Course Access
- This topic has 0 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Thanks Chris, Dale and Alan for your responses,
Chris – Not sure that you can attribute your reduction in outbreaks, MRSA and other resistant organisms to HH compliance? too many variables, particularly given all the program initiatives that have been implemented by Health & Quality and Safety Commission NZ over the same period of time.
Early on in the implementation of the HH program in Australia McLaws showed that MRSA was already reducing and was not necessarily dependant on a HH program:
*When the Geneva program was introduced into 75 Victorian hospitals, there was a 67% decline in MRSA infection rates, from 0.03/100 patient-days before the intervention to 0.01/100 patient-days 12 months after the intervention. Over the same period, the average hand hygiene compliance rate increased from 20% to 53%……………… A significant decline in MRSA infection rates across Victoria had occurred over a 2-year period prior to the intervention. Between 2005 and 2006, MRSA rates reported to the ACHS for non-ICU non-sterile sites fell by 55% in Victoria. A similar decline in MRSA infection rates was observed in Queensland (where no systematised hand hygiene campaign was underway), both in relation to non-ICU non-sterile sites (a 60% fall) and all sites combined (a 48% fall).
McLaws ML et al. More than hand hygiene is needed to affect methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus clinical indicator rates: Clean hands save lives, Part IVMed J Aust 2009; 191 (8 Suppl): S26
Dale using HH audits (which I understand in some Asian countries only records HH compliance in and out of a room not the 5 moments?) as a reminder or a tool to talk with management is not very cost effective use of limited IC resources, especially in Australia.
Agree with Alan they should not be reported as an outcome measure and until that changes they should be reported with a statement to caution the reader on their accuracy.
To keep the discussion flowing I would be interested in any additional comments including views from infection control personnel (Australia, NZ, other) about any or all of the following:
Are there issues with resources requirement to sustain their current direct observation HH compliance programs?
Are direct observation HH compliance audits impacting on other areas of their IC service/program?
Are facilities reporting direct observation HH compliance rates with a cautionary statement on their accuracy?
Has the accuracy of direct observation HH rates been discussed and report on at local infection control committees/other committees including briefings to Boards of Management?
Has the accuracy of direct observation HH compliance rates been brought to the attention state/local departments of health?
What do they think should be done in terms of HH auditing to reduce the IC workload and impact on IC service/program?
Regards
Glenys
Glenys Harrington
Infection Control Consultancy (ICC)
P.O. Box 6385
Melbourne
Australia, 3004
M: +61 404816434
Wouldn’t this suggest that we should de-link process from outcome? That is, measure the activity of the HH program (eg wards visited etc) and use independent “secret shoppers” to assess compliance?
If be more suspicious of wards reporting very high compliance esp if done by ward (link) nurses.
A.
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, 13:05 Dale Fisher, wrote:
I think its easy (oh so easy) to find flaws in HH measures today. But do reflect on why HH auditing was invented and that is because there was a time when ABHR was not easily available and no one undertook hand hygiene. We know that moving from 10 to 30% is of enormous value compared to 30 to 50% or 70 to 90% .diminishing gains. There have been many other major gains in IPC processes such as environmental cleaning, devices and infrastructure design.
Personally I feel HH audits have changed their role into more of a reminder or a tool to talk with management (and actually whether its up or down doesnt matter). Its about a conversation to direct HAI interventions and actually caring.
For the record; hospitals in Singapore sit around 65-85% HH compliance reported. Independent covert audits we have contracted knock these down about 20% (give or take).
We need to keep audits but understand their value and why we do them today ..with a view to life before them (not good)
Dale Fisher
Singapore
Im not sure if Im rising to a good internet trolling here
Thank you Glenys for the references on recent audit validation very interesting.
These are the historical, somewhat shakey, studies used to support introduction of the NZ programme in 2012:
Johnson P, Martin R, Grayson M. L et al. Efficacy of an alcohol/chlorhexidine Hand Hygiene
programme in a hospital with high rates of nosocomial methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus (SA) infection. Medical Journal of Australia 2005; 183: 509-514
Grayson ML, Jarvie LJ, Martin R, Jodoin ME, McMullan C, Gregory RHC, Bellis K, Cunnington
K, Wilson FL, Quin D, and Kelly A-M, on behalf of the Victorian Quality Council Hand Hygiene
Study Group and Victorian Quality Council Hand Hygiene Statewide Roll-out Group. Significant
reductions in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia and clinical isolates
associated with a multi-site, Hand Hygiene culture-change programme and subsequent
successful statewide rollout. Medical Journal of Australia 2008; 188:633-40
Grayson ML, Russo PL, Cruickshank M, Bear JL et al. Outcomes from the first 2 years of the
Australian National Hand Hygiene Initiative. Medical Journal of Australia 2011195:615-9
Do bear in mind that the 5 moments and the standardised auditing tools are intended as a process indicator which correlates with biological and ecological pressure, to reduce effective Reproductive Number. As such, they deserve respect for driving behavioural and operational improvements, no matter how rationally people question their direct validity and effectiveness for specific scenarios.
