Effect of Wearing a Novel Electronic Wearable Device on Hand Hygiene Compliance Among Health Care Workers: A Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Hand hygiene (HH) is essential to prevent hospital-acquired infections. Objective: To determine whether providing real-time feedback on a simplified HH action improves compliance with the World Health Organization's "5 Moments" and the quality of the HH action. Design, Setting, and Participants: This open-label, cluster randomized, stepped-wedge clinical trial was conducted between June 1, 2017, and January 6, 2018 (with a follow-up in March 2018), in a geriatric hospital of the University of Geneva Hospitals, Switzerland. All 12 wards and 97 of 306 eligible health care workers (HCWs) volunteered to wear a novel electronic wearable device that delivered real-time feedback on duration of hand rubbing and application of a hand-sized customized volume of alcohol-based handrub (ABHR). Interventions: This study had 3 sequential periods: baseline (no device), transition (device monitoring without feedback), and intervention (device monitoring and feedback). The start of the transition period was randomly allocated based on a computer-generated block randomization. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was HH compliance, according to the direct observation method during intervention as compared with baseline. Secondary outcomes included the volume of ABHR and duration of hand rubbing measured by the device during intervention as compared with transition. Results: All wards and respective HCWs were evenly assigned to group 1 (26 participants), 2 (22 participants), 3 (25 participants), or 4 (24 participants). Twelve HCWs did not fully complete the intervention but were included in the analysis. During 759 observation sessions, 6878 HH opportunities were observed. HH compliance at intervention (62.9%; 95% CI, 61.1%-64.7%) was lower than at baseline (66.6%; 95% CI, 64.8%-68.4%). After adjusting for covariates, HH compliance was not different between periods (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.75-1.42; P = .85). Days since study onset (OR, 0.997; 95% CI, 0.994-0.998; P < .001), older age (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99; P = .015), and workload (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.20-0.41; P < .001) were independently associated with reduced HH compliance. The median (interquartile range) volume of ABHR and duration of hand rubbing in transition and intervention increased from 1.12 (0.76-1.68) mL to 1.71 (1.01-2.76) mL and from 6.5 (4.5-10.5) seconds to 8 (4.5-15.5) seconds, respectively. There were no serious adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance: The use of this device did not change HH compliance, but increased the duration of hand rubbing and volume of ABHR used by HCWs. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN25430066.

Critical Reliability Issues of Common Type Alcohol-Based Handrub Dispensers.

BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene can only be efficient if the whole hand surface is treated with sufficient alcohol-based handrub (ABHR); therefore, the volume of handrub applied is a critical factor in patient safety. The proper amount of ABHR should be provided by handrub dispensers. The aim of this study was to investigate the dispensing performance of wall-mounted ABHR dispensers commonly employed in hospital settings. METHOD: In a multicenter study, we tested 46 dispensers (22 in laboratory and 24 in clinical environments), measuring dispensed ABHR volume during continuous use and after a period of non-use. The influence of the pumping mechanism, liquid level, ABHR formats, handrub composition, temperature, and atmospheric pressure was investigated. RESULTS: A total of 7 out of the 22 investigated dispensers (32%) lost a significant amount of handrub; greater than 30% of the nominal volume after 8 h of non-use, thus frequently dispensing suboptimal volume, as measured in laboratory settings. Key influencing factors were found to be handrub format (gel or liquid), handrub level in the container and type of dispenser. When gel ABHR was used, after 4 h of non-use of the dispensers, the volume of the dispensed amount of ABHR insignificantly changed (97% of the original amount), while it technically decreased to zero in the case of liquid ABHR (1% of the original amount). The liquid level had a medium effect on the dispensed volume in each investigated case; the magnitude of this effect varied widely depending on the dispensing mechanism. When dispensers were in continuous use, they dispensed a cumulated 3 mL of ABHR from two consecutive pushes, while when they were not in use for 1 h, up to 4 consecutive pushes were necessary to provide a total of 3 mL ABHR. Design and production quality were also identified as important contributing factors with respect to the volume dispensed. Data collected in clinical settings confirmed these findings, for multiple types of dispensers. CONCLUSION: All ABHR dispensers should be regularly audited to control the reference volume distributed, with particular attention paid to regular mechanical pump units filled with liquid handrub.

