More than hand hygiene is needed to affect methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus clinical indicator rates: clean hands save lives, part IV

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether improved hand hygiene compliance in health care workers after a statewide hand hygiene campaign in New South Wales hospitals was associated with a fall in rates of infection with multiresistant organisms.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Data on rates of new methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections (expressed as four clinical indicators) are reported by some Australian hospitals to the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS) for accreditation purposes and are mandatorily reported by all NSW hospitals to the NSW Department of Health. Infections are classified according to whether they are acquired in the intensive care unit (ICU) or other wards and whether they are from sterile sites (blood cultures) or non-sterile sites. The clinical indicators reflect four different site categories (ICU sterile site, ICU non-sterile site, non-ICU sterile site and non-ICU non-sterile site) and are expressed as the number of new health care-associated infections per 10,000 acute care bed-days. Clinical indicator rates were examined for any decline between the pre-campaign period (July-December 2005) and post-campaign period (January-July 2007), and were compared with trends over a similar period in states without a hand hygiene campaign.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pre-campaign and post-campaign rates for four MRSA clinical indicators.

RESULTS

Between the pre- and post-campaign periods, there was a 25% fall in MRSA non-ICU sterile site infections, from 0.60/10,000 bed-days to 0.45/10,000 bed-days (P = 0.027), and a 16% fall in ICU non-sterile site infections, from 36.36/10,000 bed-days to 30.43/10,000 bed-days (P = 0.037). The pre- and post-campaign rates of MRSA infection from ICU sterile sites (5.28/10,000 bed-days v 4.80/10,000 bed-days; P = 0.664) and non-ICU non-sterile sites (5.92/10,000 bed-days v 5.66/10,000 bed-days; P = 0.207) remained stable. Australia-wide MRSA data reported to the ACHS showed a 45% decline in infections from ICU non-sterile sites, from 25.89/10,000 bed-days to 14.30/10,000 bed-days (P < 0.001), and a 46% decline in infections from non-ICU non-sterile sites, from 3.70/10,000 bed-days to 1.99/10,000 bed-days (P < 0.001) over the period 2005-2006.

CONCLUSION

Two out of four clinical indicators of MRSA infection remained unchanged despite significant improvements in hand hygiene compliance in NSW hospitals. The reduction in MRSA infections from ICU non-sterile sites in NSW hospitals was mirrored in ACHS data for other Australian states and cannot be assumed to be the result of improved hand hygiene compliance. Concurrent clinical and infection control practices possibly influence MRSA infection rates and may modify the effects of hand hygiene compliance. More sensitive measurements of hand hygiene compliance are needed.

An integrative review of the current evidence on the relationship between hand hygiene interventions and the incidence of health care-associated infections

BACKGROUND

The objectives of this integrative review were to critically examine the overall state of the current evidence on the relationship between hand hygiene interventions and the incidence of health care-associated infections (HCAIs) in acute care and long-term care settings, and offer recommendations for future directions in the field based on our findings.

METHODS

We searched for original research and reviews of research published between January 1, 1996, and July 31, 2006. Studies were identified through the electronic databases Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, PUBMED, the Cochrane Library, and through expert consultation. Our comprehensive search strategy included all English articles for which hand hygiene or handwashing-related terms were combined with HCAIs. All studies that investigated a relationship between hand hygiene practices and HCAIs in acute care facilities were considered. These hand hygiene practices included the initiation of multimodal hand hygiene initiatives, the introduction of alcohol sanitizers, the implementation or changes of the infection control practices or infection control policies, and other organizational interventions. Studies only examining hand hygiene compliance, efficacy of alcohol hand gels, plain soap, and antimicrobial soap in reducing bacteria count recovered from hands were excluded.

RESULTS

Of the 1120 articles retrieved, 35 publications, including 4 reviews of research discussed at the outset of this article, met our inclusion criteria. The remaining 31 eligible original studies included 18 (58.07%) before and after studies without control groups, 4 (12.90%) before and after studies with a control group, 3 (9.68%) cohort studies with no control group, 4 (12.90%) cohort studies with a control group, and 2 (6.45%) randomized trials. Over 50% (16 or 31) of the studies were conducted in the U.S. Two independent reviewers conducted independent evaluations of all eligible studies, critiquing and scoring each study using a rating scale for examining the fatal flaws of quasi-experimental and before and after studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of rigorous evidence linking specific hand hygiene interventions with the prevention of HCAIs. The varied nature of the interventions used and the diverse factors affecting the acquisition of HCAIs make it difficult to show the specific effect of hand hygiene alone. The most frequent methodologies currently used in this research area are before and after observational studies without a control comparison group. Based on these findings, we recommend that researchers used a modified version of Larson's 2005 criteria to guide the design and conduct of future before and after observational studies in this area. We also argue that as we accumulate stronger evidence of which interventions are most effective, we need to develop additional research approaches to study how organizations succeed and fail in fostering the uptake of evidence-based hand hygiene interventions.