Effect of varying the number and location of alcohol-based hand rub dispensers on usage in a general inpatient medical unit

Workflows and locations matter - insights from electronic hand hygiene monitoring into the use of hand rub dispensers across diverse hospital wards

Background

While healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) affect approximately 3.2-6.5% of hospitalised patients in the US and Europe, improving hand hygiene (HH) could reduce HAI rates. Investigating HH is time-consuming and not always objective, and comprehensive, unbiased data is needed to develop effective strategies. Using electronic tools can provide new and detailed insights on the determinants of HH.

Aim

To evaluate location-dependent usage of wall-mounted dispensers (WMDs) and point-of-care dispensers (POCs) using an electronic HH recording system.

Methods

In this retrospective study, hand rub volumes were anonymously recorded for 931,446 disinfections from 17 wards in nine German hospitals using the electronic monitoring system NosoEx®. Number of disinfections and rub volumes of WMDs/POCs by ward and room type were analysed.

Findings

Generally, WMDs were most prevalent. With >3 dispensers per bed and >20 disinfections per patient day, availability and use were highest in intensive care (ICU) and intermediate care (IMC), but here rub volumes from WMDs were lowest (∼2.0 mL). Although most dispensers are located in patient rooms (∼42%), they are more frequently used in hallways. In surgical ICUs, dispensers are often used in patient rooms, where contact with open wounds is common. About 3.6 mL of hand rub is used per disinfection in treatment rooms, the highest volume of all room types.

Conclusion

Dispenser use was dependent on location, room type, ward specialisation and workflow. Optimising the location of hand rub dispensers (HRDs)s is not the only solution to improve HH, but can help reduce inconvenience, achieve more ergonomic workflows and better meet user needs.

Unpacking nudge sensu lato: insights from a scoping review

Nudges may play an important role in improving infection prevention and control (IPC) in hospitals. However, despite the novelty of the framework, their objectives, strategies and implementation approaches are not new. This review aims to provide an overview of the methods typically used by nudge interventions in IPC in hospitals targeting healthcare workers (HCWs). The initial search in PubMed yielded nine hits. Consequently, the search criteria were broadened and a second search was conducted, introducing 'nudge sensu lato' which incorporates insights from sources beyond the traditional nudge framework while maintaining the same objectives, strategies and approaches. During the second search, PubMed, Epistemonikos, Web of Science and PsycInfo were searched in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Abstracts were screened, and reviewers from an interdisciplinary team read the full text of selected papers. In total, 5706 unique primary studies were identified. Of these, 67 were included in the review, and only four were listed as nudge sensu stricto, focusing on changing HCWs' hand hygiene. All articles reported positive intervention outcomes. Of the 56 articles focused on improving hand hygiene compliance, 71.4% had positive outcomes. For healthcare equipment disinfection, 50% of studies showed significant results. Guideline adherence interventions had a 66.7% significant outcome rate. The concept of nudge sensu lato was introduced, encompassing interventions that employ strategies, methods and implementation approaches found in the nudge framework. The findings demonstrate that this concept can enhance the scientific development of more impactful nudges. This may help clinicians, researchers and policy makers to develop and implement effective nudging interventions.

Tailored positioning and number of hand rub dispensers: the fundamentals for optimized hand hygiene compliance

BACKGROUND

Availability of alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) dispensers at positions adapted to the work flow of healthcare workers (HCWs) is decisive in order to carry out indication-based hand rubbing. Although requirements and guidelines regarding the positioning of ABHR dispensers are in place, scientific evidence is often lacking.

METHODS

In order to analyse the impact of the location and number of ABHR dispensers on hand hygiene performance, additional dispensers were systematically placed in patient rooms in a surgical 38-bed ward at Marburg University Hospital, Germany to complement the existing dispenser locations. ABHR use was monitored continuously before and after complementation using the NosoEx hand hygiene monitoring system. The ward had 53 dispensers before the intervention and 82 dispensers after the intervention.

