The validity of hand hygiene compliance measurement by observation: a critical systematic review

BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene is monitored by direct observation to improve practice, but this approach can potentially cause information, selection, and confounding bias, threatening the validity of findings. The aim of this study was to identify and describe the potential biases in hand hygiene compliance monitoring by direct observation; develop a typology of biases and propose improvements to reduce bias; and increase the validity of compliance measurements. METHODS: This systematic review of hospital-based intervention studies used direct observation to monitor health care workers' hand hygiene compliance. RESULTS: Seventy-one publications were eligible for review. None was free of bias. Selection bias was present in all studies through lack of data collection on the weekends (n = 61, 86%) and at night (n = 46, 65%) and observations undertaken in single-specialty settings (n = 35, 49%). We observed inconsistency of terminology, definitions of hand hygiene opportunity, criteria, tools, and descriptions of the data collection. Frequency of observation, duration, or both were not described or were unclear in 58 (82%) publications. Observers were trained in 56 (79%) studies. Inter-rater reliability was measured in 26 (37%) studies. CONCLUSIONS: Published research of hand hygiene compliance measured by direct observation lacks validity. Hand hygiene should be measured using methods that produce a valid indication of performance and quality. Standardization of methodology would expedite comparison of hand hygiene compliance between clinical settings and organizations

Evaluation of the national Cleanyourhands campaign to reduce Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia and Clostridium difficile infection in hospitals in England and Wales by improved hand hygiene: four year, prospective, ecological, interrupted time series study

Objective To evaluate the impact of the Cleanyourhands campaign on rates of hospital procurement of alcohol hand rub and soap, report trends in selected healthcare associated infections, and investigate the association between infections and procurement

Estimating the Hospital Burden of Norovirus-Associated Gastroenteritis in England and Its Opportunity Costs for Nonadmitted Patients.

Background: Norovirus places a substantial burden on healthcare systems, arising from infected patients, disease outbreaks, beds kept unoccupied for infection control, and staff absences due to infection. In settings with high rates of bed occupancy, opportunity costs arise from patients who cannot be admitted due to beds being unavailable. With several treatments and vaccines against norovirus in development, quantifying the expected economic burden is timely. Methods: The number of inpatients with norovirus-associated gastroenteritis in England was modeled using infectious and noninfectious gastrointestinal Hospital Episode Statistics codes and laboratory reports of gastrointestinal pathogens collected at Public Health England. The excess length of stay from norovirus was estimated with a multistate model and local outbreak data. Unoccupied bed-days and staff absences were estimated from national outbreak surveillance. The burden was valued conventionally using accounting expenditures and wages, which we contrasted to the opportunity costs from forgone patients using a novel methodology. Results: Between July 2013 and June 2016, 17.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.6%‒21.6%) of primary and 23.8% (95% CI, 20.6%‒29.9%) of secondary gastrointestinal diagnoses were norovirus attributable. Annually, the estimated median 290000 (interquartile range, 282000‒297000) occupied and unoccupied bed-days used for norovirus displaced 57800 patients. Conventional costs for the National Health Service reached £107.6 million; the economic burden approximated to £297.7 million and a loss of 6300 quality-adjusted life-years annually. Conclusions: In England, norovirus is now the second-largest contributor of the gastrointestinal hospital burden. With the projected impact being greater than previously estimated, improved capture of relevant opportunity costs seems imperative for diseases such as norovirus

Moving beyond hand hygiene monitoring as a marker of infection prevention performance: Development of a tailored infection control continuous quality improvement tool.

BACKGROUND: Infection control practice compliance is commonly monitored by measuring hand hygiene compliance. The limitations of this approach were recognized in 1 acute health care organization that led to the development of an Infection Control Continuous Quality Improvement tool. METHODS: The Pronovost cycle, Barriers and Mitigation tool, and Hexagon framework were used to review the existing monitoring system and develop a quality improvement data collection tool that considered the context of care delivery. RESULTS: Barriers and opportunities for improvement including ambiguity, consistency and feasibility of expectations, the environment, knowledge, and education were combined in a monitoring tool that was piloted and modified in response to feedback. Local adaptations enabled staff to prioritize and monitor issues important in their own workplace. The tool replaced the previous system and was positively evaluated by auditors. Challenges included ensuring staff had time to train in use of the tool, time to collect the audit, and the reporting of low scores that conflicted with a target-based performance system. CONCLUSIONS: Hand hygiene compliance monitoring alone misses other important aspects of infection control compliance. A continuous quality improvement tool was developed reflecting specific organizational needs that could be transferred or adapted to other organizations

Validity of hand hygiene compliance measurement by observation: A systematic review

BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene is monitored by direct observation to improve practice, but this approach can potentially cause information, selection, and confounding bias, threatening the validity of findings. The aim of this study was to identify and describe the potential biases in hand hygiene compliance monitoring by direct observation; develop a typology of biases and propose improvements to reduce bias; and increase the validity of compliance measurements. METHODS: This systematic review of hospital-based intervention studies used direct observation to monitor health care workers' hand hygiene compliance. RESULTS: Seventy-one publications were eligible for review. None was free of bias. Selection bias was present in all studies through lack of data collection on the weekends (n = 61, 86%) and at night (n = 46, 65%) and observations undertaken in single-specialty settings (n = 35, 49%). We observed inconsistency of terminology, definitions of hand hygiene opportunity, criteria, tools, and descriptions of the data collection. Frequency of observation, duration, or both were not described or were unclear in 58 (82%) publications. Observers were trained in 56 (79%) studies. Inter-rater reliability was measured in 26 (37%) studies. CONCLUSIONS: Published research of hand hygiene compliance measured by direct observation lacks validity. Hand hygiene should be measured using methods that produce a valid indication of performance and quality. Standardization of methodology would expedite comparison of hand hygiene compliance between clinical settings and organizations

The Feedback Intervention Trial (FIT)--improving hand-hygiene compliance in UK healthcare workers: a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial.

Achieving a sustained improvement in hand-hygiene compliance is the WHO's first global patient safety challenge. There is no RCT evidence showing how to do this. Systematic reviews suggest feedback is most effective and call for long term well designed RCTs, applying behavioural theory to intervention design to optimise effectiveness