Select Page

Re: It is now time to pull back on time consuming hand hygiene observational audits and unrealistic performance indicators (targets) for hand hygiene compliance?

Home Forums Infexion Connexion Re: It is now time to pull back on time consuming hand hygiene observational audits and unrealistic performance indicators (targets) for hand hygiene compliance?

 | Click to Receive Email Notifications of Posts
Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #73997
    Glenys Harrington
    Participant

    Author:
    Glenys Harrington

    Email:
    infexion@ozemail.com.au

    Organisation:
    Infection Control Consultancy (ICC)

    State:

    Dear All,

    Further to my posting yesterday the results from the following research
    undertaken in NSW is also noteworthy.

    Yen Lee Angela Kwok et al. Automated hand hygiene auditing with and without
    an intervention. American Journal of Infection Control 44 (2016) 1475-80

    . “HHA rates (Hand Hygiene Australia human audits) for June 2014
    were 85% and 87% on the medical and surgical wards, respectively. These
    rates were 55 percentage points (PPs) and 38 PPs higher than covert
    automation rates for June 2014 on the medical and surgical ward at 30% and
    49%, respectively. During the intervention phase, average compliance did not
    change on the medical ward from their covert rate, whereas the surgical ward
    improved compared with the covert phase by 11 PPs to 60%. On average,
    compliance during the intervention without being refreshed did not change on
    the medical ward, whereas the average rate on the surgical ward declined by
    9 PPs”.

    Regards

    Glenys

    Glenys Harrington

    Infection Control Consultancy (ICC)

    P.O. Box 6385

    Melbourne

    Australia, 3004

    M: +61 404816434

    E: infexion@ozemail.com.au

    observational audits and unrealistic performance indicators (targets) for
    hand hygiene compliance?

    Dear All,

    It is now time to pull back on time consuming hand hygiene observational
    audits and unrealistic performance indicators (targets) for hand hygiene
    compliance?

    Recent publications suggest it is now time to review and rethink such
    programs in developing and developed countries to ensure an evidence based
    approach to hand hygiene and cost effective use of infection prevention and
    control resources.

    HH compliance papers

    Kingston L et al. Hand hygiene-related clinical trials reported since 2010:
    a systematic review. Journal of Hospital Infection 92 (2016) 309-320

    . “We concluded that adopting a multimodal approach to hand hygiene
    improvement intervention strategies, whether guided by the WHO framework or
    by another tested multimodal framework, results in moderate improvements in
    hand hygiene compliance”.

    Hand hygiene compliance: are we kidding ourselves? Editorial, Journal of
    Hospital Infection 92 (2016) 307-308

    . “It is clear that monitoring hand hygiene compliance using direct
    observation is flawed and that electronic devices/methods in combination
    with smaller observational audits using appropriately trained staff would
    enable a better assessment….. Hence, in an era of multi-resistant
    Gram-negative bacteria, it is now time to take stock and consider that we
    have spent a number of years performing research on hand hygiene with little
    evidence that any particular strategy works. Perhaps future research should
    be focused not on campaigns to improve hand hygiene at all costs, but on
    understanding when hand hygiene is most beneficial, setting reasonable,
    achievable targets, and then monitoring using validated, reproducible
    methods”.

    Scheithauer S et al. Workload even affects hand hygiene in a highly trained
    and well-staffed setting: a prospective 365/7/24 observational study.
    Journal of Hospital Infection 97 (2017) 11-16

    . “Calculated compliance was inversely associated with nurses’
    workload. Hand-rub activities (HRA)/patient-day (PD), observer-determined
    compliance and amount of disinfectant dispensed were used as surrogates for
    compliance, but did not correlate with actual compliance and thus should be
    used with caution”.

    Regards

    Glenys

    Glenys Harrington

    Infection Control Consultancy (ICC)

    P.O. Box 6385

    Melbourne

    Australia, 3004

    M: +61 404816434

    E: infexion@ozemail.com.au

    MESSAGES POSTED TO THIS LIST ARE SOLELY THE OPINION OF THE AUTHOR, AND DO NOT REPRESENT THE OPINION OF ACIPC.

    The use of trade/product/commercial brand names through the list is discouraged by ACIPC. If you wish to discuss specific reference to products or services by brand or commercial names, please do this outside the list.

    Archive of all messages are available at http://aicalist.org.au/archives – registration and login required.

    Replies to this message will be directed back to the list. To create a new message send an email to aicalist@aicalist.org.au

    To send a message to the list administrator send an email to aicalist-request@aicalist.org.au.

    You can unsubscribe from this list be sending ‘signoff aicalist’ (without the quotes) to listserv@aicalist.org.au

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • The forum ‘Infexion Connexion’ is closed to new topics and replies.