Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

32 results

Page 1 of 2

  • Comparing human to electronic observers to monitor hand hygiene compliance in an intensive care unit

  • Eduardo Casaroto, Jose R. Generoso, Jr, Ary Serpa Neto, Marcelo Prado, Guilherme M. Gagliardi, Fernando Gatti de Menezes, Priscila Gonçalves, Fábio Barlem Hohmann, Guilherme Benfatti Olivato, Gustavo Potratz Gonçalves, Nathalia Xavier, Marcelo Fernandes Miguel, Michael B. Edmond, Alexandre R. Marra
  • Journal:
    Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology / Volume 2 / Issue 1 / 2022
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    29 September 2022, e161
    • Article
      • You have access
      • Open access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation
  • Objective:

    We sought to determine whether an electronic hand hygiene (HH) system could monitor HH compliance at similar rates to direct human observation.

    Methods:

    This 4-year proof-of-concept study was conducted in an intensive care unit (ICU) of a private tertiary-care hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, where electronic HH systems were installed in 2 rooms. HH compliance was reported respectively using direct observation and electronic counter devices with an infrared system for detecting HH opportunities.

    Results:

    In phase 1, HH compliance by human observers was 56.3% (564 of 1,001 opportunities), while HH compliance detected by the electronic observer was 51.0% (515 of 1,010 opportunities). In phase 2, human observers registered 484 HH opportunities with a HH compliance rate of 64.7% (313 of 484) versus 70.6% (346 of 490) simultaneously detected by the electronic system. In addition, an enhanced HH electronic system monitored activity 24 hours per day and HH compliance without the presence of a human observer was 40.3% (10,642 of 26,421 opportunities), providing evidence for the Hawthorne effect.

    Conclusions:

    The electronic HH monitoring system had good correlation with human HH observation, but compliance was remarkably lower when human observers were not present due to the Hawthorne effect (25%–30% absolute difference). Electronic monitoring systems can replace direct observation and can markedly reduce the Hawthorne effect.

Page 1 of 2