Anecdatally, it seems that the compliance rate recorded by our auditors, including Hawthorne effect, do correspond well to patient protection. In our hospital, small outbreaks have mostly occurred on wards with HH rates < 60%, while few have occurred elsewhere and we average around 80% overall which may not meet targets yet seems biologically fairly successful. The compliance target is very rigorous and good control of cross transmission can be achieved with rates under 90% . Our rates of detection for multiresistant MRSA (corresponding more or less to EMRSA-15 and AUS/ST239) have drifted down since 2012 while rates of Fluclox/Fusidic only non multi resistant MRSA (more or less community acquired ST5) have risen. See PLOS One Apr 2013 V8 (4) e62020 for earlier NZ epidemiology. Likewise, traditionally hospital associated ESBL K. pneumoniae rates are stable, while the more community associated ESBL E. coli rates have increased about 3 fold over 5 years. Waikato data: http://lab.waikatodhb.health.nz/assets/QCItems/MDRO-Trends-Waikato-Hospital-2013-to-2018-web-report.pdf
We are satisfied that Hand Hygiene 5 moments is beneficial and that current audit methods are well calibrated, providing actionable information.
However, further improvements would of course be appreciated.
Chris Mansell
Dr Chris Mansell MB,ChB FRCPA | Clinical Microbiologist | Waikato Hospital | 021 833 783
Hi John,
Many thanks for responding.
To continue putting $$ (mostly infection control personnel resources) into direct HH observations in the setting of gross overestimations of compliance rates should be evidence enough to review current practices.
There is a significant amount of information out there that challenges the accuracy of direct observational auditing of HH compliance, some of which has been undertaken in your own state of NSW see below.
While strides have been made by HHA since its establishment it is time to review the following given the information that is currently before use:
a) why do we continue to collect and report flawed data
b) why are we not reducing some of the current direct observation (infection control personnel /liaison nurses) auditing requirements until more accurate methods are investigated and,
c) why we are not looking at alternatives methods ( is see suggestions below – electronic devices/methods in combination with smaller observational audits).
In light of the available evidence (below) we should also be openly transparent and at this point in time when reporting direct observation compliance rates in Australia include a statement that cautions the reader that current research indicates the rates are likely to be significantly artificially inflated rather than implying to managers, CEOs and the general public that they are accurate.
Recent literature of interest
Australia – 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.
Australia – Mary-Louise et al. Hand hygiene compliance rates: Fact or fiction? AJIC online 17th May 2018
Direct human audit rates for the medical ward were inflated by an average of 55 PPs in 2014 and 64 PPs in 2015, 2.8-3.1 times higher than automated surveillance rates. The rates for the surgical ward were inflated by an average of 32 PPs in 2014 and 31 PPs in 2015, 1.6 times higher than automated surveillance rates. Over the 6 mandatory reporting quarters, human audits collected an average of 255 opportunities, whereas automation collected 578 times more data, averaging 147,308 opportunities per quarter.
The magnitude of the Hawthorne effect on direct human auditing was not trivial and produced highly inflated compliance rates.
Mandatory compliance necessitates accuracy that only automated surveillance can achieve, whereas daily hand hygiene ambassadors or reminder technology could harness clinicians ability to hyperrespond to produce habitual compliance.
Systematic review – 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.
Editorial – 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.
Observational study – 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.
The use of liaison nurses to undertake direct observation of HH compliance audits is not a common practice across Australia and Im not aware of any information that using a liaison nurse is any more accurate that an infection control professional? Happy to be corrected.
Ill cross posting my response with the Australasian College of infection Prevention and Control (ACIPC) list server in order to keep infection control personnel in on the discussions.