RESULTS

The addition of dispensers increased ABHR consumption across the entire ward. Before the intervention, mean consumption was 20.6 mL/patient-day, whereas mean consumption after the intervention was 25.3 mL/patient-day. Depending on the combination of dispenser locations, consumption increased through targeted supplementation in patient rooms. The presence of two or three dispensers per patient room resulted in significantly greater ABHR consumption compared with one dispenser per patient room. The preferred location combinations were entrance-front bed-back bed and entrance-foot end.

CONCLUSION

ABHR consumption can be increased significantly by optimizing the position and number of dispensers. The outstanding factors are visibility and integrability of dispenser use into the work flow; in particular, a dispenser should be positioned in the entrance area. Recommendations should be optimized with regard to the required number and location of dispensers in patient rooms.

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.

SHEA/IDSA/APIC Practice Recommendation: Strategies to prevent healthcare-associated infections through hand hygiene: 2022 Update

The purpose of this document is to highlight practical recommendations to assist acute-care hospitals in prioritization and implementation of strategies to prevent healthcare-associated infections through hand hygiene. This document updates the Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections in Acute Care Hospitals through Hand Hygiene, published in 2014. This expert guidance document is sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology (SHEA). It is the product of a collaborative effort led by SHEA, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, the American Hospital Association, and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of a number of organizations and societies with content expertise.

Effectiveness of nudges as a tool to promote adherence to guidelines in healthcare and their organizational implications: A systematic review

The shift in the United States in recent years toward value-based healthcare delivery models has brought renewed pressure on healthcare organizations to improve adherence to clinical and administrative guidelines designed to deliver high quality care at lower costs. However, getting clinicians to adhere to these guidelines remains a persistent problem for many organizations. The use of nudges has emerged as a popular intervention in healthcare settings to promote adherence to both sets of guidelines. This systematic review aims to assess the empirical evidence base on the use of various types of nudges and their effectiveness as a tool to promote this adherence and to identify the boundary conditions under which they are effective. In our assessment of 83 empirical studies, we found compelling evidence that nudges are an effective tool for promoting adherence to guidelines. However, much of this evidence relies heavily on studies focused on three types of nudges (increasing salience, providing feedback, and default). Other types of nudges (anticipated error reduction, structuring of complex problems, and understanding mapping) received far less attention. We also found that this literature is primarily focused on whether nudge interventions work, with little consideration for organizational issues such as cost effectiveness, impact on healthcare workers, and disruptions of established workflows and routines. We offer observations and recommendations on how research at the intersection of organizational studies and health services can improve our understanding of nudge interventions.

Handrub dispensers per acute care hospital bed: a study to develop a new minimum standard

Background

Accessibility to alcohol-based handrub (ABHR) dispenser is crucial to improve compliance to hand hygiene (HH), being offered as wall-mounted dispensers (ABHR-Ds), and/or pocket bottles. Nevertheless, information on the distribution and density of ABHR-Ds and their impact on HH have hardly been studied. Institutions such as the World Health Organisation or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention do not provide guidance. The Robert-Koch-Institute (RKI) from Germany recommends an overall density of > 0.5 dispensers per patient bed. We aimed to investigate current conditions in hospitals to develop a standard on the minimal number of ABHR-D.

Methods

Between 07 and 09/2019, we applied a questionnaire to 178 hospitals participating in the Swissnoso National Surveillance Network to evaluate number and location of ABHR-Ds per bed in acute care hospitals, and compared the data with consumption and compliance with HH.

Results

110 of the 178 (62%) hospitals provided data representing approximately 20,000 hospital beds. 83% hospitals provided information on both the total number of ABHR-Ds and patient beds, with a mean of 2.4 ABHR-Ds per bed (range, 0.4–22.1). While most hospitals (84%) had dispensers located at the room entrance, 47% reported also locations near or at the bed. Additionally, pocket-sized dispensers (100 mL) are available in 97% of hospitals.

Conclusions

Swiss hospitals provide 2.4 dispensers per bed, much more than governmental recommendation. The first study on the number of ABHR-Ds in hospitals may help to define a minimal standard for national and international recommendations

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13756-021-00949-0.

Standardized aseptic dressing change procedure: Optimizations and adherence in a prospective pre- and postintervention cohort study

BACKGROUND

The "HygArzt" project investigated the effectiveness of hygiene measures introduced by an infection prevention link physician (PLP).

