Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:33:44.033Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do Peer Effects Improve Hand Hygiene Adherence among Healthcare Workers?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2016

Mauricio N. Monsalve ,
Sriram V. Pemmaraju ,
Geb W. Thomas ,
Ted Herman ,
Alberto M. Segre  and
Philip M. Polgreen
Mauricio N. Monsalve
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
Sriram V. Pemmaraju
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
Geb W. Thomas
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
Ted Herman
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
Alberto M. Segre
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
Philip M. Polgreen*
Affiliation:
Department of Internal Medicine and Department of Epidemiology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
*
MPH, Carver College of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

To determine whether hand hygiene adherence is influenced by peer effects and, specifically, whether the presence and proximity of other healthcare workers has a positive effect on hand hygiene adherence

Design.

An observational study using a sensor network.

Setting.

A 20-bed medical intensive care unit at a large university hospital.

Participants.

Hospital staff assigned to the medical intensive care unit.

Methods.

We deployed a custom-built, automated, hand hygiene monitoring system that can (1) detect whether a healthcare worker has practiced hand hygiene on entering and exiting a patient’s room and (2) estimate the location of other healthcare workers with respect to each healthcare worker exiting or entering a room.

Results.

We identified a total of 47,694 in-room and out-of-room hand hygiene opportunities during the 10-day study period. When a worker was alone (no recent healthcare worker contacts), the observed adherence rate was 20.85% (95% confidence interval [CI], 19.78%–21.92%). In contrast, when other healthcare workers were present, observed adherence was 27.90% (95% CI, 27.48%–28.33%). This absolute increase was statistically significant (P < .01). We also found that adherence increased with the number of nearby healthcare workers but at a decreasing rate. These results were consistent at different times of day, for different measures of social context, and after controlling for possible confounding factors.

Conclusions.

The presence and proximity of other healthcare workers is associated with higher hand hygiene rates. Furthermore, our results also indicate that rates increase as the social environment becomes more crowded, but with diminishing marginal returns.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35(10):1277–1285

