Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T15:44:41.626Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of an Electronic Device for Real-Time Measurement of Alcohol-Based Hand Rub Use

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

John M. Boyce ,
Timothea Cooper  and
Michael J. Dolan
John M. Boyce*
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Hospital of Saint Raphael, New Haven, Connecticut Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
Timothea Cooper
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Hospital of Saint Raphael, New Haven, Connecticut
Michael J. Dolan
Affiliation:
GOJO Industries, Akron, Ohio
*
Hospital of Saint Raphael, 1450 Chapel Street, New Haven, CT 06511 (jboyce@srhs.org)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background.

Observational surveys of hand hygiene compliance are time consuming. Measuring the use of a hand hygiene product is a less time-consuming method of monitoring the frequency of hand hygiene performance.

Objective.

To evaluate the usefulness of electronic devices for monitoring alcohol-based hand rub use.

Design.

Prospective observational trial.

Setting.

A university-affiliated teaching hospital.

Methods.

Prototypes of an electronic device designed to record each time a dispenser is used (hereafter referred to as a hand hygiene event) were placed in alcohol-based hand rub dispensers on the general medical ward and in the surgical intensive care unit. Data were downloaded wirelessly to a data logger and then uploaded to a dedicated Web site for analysis. Alcohol-based hand rub dispensers were located in patient rooms and in corridors.

Results.

During a 6-month trial, 105,462 hand hygiene events occurred in the surgical intensive care unit, and 44,845 events occurred on the general medical ward. The dispensers located in patient rooms accounted for 47% of the hand hygiene events performed in the surgical intensive care unit but for only 36% of events on the general medical ward (P<.001). The dispensers most often used were located in corridors. Hand hygiene events were most common on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, between 7:00 AM and 11:00 AM.

Conclusions.

The use of these electronic devices provided an efficient and accurate method of monitoring the frequency of alcohol-based hand rub performance on the general medical ward and in the surgical intensive care unit, and yielded more detailed information on usage patterns than did expressing use as liters per 1,000 patient-days. The wireless downloading of data from dispensers required a limited amount of time, and the dedicated Web site facilitated data analysis. Such devices should prove useful in monitoring the impact of various interventions on the frequency of hand hygiene performance.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 30 , Issue 11 , November 2009 , pp. 1090 - 1095
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2009

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; Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee; HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. Guideline for hand hygiene in health-care settings. Recommendations of the Health-care Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America/Association for Professionals in Infection Control/Infectious Diseases Society of America. MMWR Recomm Rep 2002;51(RR-16):1–45.Google ScholarPubMed
2.World Health Organization (WHO). WHO guidelines on hand hygiene in health care (advanced draft); 2006. Available at: http://www.who.int/gpsc/5may/en/. Accessed September 17, 2009.Google Scholar
3.Pittet, D, Mourouga, P, Perneger, TV; members of the Infection Control Program. Compliance with handwashing in a teaching hospital. Ann Intern Med 1999;130:126–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Haas, JP, Larson, EL. Measurement of compliance with hand hygiene. J Hosp Infect 2007;66:6–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Van De Mortel, T, Murgo, M. An examination of covert observation and solution audit as tools to measure the success of hand hygiene interventions. Am J Infect Control 2006;34:95–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Pittet, D, Hugonnet, S, Harbarth, S, Mourouga, P, Sauvan, V, Touveneau, S. Effectiveness of a hospital-wide programme to improve compliance with hand hygiene. Lancet 2000;356:1307–1312.Google Scholar
7.McGuckin, M, Taylor, A, Martin, V, Porten, L, Salcido, R. Evaluation of a patient education model for increasing hand hygiene compliance in an inpatient rehabilitation unit. Am J Infect Control 2004;32:235–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Larson, EL, Early, E, Cloonan, P, Sugrue, S, Parides, M. An organizational climate intervention associated with increased handwashing and decreased nosocomial infections. Behav Med 2000;26:14–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Larson, EL, Albrecht, S, O'Keefe, M. Hand hygiene behavior in a pediatric emergency department and a pediatric intensive care unit: comparison of use of 2 dispenser systems. Am J Crit Care 2005;14:304–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Johnson, PDR, Martin, R, Burrell, LJ, et al.Efficacy of an alcohol/chlorhexidine hand hygiene program in a hospital with high rates of nosocomial methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection. Med J Aust 2005;183:509–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Boyce, JM, Ligi, C, Kohan, C, Dumigan, DG, Havill, NL. Lack of association between the increased incidence of Clostridium difficile–associated disease and the increasing use of alcohol-based hand rubs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27:479–483.Google Scholar
12.Eckmanns, T, Schwab, F, Bessert, J, et al.Hand rub consumption and hand hygiene compliance are not indicators of pathogen transmission in intensive care units. J Hosp Infect 2006;63:406–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Kirkland, KB, Weinstein, JM. Adverse effects of contact isolation. Lancet 1999;354:1177–1178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Stelfox, HT, Bates, DW, Redelmeier, DA. Safety of patients isolated for infection control. JAMA 2003;290:1899–1905.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Broughall, JM. An automatic monitoring system for measuring handwashing frequency. J Hosp Infect 1984;5:447–453.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Venkatesh, AK, Lankford, MG, Rooney, DM, Blachford, T, Watts, CM, Noskin, GA. Use of electronic alerts to enhance hand hygiene compliance and decrease transmission of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus in a hematology unit. Am J Infect Control 2008;36:199–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. McGuckin Methods International. Hand hygiene reports and hand hygiene education for healthcare professionals, consumers, and school administrators. Available at: http://www.hhreports.com. Accessed September 17, 2009.Google Scholar