Regards
Glenys
Glenys Harrington
Infection Control Consultancy (ICC)
P.O. Box 6385
Melbourne
Australia, 3004
M: +61 404816434
Hi Glenys
Im not sure Id agree that the current Australian HH audit system is broke and parliamentary records are not necessarily representative of what is really going on ! We should remember what little we had before HHA came into existence. In fact the load on infection control services has been minimised by training auditors who are link nurses etc. We now have such a brace of auditors that the main problem is keeping them credentialed. Our audits go across a large number of facilities each time and work pretty well like clockwork. Across Oz we have invested a lot of work in getting things to where they are and arguably there have been measurable gains in terms of SAB reduction etc. I think we should focus not on revolution but rather tinkering with the existing system.
A huge issue to me is that we medicos are still largely allowed to operate in a parallel universe, with no real accountability system ensuring that we (in NSW at least) have even completed 5 moments training or shock/horror been competency assessed for HH, PPE or aseptic technique. Aside from the College of Surgeons, it seems that the other colleges are dodging and weaving still and that is where ACIPC and ASID should be pushing +++. For instance our medical advanced trainees still have no explicit expectation put on them by the RACP concerning expectations of inf control practice during exams etc. We allow doctors to get about in all sorts of gear (suits, coats etc) or theatre scrubs and no-one wants to say boo. Why cant we adopt a bare below elbow standard nationally? Can we hear more about the Cognitive Institutes recent aust. pilot into Vanderbilt style accountability systems please? Royal Melb Hosp has been part of that pilot.
Other possible improvements:
a) At one of our sites, weve had the experience of a well credentialed external auditor conducting most of the HH audits for the past two audits. We have seen compliance there fall considerably indicating to me that all locations should adopt an approach to auditing whereby auditors are always drawn from a different ward or hospital (proper independent auditing).
b) We know also that the initial audit figures from a session are more indicative of actual practice and so, we should not allow for auditing at any site to go on for more than say 30 mins max.
c) We should ensure that audits occur more frequently than thrice yearly and across all shifts with at least monthly feedback of data to cadres and managers
d) Integrating HH auditing with AT audits
e) More careful operational research what is working , what is not, how valid are results, what effects are improvements in HH having, why are medicos not getting engaged with the system? etc
Best wishes
John
Dr John Ferguson MBBS DTM&H FRACP FRCPA
Director, Infection Prevention Service | HNE Local Health District
John Hunter Hospital, Locked Bag 1, Newcastle Mail Centre, NSW 2310, Australia
T: 61 2 49214444 | F: 61 2 49214440 | M: +61(0)428 885573 (Speed Dial 67607) | Tw @mdjkfError! Filename not specified.
Dear All,
There was a debate in the UK parliament, Westminster Hall on 15/5/2018 in relation to hand hygiene compliance.
The parliament was told that actual hand hygiene compliance is only 18% – 44% in the UK and that direct observation is grossly overestimating HH compliance rates (Hawthorn effect).
The discussion has implications for direct observation of hand hygiene compliance programs in Australian healthcare settings.
It is time to review our direct observation HH compliance strategies and the significant infection control resources committed to such programs across Australia.
Regards
Glenys
Glenys Harrington
Infection Control Consultancy (ICC)
P.O. Box 6385
Melbourne
Australia, 3004
M: +61 404816434
—
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Ozbug” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ozbug+unsubscribe@asid.net.au.
To post to this group, send email to ozbug@asid.net.au.Unless explicitly attributed, the opinions expressed in this email are those of the author only and do not represent the official view of Hunter New England Local Health District nor the New South Wales Government..
_____
—
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Ozbug” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ozbug+unsubscribe@asid.net.au.
To post to this group, send email to ozbug@asid.net.au.—
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Ozbug” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ozbug+unsubscribe@asid.net.au.
To post to this group, send email to ozbug@asid.net.au.This electronic message, together with any attachments is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient: 1.do not copy, disclose or use the contents in any way. 2.please let me know by return email immediately and then destroy the message. Waikato DHB is not responsible for any changes made to this message and/or any attachments after sending by Waikato DHB. Before opening or using attachments, check them for viruses and effects. Waikato DHB takes no responsibility for affected attachments. Click on link http://www.waikatodhb.health.nz/disclaimer to view the company policy website. If you are not redirected to the company policy website then copy and paste the URL into a new browser window.
This email has been filtered by SMX. For more information visit smxemail.com
—
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Ozbug” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ozbug+unsubscribe@asid.net.au.
