Hand hygiene compliance rates: Fact or fiction?

BACKGROUND: The mandatory national hand hygiene program requires Australian public hospitals to use direct human auditing to establish compliance rates. To establish the magnitude of the Hawthorne effect, we compared direct human audit rates with concurrent automated surveillance rates. METHODS: A large tertiary Australian teaching hospital previously trialed automated surveillance while simultaneously performing mandatory human audits for 20 minutes daily on a medical and a surgical ward. Subtracting automated surveillance rates from human audit rates provided differences in percentage points (PPs) for each of the 3 quarterly reporting periods for 2014 and 2015. RESULTS: Direct human audit rates for the medical ward were inflated by an average of 55 PPs in 2014 and 64 PPs in 2015, 2.8-3.1 times higher than automated surveillance rates. The rates for the surgical ward were inflated by an average of 32 PPs in 2014 and 31 PPs in 2015, 1.6 times higher than automated surveillance rates. Over the 6 mandatory reporting quarters, human audits collected an average of 255 opportunities, whereas automation collected 578 times more data, averaging 147,308 opportunities per quarter. The magnitude of the Hawthorne effect on direct human auditing was not trivial and produced highly inflated compliance rates. CONCLUSIONS: Mandatory compliance necessitates accuracy that only automated surveillance can achieve, whereas daily hand hygiene ambassadors or reminder technology could harness clinicians' ability to hyperrespond to produce habitual compliance.

Social cohesion: The missing factor required for a successful hand hygiene program.

BACKGROUND: There are limited explorations into hospital staff reactions to automated hand hygiene surveillance or hand hygiene interventions. METHODS: An automated surveillance system with daily feedback and a behavioral intervention component was trialed in 2 wards in an Australian tertiary teaching hospital. After 9 months, 12 clinicians from each ward were interviewed prior to the completion of the trial to explore satisfaction with the system and behavioral component of nudging each other with a reminder to comply. Only on completion of the trial were transcripts analyzed for themes. RESULTS: Staff from the ward with improved compliance described a socially cohesive team with a well-liked nurse unit manager who accessed daily compliance rates and worked with staff to set goals. This contrasted with the ward without improvement in compliance, whose staff described their great reluctance and discomfort to nudge each other to comply and distrust of the authenticity of the rates established from the automated system. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions for improving compliance are more likely to be successful in a ward with a social cohesive team. Patient safety interventions, in the first instance, may benefit from purposeful selection of wards with cohesive teams and skilled leaders who can transform clinicians into early adopters of the program.

Automated hand hygiene auditing with and without an intervention.

BACKGROUND: Daily feedback from continuous automated auditing with a peer reminder intervention was used to improve compliance. Compliance rates from covert and overt automated auditing phases with and without intervention were compared with human mandatory audits. METHODS: An automated system was installed to covertly detect hand hygiene events with each depression of the alcohol-based handrub dispenser for 5 months. The overt phase included key clinicians trained to share daily rates with clinicians, set compliance goals, and nudge each other to comply for 6 months. During a further 6 months, the intervention continued without being refreshed. Hand Hygiene Australia (HHA) human audits were performed quarterly during the intervention in accordance with the World Health Organization guidelines. Percentage point (PP) differences between compliance rates were used to determine change. RESULTS: HHA rates for June 2014 were 85% and 87% on the medical and surgical wards, respectively. These rates were 55 PPs and 38 PPs higher than covert automation rates for June 2014 on the medical and surgical ward at 30% and 49%, respectively. During the intervention phase, average compliance did not change on the medical ward from their covert rate, whereas the surgical ward improved compared with the covert phase by 11 PPs to 60%. On average, compliance during the intervention without being refreshed did not change on the medical ward, whereas the average rate on the surgical ward declined by 9 PPs. CONCLUSIONS: Automation provided a unique opportunity to respond to daily rates, but compliance will return to preintervention levels once active intervention ceases or human auditors leave the ward, unless clinicians are committed to change.

An automated hand hygiene training system improves hand hygiene technique but not compliance.

INTRODUCTION: The hand hygiene technique that the World Health Organization recommends for cleansing hands with soap and water or alcohol-based handrub consists of 7 poses. We used an automated training system to improve clinicians' hand hygiene technique and test whether this affected hospitalwide hand hygiene compliance. METHODS: Seven hundred eighty-nine medical and nursing staff volunteered to participate in a self-directed training session using the automated training system. The proportion of successful first attempts was reported for each of the 7 poses. Hand hygiene compliance was collected according to the national requirement and rates for 2011-2014 were used to determine the effect of the training system on compliance. RESULTS: The highest pass rate was for pose 1 (palm to palm) at 77% (606 out of 789), whereas pose 6 (clean thumbs) had the lowest pass rate at 27% (216 out of 789). One hundred volunteers provided feedback to 8 items related to satisfaction with the automated training system and most (86%) expressed a high degree of satisfaction and all reported that this method was time-efficient. There was no significant change in compliance rates after the introduction of the automated training system. Observed compliance during the posttraining period declined but increased to 82% in response to other strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Technology for training clinicians in the 7 poses played an important education role but did not affect compliance rates.

Face touching: a frequent habit that has implications for hand hygiene.

BACKGROUND: There is limited literature on the frequency of face-touching behavior as a potential vector for the self-inoculation and transmission of Staphylococcus aureus and other common respiratory infections. METHODS: A behavioral observation study was undertaken involving medical students at the University of New South Wales. Their face-touching behavior was observed via videotape recording. Using standardized scoring sheets, the frequency of hand-to-face contacts with mucosal or nonmucosal areas was tallied and analyzed. RESULTS: On average, each of the 26 observed students touched their face 23 times per hour. Of all face touches, 44% (1,024/2,346) involved contact with a mucous membrane, whereas 56% (1,322/2,346) of contacts involved nonmucosal areas. Of mucous membrane touches observed, 36% (372) involved the mouth, 31% (318) involved the nose, 27% (273) involved the eyes, and 6% (61) were a combination of these regions. CONCLUSION: Increasing medical students' awareness of their habituated face-touching behavior and improving their understanding of self-inoculation as a route of transmission may help to improve hand hygiene compliance. Hand hygiene programs aiming to improve compliance with before and after patient contact should include a message that mouth and nose touching is a common practice. Hand hygiene is therefore an essential and inexpensive preventive method to break the colonization and transmission cycle associated with self-inoculation.