Behavior-based interventions to improve hand hygiene adherence among intensive care unit healthcare workers in Thailand

Please mind the gap between guidelines & behavior change: A systematic review and a consideration on effectiveness in healthcare

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE

This systematic review evaluates the impact of guidelines on healthcare professionals' behavior and explores the resulting outcomes.

METHODS

Using PRISMA methodology, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched, yielding 624 results. After applying inclusion criteria, 67 articles were selected for in-depth analysis.

RESULTS

The studies focused on key clusters: Target behaviors, Effectiveness, Research designs, Behavioral frameworks, and Publication outlets. Prescription behavior was the most studied (58.2 %), followed by other health-related behaviors (31.3 %) and hygiene practices (10.4 %). Significant behavior changes were reported in 46.3 % of studies, with 17.9 % showing negative effects, and 22.4 % reporting mixed results. Quantitative methods dominated (56.8 %), while qualitative methods (19.4 %) and review designs (13.4 %) were less common. Theoretical Domain Framework (TDF) and Behavior Change Wheel (BCW) were frequently used frameworks, with the UK and the USA contributing most studies. Medical doctors (44.8 %) were the primary participants, followed by general healthcare providers (37.3 %).

CONCLUSIONS

The study highlights the varied effectiveness of guidelines, with prescription behavior being the most investigated. Guidelines influenced behavior positively in less than half of the cases, and doctors were the primary focus, rather than nurses. The complexity of interventions suggests a need for further research to develop more effective behavioral interventions and to standardize methodological approaches to reduce clinical variation in healthcare.

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.

Hand-hygiene-related clinical trials reported between 2014 and 2020: a comprehensive systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is general consensus that hand hygiene is the most effective way to prevent healthcare-associated infections. However, low rates of compliance amongst healthcare workers have been reported globally. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has further emphasized the need for global improvement in hand hygiene compliance by healthcare workers.

AIM

This comprehensive systematic review provides an up-to-date compilation of clinical trials, reported between 2014 and 2020, assessing hand hygiene interventions in order to inform healthcare leaders and practitioners regarding approaches to reduce healthcare-associated infections using hand hygiene.

METHODS

CINAHL, Cochrane, EMbase, Medline, PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for clinical trials published between March 2014 and December 2020 on the topic of hand hygiene compliance among healthcare workers. In total, 332 papers were identified from these searches, of which 57 studies met the inclusion criteria.

FINDINGS

Forty-five of the 57 studies (79%) included in this review were conducted in Asia, Europe and the USA. The large majority of these clinical trials were conducted in acute care facilities, including hospital wards and intensive care facilities. Nurses represented the largest group of healthcare workers studied (44 studies, 77%), followed by physicians (41 studies, 72%). Thirty-six studies (63%) adopted the World Health Organization's multi-modal framework or a variation of this framework, and many of them recorded hand hygiene opportunities at each of the 'Five Moments'. However, recording of hand hygiene technique was not common.

CONCLUSION

Both single intervention and multi-modal hand hygiene strategies can achieve modest-to-moderate improvements in hand hygiene compliance among healthcare workers.

Rationale, Methodological Quality, and Reporting of Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trials in Critical Care Medicine: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Compared with individual-patient randomized controlled trials, cluster randomized controlled trials have unique methodological and ethical considerations. We evaluated the rationale, methodological quality, and reporting of cluster randomized controlled trials in critical care studies.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic searches of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register were performed.

STUDY SELECTION

We included all cluster randomized controlled trials conducted in adult, pediatric, or neonatal critical care units from January 2005 to September 2019.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently screened citations, reviewed full texts, protocols, and supplements of potentially eligible studies, abstracted data, and assessed methodology of included studies.