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether the introduction of a standardized aseptic dressing change concept (ADCC) by a PLP can increase hand hygiene adherence and adherence to specific process steps during an aseptic dressing change (ADC) in a trauma surgery and orthopedic department.

METHODS

We defined 4 required hand disinfection indications: (1) before the preparation of ADC equipment, (2) immediately before the ADC, (3) before the clean phase, and (4) after the ADC. A process analysis of the preintervention phase (331 ADCs) was used to develop a standardized ADCC. The ADCC was introduced and iteratively adopted during the intervention phase. The effect was evaluated during the postintervention phase (374 ADCs).

RESULTS

Hand hygiene adherence was significantly increased by the introduction of the ADCC for all indications: (1) before the preparation of the ADC equipment (from 34% before to 85% after, P <.001), (2) immediately before an ADC (from 32% before to 85% after; P < .001), (3) before the clean phase (from 42% before to 96% after; P < .001), and (4) after an ADC (from 74% before to 99% after; P < .001). Overall hand hygiene adherence was analyzed before the indications for an ADC (from 9.6% before to 74% after; P < .001). The same strategy was applied to the following process parameters: use of a clean work surface, clean withdrawal of equipment from the dressing trolley, and appropriate waste disposal.

CONCLUSIONS

A PLP sufficiently implemented a standardized concept for aseptic dressing change during an iterative improvement process, which resulted in a significant improvement in hand hygiene and adherence to other specific ADCC process steps.

World Health Organization Framework: Multimodal Hand Hygiene Strategy in Piedmont (Italy) Health Care Facilities

OBJECTIVES

In 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) introduced the "Hand Hygiene Self-Assessment Framework" (HHSAF) to evaluate the level of the application of the Multimodal Hand Hygiene Improvement Strategy (MHHIS), which defines preventive interventions, standards, and tools conceived to improve hand hygiene in healthcare facilities. The aim of our study was to evaluate the implementation of the MHHIS in Piedmont healthcare units in 2014 using the HHSAF document.

METHODS

Our surveillance was performed through collection and analysis of the data from 50 Piedmont healthcare facilities recorded through the HHSAF in 2014. The HHSAF describes the hand hygiene level evaluating the following 5 parameters: system changes, education/staff training, evaluation and feedback, reminders in the workplace, and promotion of an institutional safety climate.

RESULTS

We reported that 70.4% of the healthcare facilities involved in the study achieved the intermediate hand hygiene level, 19% the advanced level, and 11% the basic level. No facility exhibited an inadequate level of WHO multimodal implementation. Only 55% of the healthcare units provided information about hand hygiene to patients, and only 15% actively involved patients and their families.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of the MHHIS has achieved important results all over the world in terms of hand hygiene. Piedmont has reached an overall good level, particularly in terms of the supply and availability of hand washing products and staff education. Our results revealed, however, some critical issues related to direct and indirect monitoring of hand hygiene, providing reminders and the active involvement of patients, family members, and caregivers.

Family Experiences and Perspectives on Infection Prevention in Pediatric Long-Term Care

PURPOSE

Residents of pediatric long-term care facilities (pLTCF) are particularly vulnerable to healthcare-associated infections. The aims of this qualitative study were to (a) explore perspectives on infection prevention among families visiting children in pLTCF and (b) identify facilitators of and barriers to optimal hand hygiene.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Semistructured, in-depth interviews with 10 family members visiting two New York City metropolitan area facilities were analyzed to identify themes.

FINDINGS

"Everyone follows the rules" and "infections are inevitable" were primary themes. Participants reported "common sense" as a facilitator and "distraction" as a major barrier to prevention practices.

CONCLUSION

Current education for visitors may be inadequate to improve infection prevention behaviors.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Nurse-led education strategies for infection prevention should be tested and modified for families visiting pLTCF.

