An Android app for recording hand hygiene observation data

Hand hygiene monitoring: Comparison between app and paper forms for direct observation

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are a global public health threat. Italy is one of the countries with the highest prevalence of HAI. Hand hygiene (HH) is a pillar of infection prevention and control. Monitoring HH is necessary to improve HH compliance, and direct observation is considered the gold standard. Transcription and analysis of data collected during direct observation of HH compliance with the WHO paper form are time-consuming. We collected, during a 9-day observation period, HH opportunities and compliance both with a smartphone application (SpeedyAudit) and with the WHO paper form. Then, we investigated the difference in the required time for data transcription and analysis between the WHO paper form and the use of the app. The difference in the required time for data transcription and analysis was significant with a mean time of 2 s using the app and about 14-54 min/day using paper form (p = .004) while no significant difference was found in measured compliance rates between the two data collecting methods. HH monitoring with an app is time-saving, and the app we used was easy to use.

A user's view of commercial mobile applications designed to measure hand hygiene compliance by direct observation

BACKGROUND

Mobile applications (apps) that facilitate the measurement of hand hygiene (HH) compliance rates by direct observation (DO) are widely available. Their usefulness for infection prevention and control (IPC) professionals has neither been recently reviewed nor formally assessed.

AIM

To present a critical analysis of hand hygiene measurement apps.

METHODS

Mobile apps were identified from four sources: PubMed, Apple app store, Google Play app store, Google search engine. Individual apps were then evaluated against a novel scoring system using seven key criteria considered relevant for IPC professionals. These included availability, price, automated data analysis, training requirement, compliance measured against the World Health Organization (WHO) 5 moments of HH, recent updates, and average app store rating. For each criterion, possible scores ranged from zero to two, with a maximum available score of 14 per app.

FINDINGS

A total of 32 apps were identified of which 13 were suitable for analysis. Only three apps (19%) scored ≥12. Twelve apps (92%) allowed compliance to be measured against the WHO 5 moments of HH. Five apps (38%) were completely free to use, seven apps (54%) allowed for automatic analysis and reporting of HH data and only six apps (46%) had high app store ratings.

CONCLUSION

The current mobile apps available for DO of HH generally scored poorly. In order to make these apps more useful to IPC professionals, they should be user-friendly and require less training prior to use. National IPC organizations should develop core standards for these apps to guide future development.