DATA SYNTHESIS

From 1,902 citations, 59 cluster randomized controlled trials met criteria. Most focused on quality improvement (24, 41%), antimicrobial therapy (9, 15%), or infection control (9, 15%) interventions. Designs included parallel-group (25, 42%), crossover (21, 36%), and stepped-wedge (13, 22%). Concealment of allocation was reported in 21 studies (36%). Thirteen studies (22%) reported at least one method of blinding. The median total sample size was 1,660 patients (interquartile range, 813-4,295); the median number of clusters was 12 (interquartile range, 5-24); and the median patients per cluster was 141 (interquartile range, 54-452). Sample size calculations were reported in 90% of trials, but only 54% met Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidance for sample size reporting. Twenty-seven of the studies (46%) identified a fixed number of available clusters prior to trial commencement, and only nine (15%) prespecified both the number of clusters and patients required to detect the expected effect size. Overall, 36 trials (68%) achieved the total prespecified sample size. When analyzing data, 44 studies (75%) appropriately adjusted for clustering when analyzing the primary outcome. Only 12 (20%) reported an intracluster coefficient (median 0.047 [interquartile range, 0.01-0.13]).

CONCLUSIONS

Cluster randomized controlled trials in critical care typically involve a small and fixed number of relatively large clusters. The reporting of key methodological aspects of these trials is often inadequate.

Interventions to Improve Hand Hygiene Compliance in the ICU: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

To synthesize the literature describing interventions to improve hand hygiene in ICUs, to evaluate the quality of the extant research, and to outline the type, and efficacy, of interventions described.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic searches were conducted in November 2016 using five electronic databases: Medline, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Embase, and Web of Science. Additionally, the reference lists of included studies and existing review papers were screened.

STUDY SELECTION

English language, peer-reviewed studies that evaluated an intervention to improve hand hygiene in an adult ICU setting, and reported hand hygiene compliance rates collected via observation, were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were extracted on the setting, participant characteristics, experimental design, hand hygiene measurement, intervention characteristics, and outcomes. Interventional components were categorized using the Behavior Change Wheel. Methodological quality was examined using the Downs and Black Checklist.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Thirty-eight studies were included. The methodological quality of studies was poor, with studies scoring a mean of 8.6 of 24 (SD= 2.7). Over 90% of studies implemented a bundled intervention. The most frequently employed interventional strategies were education (78.9%), enablement (71.1%), training (68.4%), environmental restructuring (65.8%), and persuasion (65.8%). Intervention outcomes were variable, with a mean relative percentage change of 94.7% (SD= 195.7; range, 4.3-1155.4%) from pre to post intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates that best practice for improving hand hygiene in ICUs remains unestablished. Future research employing rigorous experimental designs, careful statistical analysis, and clearly described interventions is important.

A multimodal intervention to improve hand hygiene in ICUs in Buenos Aires, Argentina: a stepped wedge trial

ISSUE

Hand hygiene is a cost-effective measure to reduce microbial transmission (Teare EL, Cookson B, French GL, et al. UK handwashing initiative. J Hosp Infect. 1999;43:1-3.) and is considered to be the most important measure to prevent healthcare-associated infections (Pittet D, Allegranzi B, Sax H, Evidence-based model for hand transmission during patient care and the role of improved practices. Lancet Infect Dis 2006;6:641-52). Unfortunately, the compliance rate of healthcare workers (HCWs) with recommended hand hygiene procedures is less than expected.

INITIAL ASSESSMENT

In order to estimate the effect of a multimodal intervention on improving healthcare workers' compliance with hand hygiene in eleven intensive care units (ICUs) from 11 hospitals of Buenos Aires, a randomized cluster-stepped wedge trial was designed.

CHOICE OF SOLUTION AND IMPLEMENTATION

A multimodal intervention was designed based on practices characterized by being evidence-based, low cost and suggested by qualitative research: (i) leadership commitment, (ii) surveillance of materials needed to comply with hand hygiene and alcohol consumption, (iii) utilization of reminders, (iv) a storyboard of the project and (v) feedback (hand hygiene compliance rate).

EVALUATION

The study enrolled 705 participants, comprising nurses (66.4%), physicians (25.8%) and other HCW (7.8%) along 9 months of observation. Compliance with hand hygiene in the control group was 66.0% (2354/3565) vs. 75.6% (5190/6864) in the intervention group. Univariate analysis showed an association between the intervention and hand hygiene compliance (odds ratio, OR 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.13-1.22). The effect was still present after adjustment by calendar's time and providers' characteristics-age, gender and profession (OR 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.14).

LESSONS LEARNED

His study supports that a multimodal intervention was effective to improve compliance with hand hygiene in ICUs.