Interventions to improve hand hygiene compliance in patient care

BACKGROUND

Health care-associated infection is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Hand hygiene is regarded as an effective preventive measure. This is an update of a previously published review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the short- and long-term success of strategies to improve compliance to recommendations for hand hygiene, and to determine whether an increase in hand hygiene compliance can reduce rates of health care-associated infection.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL. We conducted the searches from November 2009 to October 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) that evaluated any intervention to improve compliance with hand hygiene using soap and water or alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR), or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias for each included study. Meta-analysis was not possible, as there was substantial heterogeneity across studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach and present the results narratively in a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 26 studies: 14 randomised trials, two non-randomised trials and 10 ITS studies. Most studies were conducted in hospitals or long-term care facilities in different countries, and collected data from a variety of healthcare workers. Fourteen studies assessed the success of different combinations of strategies recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) to improve hand hygiene compliance. Strategies consisted of the following: increasing the availability of ABHR, different types of education for staff, reminders (written and verbal), different types of performance feedback, administrative support, and staff involvement. Six studies assessed different types of performance feedback, two studies evaluated education, three studies evaluated cues such as signs or scent, and one study assessed placement of ABHR. Observed hand hygiene compliance was measured in all but three studies which reported product usage. Eight studies also reported either infection or colonisation rates. All studies had two or more sources of high or unclear risks of bias, most often associated with blinding or independence of the intervention.Multimodal interventions that include some but not all strategies recommended in the WHO guidelines may slightly improve hand hygiene compliance (five studies; 56 centres) and may slightly reduce infection rates (three studies; 34 centres), low certainty of evidence for both outcomes.Multimodal interventions that include all strategies recommended in the WHO guidelines may slightly reduce colonisation rates (one study; 167 centres; low certainty of evidence). It is unclear whether the intervention improves hand hygiene compliance (five studies; 184 centres) or reduces infection (two studies; 16 centres) because the certainty of this evidence is very low.Multimodal interventions that contain all strategies recommended in the WHO guidelines plus additional strategies may slightly improve hand hygiene compliance (six studies; 15 centres; low certainty of evidence). It is unclear whether this intervention reduces infection rates (one study; one centre; very low certainty of evidence).Performance feedback may improve hand hygiene compliance (six studies; 21 centres; low certainty of evidence). This intervention probably slightly reduces infection (one study; one centre) and colonisation rates (one study; one centre) based on moderate certainty of evidence.Education may improve hand hygiene compliance (two studies; two centres), low certainty of evidence.Cues such as signs or scent may slightly improve hand hygiene compliance (three studies; three centres), low certainty of evidence.Placement of ABHR close to point of use probably slightly improves hand hygiene compliance (one study; one centre), moderate certainty of evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

With the identified variability in certainty of evidence, interventions, and methods, there remains an urgent need to undertake methodologically robust research to explore the effectiveness of multimodal versus simpler interventions to increase hand hygiene compliance, and to identify which components of multimodal interventions or combinations of strategies are most effective in a particular context.

Hand Hygiene: An Update

The medical field has long recognized the importance of hand hygiene in preventing health care-associated infections, yet studies indicate that this important task is performed only 40% of the time. Health care workers cite several barriers to optimal performance of hand hygiene, but the time required to perform this task is foremost among them. Introduction of alcohol-based hand rubs, bundled interventions, and incorporation of technologies designed to monitor and promote hand hygiene all represent promising advances in this field.

Electronic monitoring in combination with direct observation as a means to significantly improve hand hygiene compliance

Monitoring hand hygiene compliance among health care personnel (HCP) is an essential element of hand hygiene promotion programs. Observation by trained auditors is considered the gold standard method for establishing hand hygiene compliance rates. Advantages of observational surveys include the unique ability to establish compliance with all of the World Health Organization "My 5 Moments for Hand Hygiene" initiative Moments and to provide just-in-time coaching. Disadvantages include the resources required for observational surveys, insufficient sample sizes, and nonstandardized methods of conducting observations. Electronic and camera-based systems can monitor hand hygiene performance on all work shifts without a Hawthorne effect and provide significantly more data regarding hand hygiene performance. Disadvantages include the cost of installation, variable accuracy in estimating compliance rates, issues related to acceptance by HCP, insufficient data regarding their cost-effectiveness and influence on health care-related infection rates, and the ability of most systems to monitor only surrogates for Moments 1, 4, and 5. Increasing evidence suggests that monitoring only Moments 1, 4, and 5 provides reasonable estimates of compliance with all 5 Moments. With continued improvement of electronic monitoring systems, combining electronic monitoring with observational methods may provide the best information as part of a multimodal strategy to improve and sustain hand hygiene compliance rates among HCP.

