Do WiFi-based hand hygiene dispenser systems increase hand hygiene compliance?

The state of hand rub dispensers in healthcare settings - a multicenter assessment in 19 German healthcare facilities

BACKGROUND

Hand hygiene is one of the most important hygiene measures to prevent healthcare-associated infections. Well-functioning hand rub dispensers are the foundation of hand hygiene but are often overlooked in research. As the point of origin for hand hygiene, dispensers not only promote compliance through ease of use, but also strongly influence the amount of hand rub used per disinfection. This work investigates how dispenser types and conditions affect dispensed volumes and usability.

METHODS

Data from 5,014 wall-mounted or point-of-care dispensers was collected from 19 German healthcare facilities during installation of an electronic hand hygiene monitoring system, including dispenser type and dispensed hand rub volumes. Of these dispensers, 56.2% were metal dispensers, and the majority (89.5%) were wall-mounted. For one hospital, 946 wall-mounted dispensers were analyzed in detail regarding pump material, damages, functionality, cleanliness, and filling levels.

RESULTS

Dispensed volumes varied across and within dispenser types, ranging from 0.4 mL to 4.4 mL per full actuation, with the largest volumes generally dispensed by plastic dispensers with a preset of 1.0 to 3.0 mL per actuation. In general, most dispensers dispense more hand rub per full actuation than specified by the manufacturer. When different types of dispensers are used within a healthcare facility, vastly different volumes can be dispensed, making reliable and reproducible disinfection difficult for healthcare workers. In the detailed analysis of 946 dispensers, 27.1% had cosmetic defects, reduced performance, or were unusable, with empty disinfectant being the most common reason. Only 19.7% of working dispensers delivered their maximum volume on the first full actuation.

CONCLUSION

Even though several studies addressed the variability in dispensed volumes of hand hygiene dispensers, studies dealing with dispenser types and functionality are lacking, promoting the common but false assumption that different dispensers may be equivalent and interchangeable. Variability in dispensed volumes, coupled with frequent dispenser defects and maintenance issues, can be a major barrier to hand hygiene compliance. To support healthcare workers, more attention should be paid to 'dispenser compliance', selecting dispensers with similar volume ranges and proper maintenance.

Rinse, gel, and foam - is there any evidence for a difference in their effectiveness in preventing infections?

BACKGROUND

Following publication of the 2009 World Health Organizations Guidelines for Hand Hygiene in Health Care, a debate has emerged regarding the relative antimicrobial efficacy of the different formats (rinse, gel, foam) of ABHRs and their ability to contribute to reduction of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs).

METHODS

Data regarding the in-vivo antimicrobial efficacy of ABHRs and other factors that likely affect their effectiveness in reducing HAIs were reviewed, and a comprehensive review of studies that reported the effectiveness of each of the three ABHR formats to improve hand hygiene compliance and reduce HAIs was conducted.

RESULTS

The amount of rubbing time it takes for hands to feel dry (dry time) is the major driver of ABHR antimicrobial efficacy. ABHR format is not a major factor, and several studies found that rinse, gel, and foam ABHRs have comparable in-vivo antimicrobial efficacy. Other factors that likely impact the ability of ABHRs to reduce transmission of healthcare-associated pathogens and HAIs include ABHR formulation, the volume applied to hands, aesthetic characteristics, skin tolerance, acceptance by healthcare personnel, and hand hygiene compliance rates. When accompanied by complementary strategies, promoting the use of each of the three ABHR formats has been associated with improvements in hand hygiene compliance rates. A review of 67 studies failed to identify an ABHR format that was significantly more effective in yielding statistically significant reductions in transmission of healthcare-associated pathogens or HAIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence is insufficient to definitively determine if one ABHR format is more effective in reducing transmission of healthcare-associated pathogens and HAIs. More rigorous studies such as multicenter randomized controlled trials comparing the different formats are needed to establish if one format is significantly more effective in reducing HAIs.

