Moving beyond hand hygiene monitoring as a marker of infection prevention performance: Development of a tailored infection control continuous quality improvement tool.

BACKGROUND: Infection control practice compliance is commonly monitored by measuring hand hygiene compliance. The limitations of this approach were recognized in 1 acute health care organization that led to the development of an Infection Control Continuous Quality Improvement tool. METHODS: The Pronovost cycle, Barriers and Mitigation tool, and Hexagon framework were used to review the existing monitoring system and develop a quality improvement data collection tool that considered the context of care delivery. RESULTS: Barriers and opportunities for improvement including ambiguity, consistency and feasibility of expectations, the environment, knowledge, and education were combined in a monitoring tool that was piloted and modified in response to feedback. Local adaptations enabled staff to prioritize and monitor issues important in their own workplace. The tool replaced the previous system and was positively evaluated by auditors. Challenges included ensuring staff had time to train in use of the tool, time to collect the audit, and the reporting of low scores that conflicted with a target-based performance system. CONCLUSIONS: Hand hygiene compliance monitoring alone misses other important aspects of infection control compliance. A continuous quality improvement tool was developed reflecting specific organizational needs that could be transferred or adapted to other organizations.

Validity of hand hygiene compliance measurement by observation: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene is monitored by direct observation to improve practice, but this approach can potentially cause information, selection, and confounding bias, threatening the validity of findings. The aim of this study was to identify and describe the potential biases in hand hygiene compliance monitoring by direct observation; develop a typology of biases and propose improvements to reduce bias; and increase the validity of compliance measurements. METHODS: This systematic review of hospital-based intervention studies used direct observation to monitor health care workers' hand hygiene compliance. RESULTS: Seventy-one publications were eligible for review. None was free of bias. Selection bias was present in all studies through lack of data collection on the weekends (n = 61, 86%) and at night (n = 46, 65%) and observations undertaken in single-specialty settings (n = 35, 49%). We observed inconsistency of terminology, definitions of hand hygiene opportunity, criteria, tools, and descriptions of the data collection. Frequency of observation, duration, or both were not described or were unclear in 58 (82%) publications. Observers were trained in 56 (79%) studies. Inter-rater reliability was measured in 26 (37%) studies. CONCLUSIONS: Published research of hand hygiene compliance measured by direct observation lacks validity. Hand hygiene should be measured using methods that produce a valid indication of performance and quality. Standardization of methodology would expedite comparison of hand hygiene compliance between clinical settings and organizations.

The development of hand hygiene compliance imperatives in an emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring results showing poor hand hygiene compliance in a major, busy emergency department prompted a quality improvement initiative to improve hand hygiene compliance. PURPOSE: To identify, remove, and reduce barriers to hand hygiene compliance in an emergency department. METHODS: A barrier identification tool was used to identify key barriers and opportunities associated with hand hygiene compliance. Hand hygiene imperatives were developed and agreed on with clinicians, and a framework for monitoring and improving hand hygiene compliance was developed. RESULTS: Barriers to compliance were ambiguity about when to clean hands, the pace and urgency of work in some areas of the department, which left little time for hand hygiene and environmental and operational issues. Sore hands were a problem for some staff. Expectations of compliance were agreed on with staff, and changes were made to remove barriers. A monitoring tool was designed to monitor progress. Gradual improvement occurred in all areas, except in emergency situations, which require further improvement work. CONCLUSIONS: The context of care and barriers to compliance should be reflected in hand hygiene expectations and monitoring. In the emergency department, the requirement to deliver urgent live-saving care can supersede conventional hand hygiene expectations.