To post to this group, send email to ozbug@asid.net.au._____
—
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Ozbug” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ozbug+unsubscribe@asid.net.au.
To post to this group, send email to ozbug@asid.net.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
Yes our hand hygiene audit juggernaut does consume a lot of precious resources in our organisation (largely delegated outside our IPC team fortunately), yet it seems every clinical area slides back without it. I dont have a solution to that.
Keeping the discussion flowing, we need to keep our eye on the bottom line and the outcome we need is reduced patient infections.
A more valid HH audit tool should logically enable better control of those HAI rates (of which ST239 MRSA and ESBL K. pneumo are recognised indicators). Even CDC defined HAI rates definitions are being gradually refined and again are KPIs designed to correlate to patient welfare. A further refinement for interpreting infection rates should be an estimate of the force of infection (eg community prevalence of MRSA and ESBL), which is being resisted by the HH and the other measures like environmental cleaning .
We need to recognise the multifactorial nature of cross infection epidemiology and not erect too high a bar for supporting single components of a program. There is a lot of noise in the system and we should not require 95% confidence interval evidence for each intervention on its own.
Chris
Dr Chris Mansell MB,ChB FRCPA | Clinical Microbiologist | Waikato Hospital | 021 833 783
From: Glenys Harrington [mailto:infexion@ozemail.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 22 June 2018 16:27
To: ‘Allen Cheng’; ‘Dale Fisher’
Cc: Chris Mansell; ‘John Ferguson’; ozbug@asid.net.au; ‘AICA Infexion Connexion’; Mary-Louise McLaws
Subject: RE: [ozbug] Hand hygiene debate in the UK Parliament – 15/5/2018Thanks Chris, Dale and Alan for your responses,
Chris – Not sure that you can attribute your reduction in outbreaks, MRSA and other resistant organisms to HH compliance? too many variables, particularly given all the program initiatives that have been implemented by Health & Quality and Safety Commission NZ over the same period of time.
Early on in the implementation of the HH program in Australia McLaws showed that MRSA was already reducing and was not necessarily dependant on a HH program:
* When the Geneva program was introduced into 75 Victorian hospitals, there was a 67% decline in MRSA infection rates, from 0.03/100 patient-days before the intervention to 0.01/100 patient-days 12 months after the intervention. Over the same period, the average hand hygiene compliance rate increased from 20% to 53%……………… A significant decline in MRSA infection rates across Victoria had occurred over a 2-year period prior to the intervention. Between 2005 and 2006, MRSA rates reported to the ACHS for non-ICU non-sterile sites fell by 55% in Victoria. A similar decline in MRSA infection rates was observed in Queensland (where no systematised hand hygiene campaign was underway), both in relation to non-ICU non-sterile sites (a 60% fall) and all sites combined (a 48% fall).
McLaws ML et al. More than hand hygiene is needed to affect methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus clinical indicator rates: Clean hands save lives, Part IVMed J Aust 2009; 191 (8 Suppl): S26
Dale using HH audits (which I understand in some Asian countries only records HH compliance in and out of a room not the 5 moments?) as a reminder or a tool to talk with management is not very cost effective use of limited IC resources, especially in Australia.
Agree with Alan they should not be reported as an outcome measure and until that changes they should be reported with a statement to caution the reader on their accuracy.
To keep the discussion flowing I would be interested in any additional comments including views from infection control personnel (Australia, NZ, other) about any or all of the following:
Are there issues with resources requirement to sustain their current direct observation HH compliance programs?
Are direct observation HH compliance audits impacting on other areas of their IC service/program?
Are facilities reporting direct observation HH compliance rates with a cautionary statement on their accuracy?
Has the accuracy of direct observation HH rates been discussed and report on at local infection control committees/other committees including briefings to Boards of Management?
Has the accuracy of direct observation HH compliance rates been brought to the attention state/local departments of health?
What do they think should be done in terms of HH auditing to reduce the IC workload and impact on IC service/program?
Regards
Glenys
Glenys Harrington
Infection Control Consultancy (ICC)
P.O. Box 6385
Melbourne
Australia, 3004
M: +61 404816434
E: infexion@ozemail.com.auFrom: Allen Cheng [mailto:allen.cheng@monash.edu]
Sent: Friday, 22 June 2018 1:17 PM
To: Dale Fisher
Cc: Chris Mansell; Glenys Harrington; John Ferguson; ozbug@asid.net.au; AICA Infexion Connexion
Subject: Re: [ozbug] Hand hygiene debate in the UK Parliment – 15/5/2018Wouldn’t this suggest that we should de-link process from outcome? That is, measure the activity of the HH program (eg wards visited etc) and use independent “secret shoppers” to assess compliance?
