Utilizing Group-Based Contingencies to Increase Hand Washing in a Large Human Service Setting

Hand washing is the most important preventative measure for the reduction of contagious disease. Although hand washing is easy to perform, non-adherence is a ubiquitous problem. Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of multi-component intervention packages to improve hand washing among employees; however, interventions are limited to acute settings, are often implemented for a short period of time, and rarely, if ever, include information on long-term effectiveness. The purpose of the current study was to utilize a behavior analytic approach to determine the stimulus conditions under which hand washing should occur, and to assess and then implement a long-term monitoring system among direct care workers in a large, non-acute inpatient unit. A single-case repeated measures reversal design was used to evaluate the effectiveness of two interventions aimed at improving hand washing adherence. A lottery was found to be effective in increasing hand hygiene for 2-years with 170 staff.

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.

Universal precautions

The purpose of this literature review is to consider key themes from empirical research relating to the knowledge and compliance of universal precautions amongst healthcare practitioners. Utilising international studies, strategies to improve universal precautions are analysed. The review identifies areas of limited knowledge, synthesises existing research and suggests aspects of universal precautions that need to be studied further.

A literature search of studies listed in the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) database was conducted from 1990–2003, using a number of key words. Review, analysis and synthesis of selected studies were performed.

The findings of this review showed that universal precautions are considered an effective means of protecting patients and staff and controlling infection. The consensus from this body of evidence is that, globally, knowledge of universal precautions is inadequate and compliance low. Studies from many countries have shown that specific intervention strategies, such as education, are influential in improving knowledge and compliance.

This review concludes that it is imperative that future research examines how the attitudes and beliefs of practitioners can be influenced and changed to reenforce adherence to universal precautions within the clinical practice setting. There remains a lack of evidence on the long-term benefits of practice interventions to improve compliance, and what specific barriers are influential in affecting how healthcare practitioners adopt universal precautions more effectively in their practice.

Systematic review of the effectiveness of strategies to encourage patients to remind healthcare professionals about their hand hygiene

BACKGROUND

Patients could help to improve the hand hygiene (HH) compliance of healthcare professionals (HCPs) by reminding them to sanitize their hands.

AIM

To review the effectiveness of strategies aimed at increasing patient involvement in reminding HCPs about their HH.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted across Medline, EMBASE and PsycINFO between 1980 and 2013.

FINDINGS

Twenty-eight out of a possible 1956 articles were included. Of these, 23 articles evaluated the effectiveness of developed patient-focused strategies and five articles examined patients' attitudes towards hypothetical strategies. Sixteen articles evaluated single-component strategies (e.g. videos) and 12 articles evaluated multi-modal approaches (e.g. combination of video and leaflet). Overall, the strategies showed promise in helping to increase patients' intentions and/or involvement in reminding HCPs about their HH. HCP encouragement appeared to be the most effective strategy. However, the methodological quality of the articles in relation to addressing the specific aims of this review was generally weak.

CONCLUSION

A number of strategies are available to encourage patients to question HCPs about their HH. Better controlled studies with more robust outcome measures will enhance understanding about which strategies may be most successful and why.

Types of interventions used to improve hand hygiene compliance and prevent healthcare associated infection

Hand hygiene is regarded as the most effective means of preventing healthcare associated infection. However, systematic reviews provide limited evidence of effectiveness, a finding that is attributed to the poor quality of research designs, dubious outcome measures and flawed approaches to audit. The ability of interventions to improve hand hygiene compliance has not previously been questioned. This review categorises the types of interventions used to promote hand hygiene and discusses their plausibility, taking selected examples from previous systematic searches. Opinion leaders have emphasised the need for interventions to be underpinned by theory. This is an ambitious endeavour for infection control personnel based in National Health Service trusts. However, it is possible to offer pragmatic suggestions to promote compliance. Initiatives are most likely to be successful if needs analysis is undertaken at the outset to address local barriers and identify enablers to compliance, and if interventions are clearly justified by existing evidence, customised according to occupational group, consider health workers’ needs and preferences for training and updating, and avoid punishment.

A systematic review of hand hygiene improvement strategies: a behavioural approach

BACKGROUND

Many strategies have been designed and evaluated to address the problem of low hand hygiene (HH) compliance. Which of these strategies are most effective and how they work is still unclear. Here we describe frequently used improvement strategies and related determinants of behaviour change that prompt good HH behaviour to provide a better overview of the choice and content of such strategies.

