Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684bc48f8b-2l47r Total loading time: 9.564 Render date: 2021-04-13T10:36:33.842Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

More Doctor–Patient Contact Is Not the Only Explanation For Lower Hand-Hygiene Compliance in Australian Emergency Departments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2017

Andrew J. Stewardson
Affiliation:
Hand Hygiene Australia, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Department, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
Rhonda L. Stuart
Affiliation:
Infection Control and Infectious Diseases Departments, Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
Caroline Marshall
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia Victorian Infectious Disease Service, Royal Melbourne Hospital at the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Marilyn Cruickshank
Affiliation:
Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia School of Nursing and Midwifery; Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia
M. Lindsay Grayson
Affiliation:
Hand Hygiene Australia, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia Infectious Diseases and Microbiology Department, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Corresponding
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Letters to the Editor
Copyright
© 2017 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved 

To the Editor—Previous reports have demonstrated low hand-hygiene (HH) compliance in emergency departments (EDs).Reference Muller, Carter, Siddiqui and Larson 1 , Reference Wiles, Roberts and Schmidt 2 Barriers to compliance in this setting include crowding, higher patient acuity, nonstandardized workflow, higher staff turnover, lower penetration of HH promotion activities, and high representation of doctors in ED audits, a group with known suboptimal HH compliance.Reference Muller, Carter, Siddiqui and Larson 1 , Reference Carter, Wyer and Giglio 3 , Reference Scheithauer, Kamerseder and Petersen 4 We sought to use a nationwide dataset to describe HH performance in Australian EDs and to test the hypothesis that lower HH compliance in EDs is explained by a higher proportion of observed HH activity by doctors in this setting.

We used data collected for the Australian National Hand Hygiene Initiative (NHHI), which is described elsewhere.Reference Grayson, Russo, Ryan, Havers and Heard 5 Briefly, the NHHI was launched in 2008 as a standardized national approach to HH culture change adapted from the WHO Multimodal Hand Hygiene Improvement Strategy. 6 At the institutional level, the core components of the NHHI are alcohol-based hand rub at the point of care, healthcare-worker education about HH and infection control, and HH auditing with performance feedback using the WHO “5 Moments” methodology. The NHHI uses a train-the-trainer model for HH auditors. National and jurisdictional representatives train “gold standard auditors” (GSAs) during a 2-day workshop; GSAs can then train “general auditors” in their own organization with a 1-day workshop. Each year, auditors must collect at least 100 moments and must complete an “auditor validation” online learning module and quiz to maintain auditing competency. Since 2011, the interim national benchmark for HH compliance has been 70%, and aggregate institution-level compliance has been reported publically online. 7 In 2013, implementation of the NHHI became a requirement for hospital accreditation. 8 The program focuses on inpatient wards, with no explicit national requirement to include emergency departments.

We compared HH compliance in EDs, high-risk wards, and other acute-care inpatient wards. According to the NHHI definition, high-risk wards include critical care, renal, hematology/oncology, and transplant wards. We included hospitals that submitted HH compliance audit data during National Audit Period 1 2016 (November 2015–March 2016) and belonged to an Australian Institute of Health and Welfare hospital peer group indicating the presence of a 24-hour ED (ie, principal referral hospitals, public group A hospitals, public group B hospitals, and private group A hospitals). 9 Hand-hygiene compliance was computed as the proportion of moments during which an HH action (hand rubbing or washing) is performed, expressed as a percentage. We performed a χ2 test to assess the independence of ward type and others categorical variables, including HH action and healthcare-worker profession, at the HH moment level. We used multivariate mixed-effects logistic regression to evaluate the relationship between ward type and HH compliance after adjusting for profession and HH indication. We accounted for hospital-level clustering by including hospitals as a random effect.