If be more suspicious of wards reporting very high compliance esp if done by ward (link) nurses.
A.
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, 13:05 Dale Fisher, <mdcfda@nus.edu.sg> wrote:
I think its easy (oh so easy) to find flaws in HH measures today. But do reflect on why HH auditing was invented and that is because there was a time when ABHR was not easily available and no one undertook hand hygiene. We know that moving from 10 to 30% is of enormous value compared to 30 to 50% or 70 to 90% .diminishing gains. There have been many other major gains in IPC processes such as environmental cleaning, devices and infrastructure design.Personally I feel HH audits have changed their role into more of a reminder or a tool to talk with management (and actually whether its up or down doesnt matter). Its about a conversation to direct HAI interventions and actually caring.
For the record; hospitals in Singapore sit around 65-85% HH compliance reported. Independent covert audits we have contracted knock these down about 20% (give or take).
We need to keep audits but understand their value and why we do them today ..with a view to life before them (not good)Dale Fisher
SingaporeFrom: Chris Mansell [mailto:Chris.Mansell@waikatodhb.health.nz]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 10:32 AM
To: ‘Glenys Harrington’ <infexion@ozemail.com.au>; ‘John Ferguson’ <John.Ferguson@hnehealth.nsw.gov.au>; ozbug@asid.net.au
Cc: AICA Infexion Connexion <AICALIST@AICALIST.ORG.AU>
Subject: RE: [ozbug] Hand hygiene debate in the UK Parliment – 15/5/2018Im not sure if Im rising to a good internet trolling here
Thank you Glenys for the references on recent audit validation very interesting.
These are the historical, somewhat shakey, studies used to support introduction of the NZ programme in 2012:
Johnson P, Martin R, Grayson M. L et al. Efficacy of an alcohol/chlorhexidine Hand Hygiene
programme in a hospital with high rates of nosocomial methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus (SA) infection. Medical Journal of Australia 2005; 183: 509-514Grayson ML, Jarvie LJ, Martin R, Jodoin ME, McMullan C, Gregory RHC, Bellis K, Cunnington
K, Wilson FL, Quin D, and Kelly A-M, on behalf of the Victorian Quality Council Hand Hygiene
Study Group and Victorian Quality Council Hand Hygiene Statewide Roll-out Group. Significant
reductions in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia and clinical isolates
associated with a multi-site, Hand Hygiene culture-change programme and subsequent
successful statewide rollout. Medical Journal of Australia 2008; 188:633-40Grayson ML, Russo PL, Cruickshank M, Bear JL et al. Outcomes from the first 2 years of the
Australian National Hand Hygiene Initiative. Medical Journal of Australia 2011195:615-9Do bear in mind that the 5 moments and the standardised auditing tools are intended as a process indicator which correlates with biological and ecological pressure, to reduce effective Reproductive Number. As such, they deserve respect for driving behavioural and operational improvements, no matter how rationally people question their direct validity and effectiveness for specific scenarios.
Anecdatally, it seems that the compliance rate recorded by our auditors, including Hawthorne effect, do correspond well to patient protection. In our hospital, small outbreaks have mostly occurred on wards with HH rates < 60%, while few have occurred elsewhere and we average around 80% overall which may not meet targets yet seems biologically fairly successful. The compliance target is very rigorous and good control of cross transmission can be achieved with rates under 90% . Our rates of detection for multiresistant MRSA (corresponding more or less to EMRSA-15 and AUS/ST239) have drifted down since 2012 while rates of Fluclox/Fusidic only non multi resistant MRSA (more or less community acquired ST5) have risen. See PLOS One Apr 2013 V8 (4) e62020 for earlier NZ epidemiology. Likewise, traditionally hospital associated ESBL K. pneumoniae rates are stable, while the more community associated ESBL E. coli rates have increased about 3 fold over 5 years. Waikato data: http://lab.waikatodhb.health.nz/assets/QCItems/MDRO-Trends-Waikato-Hospital-2013-to-2018-web-report.pdf
We are satisfied that Hand Hygiene 5 moments is beneficial and that current audit methods are well calibrated, providing actionable information.
However, further improvements would of course be appreciated.