METHODS

Systematic searches of experimental and quasi-experimental research on HH improvement strategies were conducted in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases from January 2000 to November 2009. First, we extracted the study characteristics using the EPOC Data Collection Checklist, including study objectives, setting, study design, target population, outcome measures, description of the intervention, analysis, and results. Second, we used the Taxonomy of Behavioural Change Techniques to identify targeted determinants.

RESULTS

We reviewed 41 studies. The most frequently addressed determinants were knowledge, awareness, action control, and facilitation of behaviour. Fewer studies addressed social influence, attitude, self-efficacy, and intention. Thirteen studies used a controlled design to measure the effects of HH improvement strategies on HH behaviour. The effectiveness of the strategies varied substantially, but most controlled studies showed positive results. The median effect size of these strategies increased from 17.6 (relative difference) addressing one determinant to 49.5 for the studies that addressed five determinants.

CONCLUSIONS

By focussing on determinants of behaviour change, we found hidden and valuable components in HH improvement strategies. Addressing only determinants such as knowledge, awareness, action control, and facilitation is not enough to change HH behaviour. Addressing combinations of different determinants showed better results. This indicates that we should be more creative in the application of alternative improvement activities addressing determinants such as social influence, attitude, self-efficacy, or intention.

Guidelines for intensive care unit design

OBJECTIVE

To develop a guideline to help guide healthcare professionals participate effectively in the design, construction, and occupancy of a new or renovated intensive care unit.

PARTICIPANTS

A group of multidisciplinary professionals, designers, and architects with expertise in critical care, under the direction of the American College of Critical Care Medicine, met over several years, reviewed the available literature, and collated their expert opinions on recommendations for the optimal design of an intensive care unit.

SCOPE

The design of a new or renovated intensive care unit is frequently a once- or twice-in-a-lifetime occurrence for most critical care professionals. Healthcare architects have experience in this process that most healthcare professionals do not. While there are regulatory documents, such as the Guidelines for the Design and Construction of Health Care Facilities, these represent minimal guidelines. The intent was to develop recommendations for a more optimal approach for a healing environment.

DATA SOURCES AND SYNTHESIS

Relevant literature was accessed and reviewed, and expert opinion was sought from the committee members and outside experts. Evidence-based architecture is just in its beginning, which made the grading of literature difficult, and so it was not attempted. The previous designs of the winners of the American Institute of Architects, American Association of Critical Care Nurses, and Society of Critical Care Medicine Intensive Care Unit Design Award were used as a reference. Collaboratively and meeting repeatedly, both in person and by teleconference, the task force met to construct these recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations for the design of intensive care units, expanding on regulatory guidelines and providing the best possible healing environment, and an efficient and cost-effective workplace.

What does ESBL mean, and why does my patient require contact isolation?

The purpose of this article is to educate the reader on extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing bacteria and why contact isolation practices are necessary within a health care facility to prevent the spread of these bacteria, which can potentially cause life-threatening infections. Recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are discussed, including isolation practices utilized at a multihospital health care system.

Outbreaks where food workers have been implicated in the spread of foodborne disease. Part 10. Alcohol-based antiseptics for hand disinfection and a comparison of their effectiveness with soaps

Alcohol compounds are increasingly used as a substitute for hand washing in health care environments and some public places because these compounds are easy to use and do not require water or hand drying materials. However, the effectiveness of these compounds depends on how much soil (bioburden) is present on the hands. Workers in health care environments and other public places must wash their hands before using antiseptics and/or wearing gloves. However, alcohol-based antiseptics, also called rubs and sanitizers, can be very effective for rapidly destroying some pathogens by the action of the aqueous alcohol solution without the need for water or drying with towels. Alcohol-based compounds seem to be the most effective treatment against gram-negative bacteria on lightly soiled hands, but antimicrobial soaps are as good or better when hands are more heavily contaminated. Instant sanitizers have no residual effect, unlike some antimicrobial soaps that retain antimicrobial activity after the hygienic action has been completed, e.g., after hand washing. Many alcohol-based hand rubs have antimicrobial agents added to them, but each formulation must be evaluated against the target pathogens in the environment of concern before being considered for use. Wipes also are widely used for quick cleanups of hands, other body parts, and surfaces. These wipes often contain alcohol and/or antimicrobial compounds and are used for personal hygiene where water is limited. However, antiseptics and wipes are not panaceas for every situation and are less effective in the presence of more than a light soil load and against most enteric viruses.