Type
Original Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 35 , Issue 10 , October 2014 , pp. 1277 - 1285
Copyright
© 2014 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Boyce, JM, Pittet, D. Guidelines 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. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002;23:S3–S41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Erasmus, V, Daha, TJ, Brug, H, et al. Systematic review of studies on compliance with hand hygiene guidelines in hospital care. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31(3):283–294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Pittet, D. Improving adherence to hand hygiene practice: a multidisciplinary approach. Emerg Infect Dis 2001;7:234–240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Pittet, D, Simon, A, Hugonnet, S, Pessoa-Silva, CL, Sauvan, V, Perneger, TV. Hand hygiene among physicians: performance, beliefs, and perceptions. Ann Intern Med 2004;141(1):1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Bischoff, WE, Reynolds, TM, Sessler, CN, Edmond, MB, Wenzel, RP. Handwashing compliance by health care workers: the impact of introducing an accessible, alcohol-based hand antiseptic. Arch Intern Med 2000;160(7):1017–1021.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Kaplan, LM, McGuckin, M. Increasing handwashing compliance with more accessible sinks. Infect Control 1986;7:408–410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Pittet, D, Mourouga, P, Perneger, TV, et al. Compliance with handwashing in a teaching hospital. Ann Intern Med 1999;130:126–130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Bittner, MJ, Rich, EC, Turner, PD, Arnold, WH Jr. Limited impact of sustained simple feedback based on soap and paper towel consumption on the frequency of hand washing in an adult intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002;23:120–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Pittet, D. Promotion of hand hygiene: magic, hype, or scientific challenge? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002;23:118–119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Rosenthal, VD, McCormick, RD, Guzman, S, Villamayor, C, Orellano, PW. Effect of education and performance feedback on handwashing: the benefit of administrative support in Argentinean hospitals. Am J Infect Control 2003;31(2):85–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Talbot, TR, Johnson, JG, Fergus, C, et al. Sustained improvement in hand hygiene adherence: utilizing shared accountability and financial incentives. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34(11):1129–1136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Pittet, D, Hugonnet, S, Harbarth, S, et al. Effectiveness of a hospital-wide programme to improve compliance with hand hygiene. Infection Control Programme. Lancet 2000;356(9238):1307–1312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Kohli, E, Ptak, J, Smith, R, Taylor, E, Talbot, EA, Kirkland, KB. Variability in the Hawthorne effect with regard to hand hygiene performance in high- and low-performing inpatient care units. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009;30(3):222–225 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Eckmanns, T, Besser, J, Behnke, M, Gastmeier, P, Rüden, H. Compliance with antiseptic hand rub use in intensive care units: the Hawthorne effect. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27:931–934.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Maury, E, Moussa, N, Lakermi, C, Barbut, F, Offenstadt, G. Compliance of health care workers to hand hygiene: awareness of being observed is important. Intensive Care Med 2006;32(12):2088–2089.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Chen, LF, Carriker, C, Staheli, R, et al. Observing and improving hand hygiene compliance: implementation and refinement of an electronic-assisted direct-observer hand hygiene audit program. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34(2):207–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Lankford, MG, Zembower, TR, Trick, WE, Hacek, DM, Noskin, GA, Peterson, LR. Influence of role models and hospital design on hand hygiene of healthcare workers. Emerg Infect Dis 2003;9(2):217–223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Haessler, S, Bhagavan, A, Kleppel, R, Hinchey, K, Visintainer, P. Getting doctors to clean their hands: lead the followers. BMJ Qual Saf 2012;21(6):499–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Christakis, NA, Fowler, JH. The collective dynamics of smoking in a large social network. N Engl J Med 2008;358(21):2249–2258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Christakis, NA, Fowler, JH. The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. N Engl J Med 2007;357(4):370–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Mas, A, Moretti, E. Peers at work. Am Econ Rev 2009;(1):112–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Monsalve, M, Herman, T, Pemmaraju, S, Polgreen, PM, Segre, AM, Thomas, G. Inferring realistic intra-hospital contact networks using link prediction and computer logins. In: Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust (PASSAT) and 2012 International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom); September 3–5, 2012; Amsterdam, The Netherlands. IEEE 2012.Google Scholar
23. Monsalve, M, Pemmaraju, S, Polgreen, PM. Interactions in an intensive care unit: experiences pre-processing sensor network data. In: Program and abstracts of the 4th Annual Wireless Health Conference; November 1–3, 2013; Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
24. Polgreen, PM, Hlady, CS, Severson, MA, Segre, AM, Herman, T. Method for automated monitoring of hand hygiene adherence without radio-frequency identification. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31(12):1294–1297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Fries, J, Segre, AM, Thomas, G, Herman, T, Ellingson, K, Polgreen, PM. Monitoring hand hygiene via human observers: how should we be sampling? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33(7):689–695.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Hornbeck, T, Naylor, D, Segre, AM, Thomas, G, Herman, T, Polgreen, PM. Using sensor networks to study the effect of peripatetic healthcare workers on the spread of hospital-associated infections. J Infect Dis 2012;206(10):1549–1557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Vanhems, P, Barrat, A, Cattuto, C, et al. Estimating potential infection transmission routes in hospital wards using wearable proximity sensors. PLoS One 2013;11;8(9):e73970.Google Scholar
28. Friggeri, A, Chelius, G, Fleury, E, Fraboulet, A, Mentré, F, Lucet, JC. Reconstructing social interactions using an unreliable wireless sensor network. Comput Commun 2010;33(12):609–618.Google Scholar
29. Galbraith, S, Daniel, JA, Vissel, B. A study of clustered data and approaches to its analysis. J Neurosci 2010;30(32):10601–10608.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30. Sharma, D, Thomas, GW, Foster, ED, et al. The precision of human-generated hand hygiene observations: a comparison of human observation with an automated monitoring system. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33(12):1259–1261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31. Swoboda, SM, Earsing, K, Strauss, K, Lane, S, Lipsett, PA. Electronic monitoring and voice prompts improve hand hygiene and decrease nosocomial infections in an intermediate care unit. Crit Care Med 2004;32:358–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Cheng, VC, Tai, JWM, Ho, SKY, et al. Introduction of an electronic monitoring system for monitoring compliance with moments 1 and 4 of the WHO “my 5 moments for hand hygiene” methodology. BMC Infect Dis 2011;11:1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Swoboda, SM, Earsing, K, Strauss, K, Lane, S, Lipsett, PA. Isolation status and voice prompts improve hand hygiene. Am J Infect Control 2007;32:358–363.Google Scholar
34. Fisher, DA, Seetoh, T, Oh May-Lin, H, et al. Automated measures of hand hygiene compliance among healthcare workers using ultrasound: validation and a randomized controlled trial. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34(9):919–928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35. Duggan, JM, Hensley, S, Khuder, S, Papadimos, TJ, Jacobs, L. Inverse correlation between level of professional education and rate of handwashing compliance in a teaching hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29(6):534–538.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36. Sax, H, Allegranzi, B, Chraïti, MN, Boyce, J, Larson, E, Pittet, D. The World Health Organization hand hygiene observation method. Am J Infect Control 2009;37:827–834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed