Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T07:07:52.862Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effectiveness of Multifaceted Hand Hygiene Interventions in Long-Term Care Facilities in Hong Kong: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Mei-lin Ho*
Affiliation:
Infection Control Branch, Centre for Health Protection, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), China
Wing-hong Seto
Affiliation:
World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Infection Control, Hospital Authority, Hong Kong SAR, China
Lai-chin Wong
Affiliation:
Infection Control Branch, Centre for Health Protection, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), China
Tin-yau Wong
Affiliation:
Infection Control Branch, Centre for Health Protection, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), China
*
Infection Control Branch, Centre for Health Protection, G/F, 147C Argyle Street, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China (smo_icb3@dh.gov.hk)

Abstract

Objective.

To determine the effectiveness of World Health Organization (WHO) multimodal strategy in promoting hand hygiene (HH) among healthcare workers (HCWs) in long-term care facilities (LTCFs).

Design.

Cluster-randomized controlled trial.

Setting.

Eighteen homes for the elderly in Hong Kong were randomly allocated to 2 intervention arms and a control arm. Direct observation of HH practice was conducted by trained nurses. Either handrubbing with alcohol-based handrub (ABHR) or handwashing with liquid soap and water was counted as a compliant action. Disease notification data during 2007–2010 were used to calculate incidence rate ratio (IRR).

Participants.

Managers and HCWs of the participating homes.

Interventions.

The WHO multimodal strategy was employed. All intervention homes were supplied with ABHR (WHO formulation I), ABHR racks, pull reels, HH posters and reminders, a health talk, video clips, training materials, and performance feedback. The only difference was that intervention arms 1 and 2 were provided with slightly powdered and powderless gloves, respectively.

Results.

A total of 11,669 HH opportunities were observed. HH compliance increased from 27.0% to 60.6% and from 22.2% to 48.6% in intervention arms 1 and 2, respectively. Both intervention arms showed increased HH compliance after intervention compared to controls, at 21.6% compliance (both P < .001). Provision of slightly powdered versus powderless gloves did not have any significant impact on ABHR usage. Respiratory outbreaks (IRR, 0.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01–0.93; P = .04) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections requiring hospital admission (IRR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38–0.97; P = .04) were reduced after intervention.

Conclusions.

A promotion program applying the WHO multimodal strategy was effective in improving HH among HCWs in LTCFs.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2012

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.Pittet, D. Improving compliance with hand hygiene in hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000;21(6):381386.Google Scholar
2.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): 13071312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Dubbert, PM, Dolce, J, Richter, W, Miller, M, Chapman, SW. Increasing ICU staff handwashing: effects of education and group feedback. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1990;11(4): 191193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Larson, EL, Bryan, JL, Adler, LM, Blane, C. A multifaceted approach to changing handwashing behavior. Am J Infect Control 1997;25(1): 310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Makris, AT, Morgan, L, Gaber, DJ, Richter, A, Rubino, JR. Effect of a comprehensive infection control program on the incidence of infections in long-term care facilities. Am J Infect Control 2000;28(1):37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Mody, L, McNeil, SA, Sun, R, Bradley, SE, Kauffman, CA. Introduction of a waterless alcohol-based hand rub in a long-term-care facility. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24(3): 165171.Google Scholar
7.Smith, A, Carusone, SC, Loeb, M. Hand hygiene practices of health care workers in long-term care facilities. Am J Infect Control 2008;36(7): 492494.Google Scholar
8.Pan, A, Domenighini, F, Signorini, L, et al. Adherence to hand hygiene in an Italian long-term care facility. Am J Infect Control 2008;36(7):495497.Google Scholar
9.Yeung, WK, Tarn, WSW, Wong, TW. Clustered randomized controlled trial of a hand hygiene intervention involving pocket-sized containers of alcohol-based hand rub for the control of infections in long-term care facilities. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32(1):6776.Google Scholar
10.Social Welfare Department, Government of the Hong Kong SAR. List of subvented, self-financing and contract homes providing subsidised places for elders, http://www.swd.gov.hk/en/index/site_pubsvc/page_elderly/sub_residentia/id_listofresi/ Accessed June 30, 2009.Google Scholar
11.World Health Organization (WHO). WHO guidelines on hand hygiene in health care. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2009.Google Scholar
12.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(4): 235238.Google Scholar