A Multidimensional Framework for Assessing Patient Room Configurations

Purpose:

A framework for multidimensional assessment of patient room configurations is presented. Twenty-three issues are considered and categorized under six domains of assessment: (1) patient safety, (2) staff efficiency, (3) circulation, (4) infection control, (5) patient considerations, and (6) family amenities. Use of the framework to rank issues by importance and assess six alternative patient room configurations by a diverse group of experts in a symposium is described.

Background:

One of the key questions posed during inpatient room design is the location of the bathroom. What issues are affected by the variations in room configuration that arise from bathroom location? A complete articulation of the issues that potentially are affected by room configuration is not available in the literature.

Framework:

The list of issues was developed by the authors in preparation for a symposium. The symposium was organized in May 2007 and attended by 14 experts from four institutions. Six alternative room configurations were used. Variations in the configurations included: (1) three same-handed and three mirror-image rooms; (2) three outboard, two inboard, and one nested bathroom; and (3) three rooms with footwall bathrooms and three with headwall bathrooms. In a four-step process, the attendees ranked the issues, discussed them in detail, rated each room configuration against each issue on a seven-point suitability scale, and conducted an overall assessment of the six configurations.

Conclusions:

Based on the ratings and rankings provided by the symposium participants, outboard bathroom locations were found to be most suitable, followed by nested and inboard configurations. Furthermore, configurations with patient bathrooms located on the footwall were rated as more suitable than headwall locations. The authors recommend, however, that the framework be used to determine a suitable room configuration in a specific context, rather than to identify configurations that will perform well universally.

A Review of the Research Literature on Evidence-Based Healthcare Design

Objective:

This report surveys and evaluates the scientific research on evidence-based healthcare design and extracts its implications for designing better and safer hospitals.

Background:

It builds on a literature review conducted by researchers in 2004.

Methods:

Research teams conducted a new and more exhaustive search for rigorous empirical studies that link the design of hospital physical environments with healthcare outcomes. The review followed a two-step process, including an extensive search for existing literature and a screening of each identified study for the relevance and quality of evidence.

Results:

This review found a growing body of rigorous studies to guide healthcare design, especially with respect to reducing the frequency of hospital-acquired infections. Results are organized according to three general types of outcomes: patient safety, other patient outcomes, and staff outcomes. The findings further support the importance of improving outcomes for a range of design characteristics or interventions, including single-bed rooms rather than multibed rooms, effective ventilation systems, a good acoustic environment, nature distractions and daylight, appropriate lighting, better ergonomic design, acuity-adaptable rooms, and improved floor layouts and work settings. Directions for future research are also identified.

Conclusions:

The state of knowledge of evidence-based healthcare design has grown rapidly in recent years. The evidence indicates that well-designed physical settings play an important role in making hospitals safer and more healing for patients, and better places for staff to work.

Effectiveness of handwashing in preventing SARS: a review

This review examines the literature, including literature in Chinese, on the effectiveness of handwashing as an intervention against severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) transmission. Nine of 10 epidemiological studies reviewed showed that handwashing was protective against SARS when comparing infected cases and non‐infected controls in univariate analysis, but only in three studies was this result statistically significant in multivariate analysis. There is reason to believe that this is because most of the studies were too small. The evidence for the effectiveness of handwashing as a measure against SARS transmission in health care and community settings is suggestive, but not conclusive.

Compliance with hand hygiene and glove use in a university-affiliated hospital

OBJECTIVE

The hands of healthcare workers often transmit pathogens causing nosocomial infections. This study examined compliance with handwashing and glove use.

SETTING

A university-affiliated hospital.

DESIGN

Compliance was observed covertly. Healthcare workers' demographics, hand hygiene facilities, indications for hand hygiene, compliance with handwashing and glove use in each procedure, and duration of handwashing were recorded.

RESULTS

Nine nurses and 33 assistant physicians were monitored during the study. One researcher recorded 1400 potential opportunities for handwashing during 15-minute observation periods. The mean duration of handwashing was 10 +/- 2 seconds. Most healthcare workers (99.3%) used liquid soap during handwashing, but 79.8% did not dry their hands. For all indications, compliance with handwashing was 31.9% and compliance with glove use was 58.8%. Compliance with handwashing varied inversely with both the number of indications for hand hygiene and the number of patient beds in the hospital room. Compliance with handwashing was better in dirty high-risk situations.

