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

Failures of 1 week on, 1 week off antiretroviral therapies in a randomized trial

BACKGROUND: Scheduled treatment interruptions are being evaluated in an effort to decrease costs and side effects of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). A schedule of 1 week on and 1 week off therapy offers the promise of 50% less drug exposure with continuously undetectable HIV RNA concentration. METHODS: In the Staccato study 600 patients on successful HAART were to be randomized to either continued therapy, CD4-guided therapy, or one week on, one week off therapy. A scheduled preliminary analysis evaluated effectiveness in the 1-week-on-1-week-off arm. RESULTS: Of 36 evaluable patients, 19 (53%) had two successive HIV RNA concentrations > 500 copies/ml at the end of the week off therapy, and were classified as virological failure. Most of those who failed took didanosine, stavudine, saquinavir, and ritonavir (11 patients). In these patients, there was no evidence of mutations suggestive of drug resistance, and plasma saquinavir levels were within the expected range. Two of three patients failing on triple nucleotides had drug resistance mutations, but nonetheless responded to reintroduction of triple nucleotide therapy. One of two patients taking nevirapine, and one of eight taking efavirenz, also failed. Both had resistance mutations at the time of failure, but not at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: The 1-week-on-1-week-off schedule, as tested in the Staccato study, showed an unacceptably high failure rate and was therefore terminated