Barriers and facilitators to infection prevention practices in home healthcare: a scoping review and proposed implementation framework

Infection prevention and control (IPC) research has focused on the hospital setting, neglecting the rapidly expanding home healthcare (HHC) sector. Current infection prevention recommendations do not reflect the challenges specific to the HHC setting. This scoping review considered any original studies reporting on barriers or facilitators to infection prevention practices in the context of HHC. Study characteristics were mapped, and a descriptive content analysis was performed. Based on the findings we propose a framework of eight HHC setting characteristics relevant to infection prevention implementation. 33 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. A majority of studies addressed sharps injury or blood and body fluid exposure prevention (N=15) and the majority were conducted in the United States (N=23). Study methodologies employed were surveys (N=18), qualitative (N=11), direct observation (N=7), and one interventional study. The HHC setting characteristics relevant to infection prevention implementation were: the care process in the patient's immediate environment; the need to bring equipment and materials into the home; the provision and financing of equipment and materials; the use of patient space and facilities; the unique position of and the expectations towards HHC providers; working alone with little support; the intermittent nature of care; the attitudes of HHC providers formed by their work circumstances. Interventional studies generating higher-quality evidence for implementation are lacking. Furthermore, implementation of aseptic technique and the decontamination and reprocessing of equipment are poorly studied in the HHC setting and deserve more research interest. The proposed framework may guide future research and implementation work.

Harnessing of Artificial Intelligence for the Diagnosis and Prevention of Hospital-Acquired Infections: A Systematic Review

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are the most common adverse events in healthcare and constitute a major global public health concern. Surveillance represents the foundation for the effective prevention and control of HAIs, yet conventional surveillance is costly and labor intensive. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have the potential to support the development of HAI surveillance algorithms for the understanding of HAI risk factors, the improvement of patient risk stratification as well as the prediction and timely detection and prevention of infections. AI-supported systems have so far been explored for clinical laboratory testing and imaging diagnosis, antimicrobial resistance profiling, antibiotic discovery and prediction-based clinical decision support tools in terms of HAIs. This review aims to provide a comprehensive summary of the current literature on AI applications in the field of HAIs and discuss the future potentials of this emerging technology in infection practice. Following the PRISMA guidelines, this study examined the articles in databases including PubMed and Scopus until November 2023, which were screened based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, resulting in 162 included articles. By elucidating the advancements in the field, we aim to highlight the potential applications of AI in the field, report related issues and shortcomings and discuss the future directions.

Current issues in hand hygiene

BACKGROUND

Multiple aspects of hand hygiene have changed in recent years.

METHODS

A PubMed search was conducted to identify recent articles about hand hygiene.

RESULTS

The COVID-19 pandemic caused temporary changes in hand hygiene compliance rates and shortages of alcohol-based hand sanitizers (ABHSs), and in marketing of some products that were ineffective or unsafe. Fortunately, ABHSs are effective against SARS-CoV-2 and other emerging pathogens including Candida auris and mpox. Proper placement, maintenance, and design of ABHS dispensers have gained additional attention. Current evidence suggests that if an adequate volume of ABHS has been applied to hands, personnel must rub their hands together for at least 15 seconds before hands feel dry (dry time), which is the primary driver of antimicrobial efficacy. Accordingly, practical methods of monitoring hand hygiene technique are needed. Direct observation of hand hygiene compliance remains a challenge in many healthcare facilities, generating increased interest in automated hand hygiene monitoring systems (AHHMSs). However, several barriers have hindered widespread adoption of AHHMSs. AHHMSs must be implemented as part of a multimodal improvement program to successfully improve hand hygiene performance rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Remaining gaps in our understanding of hand hygiene warrant continued research into factors impacting hand hygiene practices.