CONCLUSION

Compliance with handwashing was low, suggesting the need for new motivational strategies such as supplying feedback regarding compliance rates

Assessing Nurses’ Hand Hygiene Practices by Direct Observation or Self-Report

Methods of obtaining data on hand hygiene practices have not been well validated. The purpose of this study was to compare two methods of assessment of hand hygiene practices—direct observation and self-report using diaries. For 22 months, nursing staff (n= 119) from two neonatal ICUs recorded their hand hygiene practices on a diary card one shift/month (n= 1,071 diary cards). The same data were collected in monthly 1-hour direct observation sessions (n= 206 hours). Amount of time in gloves and total hand hygiene episodes/hour did not differ significantly by diary or observation, but four other specific parameters were significantly different. If hand hygiene practices are to be assessed over time, the same method must be used. Given these measurement limitations, more valid, practical, and less costly methods are needed.

The Asthma Belief Survey: Development and Testing

Accurate evaluation of asthma self-efficacy is essential to the effective management of asthma. This article describes the development and testing of the Asthma Belief Survey (ABS). The instrument is a 15-item tool that uses a 5-point self-report scale to measure asthma self-efficacy in relation to daily asthma maintenance and an asthma crisis. This instrument was tested with a sample of 79 African American school children, who attended eight inner-city elementary schools. The mean age of the sample was 11.05 years with a range of 8 to 14 years. The majority of students had been diagnosed with asthma prior to the age of 5 years. The Asthma Belief Survey demonstrated good psychometric properties: good Cronbach’s α reliability coefficient (.83), coherence as a single scale measuring children’s self-efficacy in treating their own asthma, and significant relationships with scales of asthma knowledge (r= .51,p< .000) and asthma self-care practices (r= .52,p< .001). The Asthma Belief Survey has sound reliability and validity evidence to support its use to measure a child’s asthma self-management self-efficacy. The practitioner can use this instrument to assess a child’s self-efficacy in the areas of asthma health maintenance and avoidance of asthma episodes.

Use of an alcohol-based hand rub and quality improvement interventions to improve hand hygiene in a Russian neonatal intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Hand hygiene (HH) is critical to infection control, but compliance is low. Alcohol-based antiseptics may improve HH. HH practices in Russia are not well described, and facilities are often inadequate.

SETTING

Four 6-bed units in a neonatal intensive care unit in St. Petersburg, Russia.

METHODS

Prospective surveillance of HH compliance, nosocomial colonization, and antibiotic administration was performed from January until June 2000. In February 2000, alcohol-based hand rub was provided for routine HH use. Eight weeks later, a quality improvement intervention was implemented, consisting of review of interim data, identification of opinion leaders, posting of colonization incidence rates, and regular feedback. Means of compliance, colonization, and antibiotic use were compared for periods before and after each intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 1,027 events requiring HH were observed. Compliance was 44.2% before the first intervention, 42.3% between interventions, and 48% after the second intervention. Use of alcohol rose from 15.2% of HH indications to 25.2% between interventions and 41.5% after the second intervention. The incidence of nosocomial colonization (per 1,000 patient-days) with Klebsiella pneumoniae was initially 21.5, decreased to 4.7, and then was 3.2 in the final period. Rates of antibiotic and device use also decreased.

CONCLUSIONS

HH may have increased slightly, but the largest effect was a switch from soap and water to alcohol which may have been associated with decreased cross-transmission of Klebsiella, although this may have been confounded by lower device use. Alcohol-based antiseptic may be an improvement over current practices, but further research is required.

Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings. Recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HIPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force

The Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings provides health-care workers (HCWs) with a review of data regarding handwashing and hand antisepsis in health-care settings. In addition, it provides specific recommendations to promote improved hand-hygiene practices and reduce transmission of pathogenic microorganisms to patients and personnel in health-care settings. This report reviews studies published since the 1985 CDC guideline (Garner JS, Favero MS. CDC guideline for handwashing and hospital environmental control, 1985. Infect Control 1986;7:231-43) and the 1995 APIC guideline (Larson EL, APIC Guidelines Committee. APIC guideline for handwashing and hand antisepsis in health care settings. Am J Infect Control 1995;23:251-69) were issued and provides an in-depth review of hand-hygiene practices of HCWs, levels of adherence of personnel to recommended handwashing practices, and factors adversely affecting adherence. New studies of the in vivo efficacy of alcohol-based hand rubs and the low incidence of dermatitis associated with their use are reviewed. Recent studies demonstrating the value of multidisciplinary hand-hygiene promotion programs and the potential role of alcohol-based hand rubs in improving hand-hygiene practices are summarized. Recommendations concerning related issues (e.g., the use of surgical hand antiseptics, hand lotions or creams, and wearing of artificial fingernails) are also included.

Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings: recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force

The Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings provides health-care workers (HCWs) with a review of data regarding handwashing and hand antisepsis in health-care settings. In addition, it provides specific recommendations to promote improved hand-hygiene practices and reduce transmission of pathogenic microorganisms to patients and personnel in health-care settings. This report reviews studies published since the 1985 CDC guideline (Garner JS, Favero MS. CDC guideline for handwashing and hospital environmental control, 1985. Infect Control 1986;7:231-43) and the 1995 APIC guideline (Larson EL, APIC Guidelines Committee. APIC guideline for handwashing and hand antisepsis in health care settings. Am J Infect Control 1995;23:251-69) were issued and provides an in-depth review of hand-hygiene practices of HCWs, levels of adherence of personnel to recommended handwashing practices, and factors adversely affecting adherence. New studies of the in vivo efficacy of alcohol-based hand rubs and the low incidence of dermatitis associated with their use are reviewed. Recent studies demonstrating the value of multidisciplinary hand-hygiene promotion programs and the potential role of alcohol-based hand rubs in improving hand-hygiene practices are summarized. Recommendations concerning related issues (e.g., the use of surgical hand antiseptics, hand lotions or creams, and wearing of artificial fingernails) are also included.

The effectiveness of interventions aimed at increasing handwashing in healthcare workers - a systematic review

Handwashing is widely accepted as being key to the prevention of hospital-acquired infection but the frequency of handwashing by healthcare workers has been found to be low. A systematic critical literature review was conducted to establish the effectiveness of interventions aimed at increasing compliance with handwashing in healthcare workers. The results showed that one-off educational interventions have a very short-term influence on handwashing behaviour. Use of strategically placed reminders, or asking patients to remind staff of the need to conduct handwashing can have a modest but more sustained effect. Feedback of performance can increase levels of handwashing but if feedback is not repeated regularly, then this effect is not maintained over long periods. Automated sinks increase the quality of handwashing but healthcare workers can be discouraged from using these because of the additional time involved. Provision of moisturized soaps appears to make little difference to handwashing behaviour but providing 'dry' hand rubs near patient beds may lead to a minimal increase in the frequency with which staff decontaminate their hands. Multifaceted approaches which combine education with written material, reminders and continued feedback of performance can have an important effect on handwashing compliance and rates of hospital-acquired infection.

Hand Hygiene Revisited: Lessons from the Past and Present

Hand hygiene is the most effective measure to prevent cross-transmission of microorganisms. Adequate hand hygiene can be achieved by standard handwashing--with water alone or with soap--or by the use of an alcohol-based hand-rub solution. Despite considerable efforts, compliance with this simple infection-control measure remains low. Factors predicting non-compliance have been extensively studied, and include physician status, procedures associated with a high risk of cross-transmission, and an important workload. Future interventions to improve compliance should consider complex behavioral theories and the use of multimodal and multidisciplinary strategies. We believe that one of the key components of these interventions should be the wide use of alcohol-based hand-rub, which is microbiologically effective and less time-consuming than standard handwashing.

Hand hygiene-beliefs or science?

Over a century has passed since Ignaz P. Semmelweis demonstrated the association between hand hygiene and nosocomial infections, but this simple procedure is still not recognized by many healthcare workers as one of the most important measures to prevent cross-transmission of microorganisms. A relatively large amount of research has been done, in particular to try to understand why compliance remains so low, in order to implement successful promotion campaigns. This research has generated a fair amount of strong scientific data which are sometimes misunderstood and misused because of myths or certain beliefs. Observational or intervention studies have consistently shown a number of risk factors associated with non-compliance, such as high workload, professional category, or type of ward. Others are thought to be barriers to adequate compliance but have not yet been properly assessed. These include skin irritation due to hand hygiene agents, lack of knowledge of hand hygiene recommendations, or lack of institutional policy. Future interventions to promote hand hygiene will need to address these risk factors, and target the individual healthcare worker, as well as the group or institution if a significant degree of success is to be achieved.

Replace hand washing with use of a waterless alcohol hand rub?

