Interventions to improve hand hygiene compliance in patient care.

BACKGROUND: Health care-associated infection is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Hand hygiene is regarded as an effective preventive measure. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the short- and long-term success of strategies to improve compliance to recommendations for hand hygiene, and to determine whether an increase in hand hygiene compliance can reduce rates of health care-associated infection. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL. We conducted the searches from November 2009 to October 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) that evaluated any intervention to improve compliance with hand hygiene using soap and water or alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR), or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias for each included study. Meta-analysis was not possible, as there was substantial heterogeneity across studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach and present the results narratively in a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 26 studies: 14 randomised trials, two non-randomised trials and 10 ITS studies. Most studies were conducted in hospitals or long-term care facilities in different countries, and collected data from a variety of healthcare workers. Fourteen studies assessed the success of different combinations of strategies recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) to improve hand hygiene compliance. Strategies consisted of the following: increasing the availability of ABHR, different types of education for staff, reminders (written and verbal), different types of performance feedback, administrative support, and staff involvement. Six studies assessed different types of performance feedback, two studies evaluated education, three studies evaluated cues such as signs or scent, and one study assessed placement of ABHR. Observed hand hygiene compliance was measured in all but three studies which reported product usage. Eight studies also reported either infection or colonisation rates. All studies had two or more sources of high or unclear risks of bias, most often associated with blinding or independence of the intervention.Multimodal interventions that include some but not all strategies recommended in the WHO guidelines may slightly improve hand hygiene compliance (five studies; 56 centres) and may slightly reduce infection rates (three studies; 34 centres), low certainty of evidence for both outcomes.Multimodal interventions that include all strategies recommended in the WHO guidelines may slightly reduce colonisation rates (one study; 167 centres; low certainty of evidence). It is unclear whether the intervention improves hand hygiene compliance (five studies; 184 centres) or reduces infection (two studies; 16 centres) because the certainty of this evidence is very low.Multimodal interventions that contain all strategies recommended in the WHO guidelines plus additional strategies may slightly improve hand hygiene compliance (six studies; 15 centres; low certainty of evidence). It is unclear whether this intervention reduces infection rates (one study; one centre; very low certainty of evidence).Performance feedback may improve hand hygiene compliance (six studies; 21 centres; low certainty of evidence). This intervention probably slightly reduces infection (one study; one centre) and colonisation rates (one study; one centre) based on moderate certainty of evidence.Education may improve hand hygiene compliance (two studies; two centres), low certainty of evidence.Cues such as signs or scent may slightly improve hand hygiene compliance (three studies; three centres), low certainty of evidence.Placement of ABHR close to point of use probably slightly improves hand hygiene compliance (one study; one centre), moderate certainty of evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: With the identified variability in certainty of evidence, interventions, and methods, there remains an urgent need to undertake methodologically robust research to explore the effectiveness of multimodal versus simpler interventions to increase hand hygiene compliance, and to identify which components of multimodal interventions or combinations of strategies are most effective in a particular context.

Interventions to improve hand hygiene compliance in patient care.

BACKGROUND: Health care-associated infection is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Hand hygiene is regarded as an effective preventive measure. OBJECTIVES: To update the review done in 2007, to assess the short and longer-term success of strategies to improve hand hygiene compliance and to determine whether a sustained increase in hand hygiene compliance can reduce rates of health care-associated infection. SEARCH STRATEGY: We conducted electronic searches of: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register of trials; MEDLINE; PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; and the BNI. Originally searched to July 2006, for the update databases were searched from August 2006 until November 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series analyses meeting explicit entry and quality criteria used by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group were eligible for inclusion. Studies reporting indicators of hand hygiene compliance and proxy indicators such as product use were considered. Self-reported data were not considered a valid measure of compliance. Studies to promote hand hygiene compliance as part of a care bundle approach were included, providing data relating specifically to hand hygiene were presented separately. Studies were excluded if hand hygiene was assessed in simulations, non-clinical settings or the operating theatre setting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed data quality. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies met the criteria for the review: two from the original review and two from the update. Two studies evaluated simple education initiatives, one using a randomized clinical trial design and the other a controlled before and after design. Both measured hand hygiene compliance by direct observation. The other two studies were both interrupted times series studies. One study presented three separate interventions within the same paper: simple substitutions of product and two multifaceted campaigns, one of which included involving practitioners in making decisions about choice of hand hygiene products and the components of the hand hygiene program. The other study also presented two separate multifaceted campaigns, one of which involved application of social marketing theory. In these two studies follow-up data collection continued beyond twelve months, and a proxy measure of hand hygiene compliance (product use) was recorded. Microbiological data were recorded in one study. Hand hygiene compliance increased for one of the studies where it was measured by direct observation, but the results from the other study were not conclusive. Product use increased in the two studies in which it was reported, with inconsistent results reported for one initiative. MRSA incidence decreased in the one study reporting microbiological data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The quality of intervention studies intended to increase hand hygiene compliance remains disappointing. Although multifaceted campaigns with social marketing or staff involvement appear to have an effect, there is insufficient evidence to draw a firm conclusion. There remains an urgent need to undertake methodologically robust research to explore the effectiveness of soundly designed and implemented interventions to increase hand hygiene compliance.