Hand Hygiene, an Update

Hand hygiene by health care personnel is an important measure for preventing health care-associated infections, but adherence rates and technique remain suboptimal. Alcohol-based hand rubs are the preferred method of hand hygiene in most clinical scenarios, are more effective and better tolerated than handwashing, and their use has facilitated improved adherence rates. Obtaining accurate estimates of hand hygiene adherence rates using direct observations of personnel is challenging. Combining automated hand hygiene monitoring systems with direct observations is a promising strategy, and is likely to yield the best estimates of adherence. Greater attention to hand hygiene technique is needed.

How does innovative technology impact nursing in infectious diseases and infection control? A scoping review

Aim

Considering the increasing number of emerging infectious diseases, innovative approaches are strongly in demand. Additionally, research in this field has expanded exponentially. Thus, faced with this diverse information, we aim to clarify key concepts and knowledge gaps of technology in nursing and the field of infectious diseases.

Design

This scoping review followed the methodology of scoping review guidance from Arksey and O’Malley.

Methods

Six databases were searched systematically (PubMed, Web of Science, IEEE Explore, EBSCOhost, Cochrane Library and Summon). After the removal of duplicates, 532 citations were retrieved and 77 were included in the analysis.

Results

We identified five major trends in technology for nursing and infectious diseases: artificial intelligence, the Internet of things, information and communications technology, simulation technology and e‐learning. Our findings indicate that the most promising trend is the IoT because of the many positive effects validated in most of the reviewed studies.

Current issues in hand hygiene

Although substantial improvements in hand hygiene practices have occurred in recent years, many health care facilities continue to encounter challenges in achieving and maintaining high levels of hand hygiene compliance. Issues of current interest include the optimum dose of alcohol-based handrub (ABHR) that should be applied, the impact of hand size and alcohol-based handrub dry times have on efficacy, and ideal hand hygiene technique. There is a need to determine which additional promotional activities can augment improvements in hand hygiene that are achieved by implementing the multimodal improvement strategy recommended by the World Health Organization. Monitoring hand hygiene performance and providing personnel with feedback on their performance are essential elements of successful improvement programs. Further research is needed to establish the most effective methods of providing feedback. Additional studies are needed to optimize strategies for performing direct observation of hand hygiene compliance, and to determine the role of supplementing direct observations using automated monitoring systems.

Antibacterial efficacy of handrubbing for 15 versus 30 seconds: EN 1500-based randomized experimental study with different loads of Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli

OBJECTIVES

Compliance with the World Health Organization 'how to handrub' action is suboptimal. Simplifying the hand-hygiene action may improve practice. However, it is crucial to preserve antibacterial efficacy. We tested the non-inferiority of 15 versus 30 seconds handrubbing for Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli contamination at different loads, using hand-size customized alcohol-based handrub (ABHR) volumes.

METHODS

In an EN1500-based study, 18 health-care workers (HCWs) with extensive experience in hand hygiene rubbed hands with a hand-size customized volume of isopropanol 60% v/v. They repeated the following sequence: hand contamination (E. coli or S. aureus; broth containing 10⁸ or 10⁶ CFU/mL); baseline fingertips sampling; handrubbing (15 or 30 seconds); re-sampling. The main outcome was log₁₀ CFU corrected reduction factor (cRF) on HCWs' hands, applying a generalized linear mixed model with a random intercept for subject.

RESULTS

The median cRF was 2.1 log₁₀ (interquartile range 1.50-3.10). After fitting the model, cRF was significantly higher for S. aureus compared with E. coli but there was no significant effect for duration of handrubbing or contamination fluid concentration. Fifteen seconds of handrubbing was non-inferior to 30 (-0.06 log₁₀, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.22; EN1500 0.60 log₁₀ non-inferiority margin). This was confirmed in all pre-specified subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Among experienced HCWs using a hand-size customized volume of ABHR, handrubbing for 15 seconds was non-inferior to 30 seconds in reducing bacterial load, irrespective of type of bacteria or contamination fluid concentration. This provides further support for a shorter, 15-seconds, hand-hygiene action.