Chris Mansell
Dr Chris Mansell MB,ChB FRCPA | Clinical Microbiologist | Waikato Hospital | 021 833 783
From: Glenys Harrington [mailto:infexion@ozemail.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 22 June 2018 14:24
To: 'John Ferguson'; ozbug@asid.net.au
Cc: AICA Infexion Connexion
Subject: RE: [ozbug] Hand hygiene debate in the UK Parliment – 15/5/2018Hi John,
Many thanks for responding.
To continue putting $$ (mostly infection control personnel resources) into direct HH observations in the setting of gross overestimations of compliance rates should be evidence enough to review current practices.
There is a significant amount of information out there that challenges the accuracy of direct observational auditing of HH compliance, some of which has been undertaken in your own state of NSW see below.
While strides have been made by HHA since its establishment it is time to review the following given the information that is currently before use:
a) why do we continue to collect and report flawed data
b) why are we not reducing some of the current direct observation (infection control personnel /liaison nurses) auditing requirements until more accurate methods are investigated and,
c) why we are not looking at alternatives methods ( is see suggestions below – electronic devices/methods in combination with smaller observational audits).
In light of the available evidence (below) we should also be openly transparent and at this point in time when reporting direct observation compliance rates in Australia include a statement that cautions the reader that current research indicates the rates are likely to be significantly artificially inflated rather than implying to managers, CEOs and the general public that they are accurate.
Recent literature of interest
Australia – 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.
Australia – Mary-Louise et al. Hand hygiene compliance rates: Fact or fiction? AJIC online 17th May 2018
Direct human audit rates for the medical ward were inflated by an average of 55 PPs in 2014 and 64 PPs in 2015, 2.8-3.1 times higher than automated surveillance rates. The rates for the surgical ward were inflated by an average of 32 PPs in 2014 and 31 PPs in 2015, 1.6 times higher than automated surveillance rates. Over the 6 mandatory reporting quarters, human audits collected an average of 255 opportunities, whereas automation collected 578 times more data, averaging 147,308 opportunities per quarter.
The magnitude of the Hawthorne effect on direct human auditing was not trivial and produced highly inflated compliance rates.
Mandatory compliance necessitates accuracy that only automated surveillance can achieve, whereas daily hand hygiene ambassadors or reminder technology could harness clinicians ability to hyperrespond to produce habitual compliance.
Systematic review – 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.
Editorial – 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.
Observational study – 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.
The use of liaison nurses to undertake direct observation of HH compliance audits is not a common practice across Australia and Im not aware of any information that using a liaison nurse is any more accurate that an infection control professional? Happy to be corrected.
Ill cross posting my response with the Australasian College of infection Prevention and Control (ACIPC) list server in order to keep infection control personnel in on the discussions.
Regards
Glenys
Glenys Harrington
Infection Control Consultancy (ICC)
P.O. Box 6385
Melbourne
Australia, 3004
M: +61 404816434
E: infexion@ozemail.com.auFrom: John Ferguson [mailto:John.Ferguson@hnehealth.nsw.gov.au]
Sent: Friday, 22 June 2018 9:45 AM
To: ozbug@asid.net.au
Subject: Re: [ozbug] Hand hygiene debate in the UK Parliment – 15/5/2018Hi Glenys
Im not sure Id agree that the current Australian HH audit system is broke and parliamentary records are not necessarily representative of what is really going on ! We should remember what little we had before HHA came into existence. In fact the load on infection control services has been minimised by training auditors who are link nurses etc. We now have such a brace of auditors that the main problem is keeping them credentialed. Our audits go across a large number of facilities each time and work pretty well like clockwork. Across Oz we have invested a lot of work in getting things to where they are and arguably there have been measurable gains in terms of SAB reduction etc. I think we should focus not on revolution but rather tinkering with the existing system.
A huge issue to me is that we medicos are still largely allowed to operate in a parallel universe, with no real accountability system ensuring that we (in NSW at least) have even completed 5 moments training or shock/horror been competency assessed for HH, PPE or aseptic technique. Aside from the College of Surgeons, it seems that the other colleges are dodging and weaving still and that is where ACIPC and ASID should be pushing +++. For instance our medical advanced trainees still have no explicit expectation put on them by the RACP concerning expectations of inf control practice during exams etc. We allow doctors to get about in all sorts of gear (suits, coats etc) or theatre scrubs and no-one wants to say boo. Why cant we adopt a bare below elbow standard nationally? Can we hear more about the Cognitive Institutes recent aust. pilot into Vanderbilt style accountability systems please? Royal Melb Hosp has been part of that pilot.