Wiping Is Inferior to Rubbing: A Note of Caution for Hand Hygiene With Alcohol-Based Solutions.

We evaluated whether hand wiping is noninferior to hand rubbing in reducing the bacterial concentration on hands. In 20 healthy volunteers, hand wiping with or without an alcohol-based solution was inferior to hand rubbing with an alcohol-based solution. This finding warrants a note of caution for the application of wipes in health care. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:332-335.

Hand Hygiene With Alcohol-Based Hand Rub: How Long Is Long Enough?

BACKGROUND Hand hygiene is the core element of infection prevention and control. The optimal hand-hygiene gesture, however, remains poorly defined. OBJECTIVE We aimed to evaluate the influence of hand-rubbing duration on the reduction of bacterial counts on the hands of healthcare personnel (HCP). METHODS We performed an experimental study based on the European Norm 1500. Hand rubbing was performed for 10, 15, 20, 30, 45, or 60 seconds, according to the WHO technique using 3 mL alcohol-based hand rub. Hand contamination with E. coli ATCC 10536 was followed by hand rubbing and sampling. A generalized linear mixed model with a random effect on the subject adjusted for hand size and gender was used to analyze the reduction in bacterial counts after each hand-rubbing action. In addition, hand-rubbing durations of 15 and 30 seconds were compared to assert non-inferiority (0.6 log10). RESULTS In total, 32 HCP performed 123 trials. All durations of hand rubbing led to significant reductions in bacterial counts (P<.001). Reductions achieved after 10, 15, or 20 seconds of hand rubbing were not significantly different from those obtained after 30 seconds. The mean bacterial reduction after 15 seconds of hand rubbing was 0.11 log10 lower (95% CI, -0.46 to 0.24) than after 30 seconds, demonstrating non-inferiority. CONCLUSIONS Hand rubbing for 15 seconds was not inferior to 30 seconds in reducing bacterial counts on hands under the described experimental conditions. There was no gain in reducing bacterial counts from hand rubbing longer than 30 seconds. Further studies are needed to assess the clinical significance of our findings. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:547-552.

Assessing the Likelihood of Hand-to-Hand Cross-Transmission of Bacteria: An Experimental Study.

BACKGROUND Although the hands of healthcare workers (HCWs) are implicated in most episodes of healthcare-associated infections, the correlation between hand contamination and the likelihood of cross-transmission remains unknown. METHODS We conducted a laboratory-based study involving pairs of HCWs. The hands of a HCW (transmitter) were contaminated with Escherichia coli ATCC 10536 before holding hands with another HCW (host) for 1 minute. Meanwhile, the unheld hand of the transmitter was sampled. Afterward, the host's held hand was also sampled. Each experiment consisted of 4 trials with increasing concentrations of E. coli (103-106 colony-forming units [cfu]/mL). The primary outcome was the likelihood of transmission of at least 1 cfu from transmitter to host. We used a mixed logistic regression model with a random effect on the subject to assess the association between transmission and bacterial count on the transmitter's hands. RESULTS In total, 6 HCWs performed 30 experiments and 120 trials. The bacterial counts recovered from host hands were directly associated with the bacterial counts on transmitter hands (P1 and ≤3 log10 cfu compared to ≤1 log10. When transmitter contamination was <1 log10 cfu, no cross-transmission was detected. CONCLUSION There is a direct relationship between the bacterial burden on HCWs hands and the likelihood of cross-transmission. Under the described conditions, at least 1 log10 cfu must be present on HCW hands to be potentially transmitted. Further studies are needed at the low contamination range. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:553-558.

Revisiting the WHO "How to Handrub" Hand Hygiene Technique: Fingertips First?

Hands are implicated in the cross transmission of microbial pathogens and fingertips are the crux of the problem. A modified World Health Organization "How to Handrub" 6-step technique with "Fingertips First" showed greater efficacy than the standard technique in reducing fingertip contamination, potentially improving hand hygiene action quality. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:230-233.

Should Alcohol-Based Handrub Use Be Customized to Healthcare Workers' Hand Size?

We evaluated whether the volume of alcohol-based handrub used by healthcare workers affects the residual bacterial concentration on their hands according to hand size. Bacterial reduction was significantly lower for large hands compared with small hands, which suggests a need for customizing the volume of alcohol-based handrub for hand hygiene.