Hand hygiene is one of the basic components of any infection control program and is frequently considered synonymous with hand washing. However, health care workers frequently do not wash their hands, and compliance rarely exceeds 40%. Hand rubbing with a waterless, alcohol-based rub-in cleanser is commonly used in many European countries instead of hand washing. Scientific evidence and ease of use support employment of a hand rub for routine hand hygiene. It is microbiologically more effective in vitro and in vivo, it saves time, and preliminary data demonstrate better compliance than with hand washing. Therefore, a task force comprising experts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and from professional societies is designing guidelines for the use of a hand rub in the United States. Today, most countries of Northern Europe recommend a hand rub for hand hygiene unless the hands are visibly soiled. Side effects are rare and are mainly related to dryness of the skin. This review evaluates the scientific and clinical evidence that support the use of alcohol-based hand rubs in health care facilities as a new option for hand hygiene.

Improving compliance with hand hygiene in hospitals

Hand hygiene prevents cross-infection in hospitals, but compliance with recommended instructions often is poor among healthcare workers. Although some previous interventions to improve compliance have been successful, none has achieved lasting improvement. This article reviews reported barriers to appropriate hand hygiene and factors associated with poor compliance. Easy access to hand hygiene in a timely fashion and the availability of skin-care lotion both appear to be necessary prerequisites for appropriate hand-hygiene behavior. In particular, in high-demand situations, hand rub with an alcohol-based solution appears to be the only alternative that allows a decent compliance. The hand-hygiene compliance level does not rely on individual factors alone, and the same can be said for its promotion. Because of the complexity of the process of change, it is not surprising that solo interventions often fail, and multimodal, multidisciplinary strategies are necessary. A framework that includes parameters to be considered for hand-hygiene promotion is proposed, based on epidemiologically driven evidence and review of the current knowledge. Strategies for promotion in hospitals should include reasons for noncompliance with recommendations at individual, group, and institutional levels. Potential tools for change should address each of these elements and consider their interactivity.

Behavioral interventions to improve infection control practices

No single intervention has been successful in improving and sustaining such infection control practices as universal precautions and handwashing by health care professionals. This paper examines several behavioral theories (Health Belief Model, Theory of Reasoned Action and Theory of Planned Behavior, self-efficacy, and the Transtheoretic Model) and relates them to individual factors, also considering interpersonal and organizational factors. Further, this article includes recommendations of individual and organizational components to be addressed when planning a theoretically based intervention for improving infection control practices. A hypothetic framework to enhance handwashing practice is proposed.

A multifaceted approach to changing handwashing behavior

BACKGROUND

Few interventions to influence handwashing have had measurable effects. This prospective quasi-experimental study was designed to address predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing factors to improve frequency of handwashing.

METHODS

Over a 12-month time period, a multifaceted intervention including focus group sessions, installation of automated sinks, and feedback to staff on handwashing frequency was implemented in one intensive care unit; a second unit served as a control. Dependent variables observed were handwashing frequency and self-reported practices and opinions about handwashing. Study phases included baseline, three phases of about 2 months each in duration in which sink automation was incrementally increased, and follow-up 2 months after intervention.

RESULTS

During 301 hours of observation, 2624 handwashings were recorded. Proportion of times hands were washed varied by indication, ranging from 38% before invasive procedures to 86% for dirty-to-clean procedures (p < 0.00001). Although there were some significant differences between experimental and control units in handwashing during the study, these differences had returned to baseline by the 2-month follow-up. There were no significant differences in self-reported practices and opinions from before to after intervention nor between units.

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive intervention, including feedback, education, and increased sink automation, had minimal long-term effect on handwashing frequency.

Compliance with handwashing and barrier precautions

Compliance with handwashing and barrier precautions remains suboptimal in all health care settings and among all types of staff. Interventions to increase compliance include educational and motivational programmes, providing individual and group feedback on performance, modifying and improving equipment available, changing administrative policy and sanctions, and increasing staff commitment with role modelling. Single, isolated interventions are unlikely to meet with sustained success. A theory-based, multifaceted approach is indicated.

Ethical considerations in the use of subliminal stimulation to improve handwashing compliance: scientific utility versus autonomy of the individual

Nosocomial infections remain a significant problem for the healthcare system in the United States. At least 5% of patients will acquire an infection during their hospital stay, extending hospitalization by four days per infection, directly accounting for an estimated 60,000 deaths per year and an additional $10 billion of the amount spent on healthcare.

Previous studies have demonstrated that pathogenic bacteria can be recovered from the hands of healthcare workers and transmitted to patients. Moreover, a recent study has shown that hand carriage of organisms and subsequent contact may be the most important mechanism of nosocomial infection transmission in the intensive care unit setting.