Other possible improvements:
a) At one of our sites, weve had the experience of a well credentialed external auditor conducting most of the HH audits for the past two audits. We have seen compliance there fall considerably indicating to me that all locations should adopt an approach to auditing whereby auditors are always drawn from a different ward or hospital (proper independent auditing).
b) We know also that the initial audit figures from a session are more indicative of actual practice and so, we should not allow for auditing at any site to go on for more than say 30 mins max.
c) We should ensure that audits occur more frequently than thrice yearly and across all shifts with at least monthly feedback of data to cadres and managers
d) Integrating HH auditing with AT audits
e) More careful operational research what is working , what is not, how valid are results, what effects are improvements in HH having, why are medicos not getting engaged with the system? etc
Best wishes
JohnDr John Ferguson MBBS DTM&H FRACP FRCPA
Director, Infection Prevention Service | HNE Local Health District
John Hunter Hospital, Locked Bag 1, Newcastle Mail Centre, NSW 2310, Australia
T: 61 2 49214444 | F: 61 2 49214440 | M: +61(0)428 885573 (Speed Dial 67607) | Tw @mdjkf
Error! Filename not specified.
From: Glenys Harrington <infexion@ozemail.com.au>
Sent: Wednesday, 20 June 2018 9:28 AM
To: ozbug@asid.net.au
Subject: [ozbug] Hand hygiene debate in the UK Parliment – 15/5/2018Dear All,
There was a debate in the UK parliament, Westminster Hall on 15/5/2018 in relation to hand hygiene compliance.
The parliament was told that actual hand hygiene compliance is only 18% – 44% in the UK and that direct observation is grossly overestimating HH compliance rates (Hawthorn effect).
The discussion has implications for direct observation of hand hygiene compliance programs in Australian healthcare settings.
It is time to review our direct observation HH compliance strategies and the significant infection control resources committed to such programs across Australia.
Regards
Glenys
Glenys Harrington
Infection Control Consultancy (ICC)
P.O. Box 6385
Melbourne
Australia, 3004
M: +61 404816434
E: infexion@ozemail.com.au
[Description: ICC Diagram ICCversion]—
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Ozbug” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ozbug+unsubscribe@asid.net.au.
To post to this group, send email to ozbug@asid.net.au.
Unless explicitly attributed, the opinions expressed in this email are those of the author only and do not represent the official view of Hunter New England Local Health District nor the New South Wales Government..
________________________________
—
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Ozbug” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ozbug+unsubscribe@asid.net.au.
To post to this group, send email to ozbug@asid.net.au.
—
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Ozbug” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ozbug+unsubscribe@asid.net.au.
To post to this group, send email to ozbug@asid.net.au.
This electronic message, together with any attachments is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient: 1.do not copy, disclose or use the contents in any way. 2.please let me know by return email immediately and then destroy the message. Waikato DHB is not responsible for any changes made to this message and/or any attachments after sending by Waikato DHB. Before opening or using attachments, check them for viruses and effects. Waikato DHB takes no responsibility for affected attachments. Click on link http://www.waikatodhb.health.nz/disclaimer to view the company policy website. If you are not redirected to the company policy website then copy and paste the URL into a new browser window.
This email has been filtered by SMX. For more information visit smxemail.com
—
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Ozbug” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ozbug+unsubscribe@asid.net.au.
To post to this group, send email to ozbug@asid.net.au.________________________________
Important: This email is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify us immediately; you should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you.
—
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Ozbug” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ozbug+unsubscribe@asid.net.au.
To post to this group, send email to ozbug@asid.net.au.
This electronic message, together with any attachments is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient: 1.do not copy, disclose or use the contents in any way. 2.please let me know by return email immediately and then destroy the message. Waikato DHB is not responsible for any changes made to this message and/or any attachments after sending by Waikato DHB. Before opening or using attachments, check them for viruses and effects. Waikato DHB takes no responsibility for affected attachments. Click on link http://www.waikatodhb.health.nz/disclaimer to view the company policy website. If you are not redirected to the company policy website then copy and paste the URL into a new browser window.______________________________________________________________________________
This email has been filtered by SMX.
For more information visit http://smxemail.com
______________________________________________________________________________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’ (wi
- The forum ‘Infexion Connexion’ is closed to new topics and replies.