability (Spearman correlation coefficient and sign rank test; kappa statistics), criterion validity, and respondent burden. The performance of the checklist improved considerably after revision of a pilot version. The Quality Index had high internal consistency (KR-20: 0.89) as did the subscales apart from external validity (KR-20: 0.54). Test-retest (r 0.88) and inter-rater (r 0.75) reliability of the Quality Index were good. Reliability of the subscales varied from good (bias) to poor (external validity). The Quality Index correlated highly with an existing, established instrument for assessing randomised studies (r 0.90). There was little difference between its performance with non-randomised and with randomised studies. Raters took about 20 minutes to assess each paper (range 10 to 45 minutes). This study has shown that it is feasible to develop a checklist that can be used to assess the methodological quality not only of randomised controlled trials but also non-randomised studies. It has also shown that it is possible to produce a checklist that provides a profile of the paper, alerting reviewers to its particular methodological strengths and weaknesses. Further work is required to improve the checklist and the training of raters in the assessment of external validity.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Estimating the proportion of healthcare-associated infections that are reasonably preventable and the related mortality and costs.

              To estimate the proportion of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) in US hospitals that are "reasonably preventable," along with their related mortality and costs. To estimate preventability of catheter-associated bloodstream infections (CABSIs), catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs), surgical site infections (SSIs), and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), we used a federally sponsored systematic review of interventions to reduce HAIs. Ranges of preventability included the lowest and highest risk reductions reported by US studies of "moderate" to "good" quality published in the last 10 years. We used the most recently published national data to determine the annual incidence of HAIs and associated mortality. To estimate incremental cost of HAIs, we performed a systematic review, which included costs from studies in general US patient populations. To calculate ranges for the annual number of preventable infections and deaths and annual costs, we multiplied our infection, mortality, and cost figures with our ranges of preventability for each HAI. As many as 65%-70% of cases of CABSI and CAUTI and 55% of cases of VAP and SSI may be preventable with current evidence-based strategies. CAUTI may be the most preventable HAI. CABSI has the highest number of preventable deaths, followed by VAP. CABSI also has the highest cost impact; costs due to preventable cases of VAP, CAUTI, and SSI are likely less. Our findings suggest that 100% prevention of HAIs may not be attainable with current evidence-based prevention strategies; however, comprehensive implementation of such strategies could prevent hundreds of thousands of HAIs and save tens of thousands of lives and billions of dollars.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Data CurationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project AdministrationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding AcquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding AcquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding AcquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding AcquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding AcquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding AcquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data CurationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: Funding AcquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project AdministrationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Journal
                HRB Open Res
                HRB Open Res
                HRB Open Research
                F1000 Research Limited (London, UK )
                2515-4826
                10 June 2021
                2021
                : 4
                : 64
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Health Research Board, Grattan House, 67-72 Lower Mount Street, Dublin 2, D02 H638, Ireland
                [2 ]School of Medicine, National University of Ireland Galway, Co. Galway, H91 TK33, Ireland
                [3 ]Irish Centre for Applied Patient Safety and Simulation, School of Medicine, National University of Ireland Galway, Co. Galway, H91 TK33, Ireland
                [4 ]Health Behaviour Change Research Group, School of Psychology, National University of Ireland Galway, Co. Galway, H91 TK33, Ireland
                [5 ]The University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada
                [6 ]The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada
                [7 ]National Clinical Programme for Critical Care, Clinical Strategy & Programmes Division, Health Service Executive, Dublin, D02 X236, Ireland
                [8 ]J.E. Cairnes School of Business and Economics, National University of Ireland Galway, Co. Galway, H91 TK33, Ireland
                [9 ]Discipline of General Practice, National University of Ireland Galway, Co. Galway, H91 TK33, Ireland
                [1 ]Centre for Innovative Human Systems, School of Psychology, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
                [2 ]St. James's Hospital, Leeds, UK
                [3 ]Children's Health Ireland (CHI), Dublin, Ireland
                [1 ]School of Health Sciences, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, UK
                Author notes

                No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5459-1588
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8900-4320
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9036-098X
                Article
                10.12688/hrbopenres.13296.1
                8243226
                34250439
                4ffcb98e-6a8b-400e-904c-d50dc6e581a9
                Copyright: © 2021 Lambe K et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 3 June 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: Health Research Board
                Award ID: HRA-HSR-2015-1071
                Health Research Board (HRA-HSR-2015-1071) awarded to Dr Paul O’Connor.
                The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Articles

                critical care,intensive care,infection control,hand hygiene,hand disinfection,co-design

                Comments

                Comment on this article