Collecting the data but missing the point: Validity of hand hygiene audit data

Background: Monitoring of hand hygiene compliance (HHC) by observation has been used in healthcare for more than a decade to provide assurance of infection control practice. The validity of this information is rarely tested. Aim: To examine the process and validity of collecting and reporting HHC data based on direct observation of compliance. Methods: Five years of HHC data routinely collected in one large National Health Service hospital trust were examined. The data collection process was reviewed by survey and interview of the auditors. HHC data collected for other research purposes undertaken during this period were compared with the organizational data set. Findings: After an initial increase, the reported HHC remained unchanged close to its intended target throughout this period. Examination of the data collection process revealed changes, including local interpretations of the data collection system, which invalidated the results. A minority of auditors had received formal training in observation and feedback of results. Conclusion: Whereas observation of HHC is the current gold standard, unless data collection definitions and methods are unambiguous, published, carefully supervised, and regularly monitored, variations may occur which affect the validity of the data. If the purpose of HHC monitoring is to improve practice and minimize transmission of infection, then a focus on progressively improving performance rather than on achieving a target may offer greater opportunities to achieve this

Impact of observing hand hygiene in practice and research: a methodological reconsideration

The purpose of hand hygiene is to break the chain of healthcare-associated infection. In many countries hand hygiene is regularly audited as part of quality assurance based on recommendations from the World Health Organization. Direct observation is the recommended audit method but is associated with disadvantages, including potential for being observed to alter usual behaviour. The Hawthorne effect in relation to hand hygiene is analogous with productivity improvement by increasing the frequency with which hand hygiene is undertaken. Unobtrusive and/or frequent observation to accustom staff to the presence of observers is considered an acceptable way of reducing the Hawthorne effect, but few publications have discussed how to implement these techniques or examine their effectiveness. There is evidence that awareness of being watched can disrupt the usual behaviour of individuals in complex and unpredictable ways other than simple productivity effect. In the presence of auditors, health workers might defer or avoid activities that require hand hygiene, but these issues are not addressed in guidelines for practice or research studies. This oversight has implications for the validity of hand hygiene audit findings. Measuring hand hygiene product use overcomes avoidance tactics. It is cheaper and generates data continuously to assess the compliance of all clinicians without disrupting patient care. Disadvantages are the risk of overestimating uptake through spillage, wastage, or use by visitors and non-clinical staff entering patient care areas. Electronic devices may overcome the Hawthorne and avoidance effects but are costly and are not widely used outside research studies

The CleanYourHandsCampaign: critiquing policy and evidence base

Handwashing is considered to be the most effective way of reducing cross-infection. Rates of healthcare-associated infection and the incidence of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus are higher in the UK than in many other European countries. The government has responded by introducing the 'CleanYourHandsCampaign' throughout England and Wales, based on the success of the approach employed in Geneva. Alcohol hand rub is placed at every bedside in acute hospitals, ward housekeepers should replenish supplies and feedback on compliance is provided to health workers. Posters and other promotional materials are used to remind health workers and visitors to use the hand rub. Patients are encouraged to ask health workers if they have cleaned their hands before contact. In this paper we argue that the evidence base underpinning the CleanYourHandsCampaign is incomplete. Alcohol hand rub is acknowledged as a useful adjunct to hand hygiene but it is not effective in all circumstances. There is some evidence to support the use of feedback on performance to encourage compliance but no evidence that promotional materials such as posters or patient reminders are effective. The ethics of encouraging hospital patients to take responsibility for their own safety is questioned. Much of the success in Geneva must be attributed to the attention given to contextual factors within the organization that encouraged hand rub use, especially hospital-wide 'ownership' of the initiative by managers and senior health professionals. A customized intervention from another country that fails to consider local organizational factors likely to influence the implementation of the campaign is unlikely to be effective. It is concluded that although hand hygiene is of undoubted importance, undue emphasis should not be placed on it as a 'quick fix' to solve the unacceptably high rates of healthcare-associated infection in National Health Service hospitals

Interventions to improve hand hygiene compliance in patient care

Healthcare-associated infection is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Hand hygiene is regarded as the most effective method of prevention but is poorly performed by health workers. We report a systematic review identifying studies which investigated the effectiveness of interventions to increase hand hygiene compliance short and longer term and to determine their success in terms of hand hygiene compliance and subsequent effect on rates of healthcare-associated infection. We employed the inclusion criteria employed by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. Forty-eight studies and one thesis were identified. Only two met the stringent inclusion criteria. Overall studies remain small scale, poorly controlled and follow-up data collection is abandoned too soon to establish impact longer term. Furthermore, designs are insufficiently robust to attribute any observed changes to the intervention. Studies lack theoretical focus and seldom describe the intervention in sufficient detail, the change management process or contextual information about the organisation in the depth necessary to explain success or lack of it. The review concludes that interrupted time-series studies may offer the most rigorous approach to assessing the impact of interventions to increase hand hygiene compliance. In such study designs the number of new cases of healthcare-associated infection should be taken as an outcome measure, with data collection points at least 12 months before intervention and afterwards to allow for seasonal trends. Contextual factors at national and at local level should be carefully documented to take into consideration the influence of secular trends