Measuring hand hygiene compliance rates in different special care settings: a comparative study of methodologies.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare methods for assessing compliance with hand hygiene in an intensive care unit (ICU), a step-down unit (SDU), and a hematology-oncology unit. METHODS: Over a 20-week period, we compared hand hygiene compliance measurements by three different methods: direct observation, electronic handwash counter for alcohol gel, and measuring the volume of product used (alcohol gel) in an ICU, an SDU, and a hematology-oncology unit of a tertiary care, private hospital. RESULTS: By direct observation we evaluated 1078 opportunities in the ICU, 1075 in the SDU, and 517 in the hematology-oncology unit, with compliance rates of 70.7%, 75.4%, and 73.3%, respectively. A total of 342,299, 235,914, and 248,698 hand hygiene episodes were recorded by the electronic devices in the ICU, SDU, and hematology-oncology unit, respectively. There were also 127.2 ml, 85.3 ml, and 67.6 ml of alcohol gel used per patient-day in these units. We could find no correlation between the three methods. CONCLUSIONS: Hand hygiene compliance was reasonably high in these units, as measured by direct observation. However, a lack of correlation with results obtained by other methodologies brings into question the validity of direct observation results, and suggests that periodic audits using other methods may be needed.

Hand hygiene compliance in the critical care setting: a comparative study of 2 different alcohol handrub formulations.

BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene (HH) compliance can be affected by the accessibility of products (alcohol-based products or chlorhexidine) and by the formulations of these products. There are few published studies comparing different alcohol-based hand disinfection formulations. METHODS: This study was conducted in a 41-bed medical-surgical intensive care unit at a private tertiary care hospital. Over a 16-week period, we assessed HH compliance by direct observation of practice using iPods and measurement of the amount of product used [alcohol and chlorhexidine] in two 4-room pods in which an alcohol gel product was used compared with two other 4-room pods in which an alcohol-based foam formulation was used. RESULTS: A total of 3,895 opportunities for HH were observed, and the overall rate of HH compliance was 36.9%. No statistically significant differences were found in overall HH compliance or alcohol-based HH compliance between the alcohol foam unit and the alcohol gel unit. However, there was a statistically significant difference in chlorhexidine HH compliance between the alcohol foam unit and the alcohol gel unit (7.0% [130 of 1,853] vs 3.8% [77 of 2,042]; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol handrub use was greater than chlorhexidine use, but HH compliance was low in both units independent of the alcohol formulation available. The similarity of use of both alcohol formulations suggests that health care workers tend to use whatever product is readily available.