Use of hand hygiene agents as a surrogate marker of compliance in Hungarian long-term care facilities: first nationwide survey

Background

Hand hygiene practice is an important measure for preventing infections in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). However, low compliance with hand hygiene has been reported in a number of studies. The purpose of this study was to provide an overview of the first reference data collected on alcohol-based handrub (ABHR) and antiseptic soap consumption, as surrogate markers for hand hygiene compliance by healthcare workers (HCWs) in Hungarian LTCFs. The objective was to inform stakeholders on the need of hand hygiene improvement in these settings.

Methods

Between 5 May and 30 September 2014, we conducted a nationwide, cross-sectional survey using a standardized self-administered questionnaire; all Hungarian LTCFs were eligible. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0 was used for data analysis.

Results

The questionnaire was completed by 354 LTCFs, representing 24 % of all Hungarian LTCFs. In total, the median consumption of ABHR and antimicrobial soap was 15.5 L (IQR, 0–800 L) and 60 L (IQR, 0–1,680 L) per LTCFs, and 2.2 mL (IQR, 0.4–9.1 mL) and 12.1 mL (IQR, 0.7–32.8 mL) per HCWs in 2013, respectively. The estimated number of hand hygiene actions was 0.6 hygienic handrub/HCW per day (IQR, 0–12.8/HCWs) and 2.4 hygienic handwashing/HCW per day (IQR, 0–21.9/HCWs; P = .001), respectively.

Conclusions

This study suggests that non-compliance with hand hygiene is a significant problem in Hungarian LTCFs. Based on our results, there is an urgent need for a nationwide multimodal hand hygiene promotion strategy including education and performance monitoring and feedback in all LTCFs. Furthermore, monitoring of ABHR consumption constitute an additional component of the existing National Nosocomial Surveillance system.

Comparative efficacy of interventions to promote hand hygiene in hospital: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relative efficacy of the World Health Organization 2005 campaign (WHO-5) and other interventions to promote hand hygiene among healthcare workers in hospital settings and to summarize associated information on use of resources.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, CINAHL, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Cochrane Library, and the EPOC register (December 2009 to February 2014); studies selected by the same search terms in previous systematic reviews (1980-2009).

REVIEW METHODS

Included studies were randomised controlled trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after trials, and interrupted time series studies implementing an intervention to improve compliance with hand hygiene among healthcare workers in hospital settings and measuring compliance or appropriate proxies that met predefined quality inclusion criteria. When studies had not used appropriate analytical methods, primary data were re-analysed. Random effects and network meta-analyses were performed on studies reporting directly observed compliance with hand hygiene when they were considered sufficiently homogeneous with regard to interventions and participants. Information on resources required for interventions was extracted and graded into three levels.

RESULTS

Of 3639 studies retrieved, 41 met the inclusion criteria (six randomised controlled trials, 32 interrupted time series, one non-randomised trial, and two controlled before-after studies). Meta-analysis of two randomised controlled trials showed the addition of goal setting to WHO-5 was associated with improved compliance (pooled odds ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.76; I(2)=81%). Of 22 pairwise comparisons from interrupted time series, 18 showed stepwise increases in compliance with hand hygiene, and all but four showed a trend for increasing compliance after the intervention. Network meta-analysis indicated considerable uncertainty in the relative effectiveness of interventions, but nonetheless provided evidence that WHO-5 is effective and that compliance can be further improved by adding interventions including goal setting, reward incentives, and accountability. Nineteen studies reported clinical outcomes; data from these were consistent with clinically important reductions in rates of infection resulting from improved hand hygiene for some but not all important hospital pathogens. Reported costs of interventions ranged from $225 to $4669 (£146-£3035; €204-€4229) per 1000 bed days.

CONCLUSION

Promotion of hand hygiene with WHO-5 is effective at increasing compliance in healthcare workers. Addition of goal setting, reward incentives, and accountability strategies can lead to further improvements. Reporting of resources required for such interventions remains inadequate.