Overall, 152 hospitals were included in this analysis: 132 public (87%) and 20 private (13%). These hospitals submitted 369,162 HH moments. Overall, 108 of these hospitals (71%) submitted HH moments from their EDs, for a total of 20,872 HH moments. Hand-hygiene compliance was lower in EDs than in acute-care and high-risk wards: 20,872 of 27,686 (75%) in EDs, 185,057 of 222,819 (83%) in acute-care wards, and 100,402 of 118,657 (85%) in high-risk wards (P<.001). Doctors represented a higher proportion of observed moments in EDs than acute-care and high-risk wards: 6,467 of 27,686 (23%) in EDs, 33,742 of 222,819 (15%) in acute-care wards, and 16,544 of 118,657 (14%) in high-risk wards (P<.001). In addition, doctors had significantly lower HH compliance in EDs than acute-care and high-risk wards: 4,057 of 6,467 (63%) in EDs, 24,336 of 33,742 (72%) in acute-care wards, and 12,447 of 16,544 (75%) in high-risk wards (P<.001, Figure 1). After adjusting for profession and HH indication, hand-hygiene compliance remained significantly lower in EDs than in acute-care inpatient wards (adjusted odds ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.57–0.60), which suggests that other factors may be involved.

FIGURE 1 Aggregate hand-hygiene compliance, stratified by ward type and profession.

NOTE. High-risk wards include critical care, renal, hematology/oncology, and transplant wards. Abbreviations: ED, emergency department.

Doctors account for a significantly greater proportion of observed HH opportunities, and have lower HH compliance, in EDs than in inpatient wards. Lower HH compliance in EDs is therefore not explained solely by healthcare-worker profession or by HH indication. Overall, we believe that this finding relates to a combination of 2 interrelated factors. First, coordinated strategies to improve HH have targeted inpatient wards rather than EDs. Second, EDs represent a unique setting with distinct environment, staff, and patient factors compared with inpatient wards. Interventions as simple as ensuring availability of ABHR at the point of care are more complex in the ED setting. In summary, there is a need for greater focus on identifying modifiable barriers to appropriate HH in Australian EDs and on implementing targeted initiatives to improve HH behavior.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge all groups and individuals contributing to the National Hand Hygiene Initiative, including Hand Hygiene Australia team members, the ACSQHC Healthcare Associated Infection Program, the NHHI Advisory Committee, NHHI Jurisdictional Coordinators, infection control professionals, and HH auditors.

Financial support. No financial support was provided relevant to this article. A.J.S. and M.L.G. receive salaries from Hand Hygiene Australia, funded by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care.

Potential conflicts of interest. All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

Footnotes

PREVIOUS PRESENTATION: This work was presented in part as poster 11 at the Australian Society for Infectious Diseases Annual Scientific Meeting, Launceston, Australia, June 20–23, 2016.

References

1. Muller, MP, Carter, E, Siddiqui, N, Larson, E. Hand hygiene compliance in an emergency department: the effect of crowding. Acad Emerg Med 2015;22:12181221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Wiles, LL, Roberts, C, Schmidt, K. Keep it clean: a visual approach to reinforce hand hygiene compliance in the emergency department. J Emerg Nurs 2015;41:119124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Carter, EJ, Wyer, P, Giglio, J, et al. Environmental factors and their association with emergency department hand hygiene compliance: an observational study. BMJ Qual Saf 2015.Google Scholar
4. Scheithauer, S, Kamerseder, V, Petersen, P, et al. Improving hand hygiene compliance in the emergency department: getting to the point. BMC Infect Dis 2013;13:367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Grayson, ML, Russo, P, Ryan, K, Havers, S, Heard, K. Hand hygiene australia manual. Hand Hygiene Australia website. http://www.hha.org.au/userfiles/file/manual/hhamanual_2010-11-23.pdf Published 2013. Accessed April 7, 2016.Google Scholar
6. World Health Organization. WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Healthcare. Geneva: World Health Organization Press; 2009.Google Scholar
7. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. MyHospitals website. http://www.myhospitals.gov.au/. Published 2016. Accessed August 18, 2016.Google Scholar
8. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards (September 2012). Sydney: ACSQHC; 2012.Google Scholar
9. Australian hospital peer groups. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare website. http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=60129553446. Published 2015. Accessed 27 June, 2016.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 122
Total number of PDF views: 428 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 09th February 2017 - 13th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Access Access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

More Doctor–Patient Contact Is Not the Only Explanation For Lower Hand-Hygiene Compliance in Australian Emergency Departments
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

More Doctor–Patient Contact Is Not the Only Explanation For Lower Hand-Hygiene Compliance in Australian Emergency Departments
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

More Doctor–Patient Contact Is Not the Only Explanation For Lower Hand-Hygiene Compliance in Australian Emergency Departments
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *