Evaluation of a mandatory immunization program to increase and sustain high immunization coverage for healthcare personnel (HCP).

Descriptive study with before-and-after analysis.

Tertiary-care academic medical center.

Medical center HCP.

A comprehensive mandatory immunization initiative was implemented in 2 phases, starting in July 2014. Key facets of the initiative included a formalized exemption review process, incorporation into institutional quality goals, data feedback, and accountability to support compliance.

Both immunization and overall compliance rates with targeted immunizations increased significantly in the years after the implementation period. The influenza immunization rate increased from 80% the year prior to the initiative to >97% for the 3 subsequent influenza seasons (P < .0001). Mumps, measles and varicella vaccination compliance increased from 94% in January 2014 to >99% by January 2017, rubella vaccination compliance increased from 93% to 99.5%, and hepatitis B vaccination compliance from 95% to 99% (P < .0001 for all comparisons). An associated positive effect on TB testing compliance, which was not included in the mandatory program, was also noted; it increased from 76% to 92% over the same period (P < .0001).

Thoughtful, step-wise implementation of a mandatory immunization program linked to professional accountability can be successful in increasing immunization rates as well as overall compliance with policy requirements to cover all recommended HCP immunizations.

In the past 3 years R.H.M.W. has received support for research, expenses to attend conferences and fees for lecturing and consultancy work (including attending advisory boards) from various pharmaceutical companies including Astra Zeneca, Cyberonics, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LivaNova, Lundbeck, MyTomorrows, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche, Servier, SPIMACO and Sunovion. D.M.B.C. has received fees from LivaNova for attending an advisory board. In the past 3 years A.J.C. has received fees for lecturing from Astra Zeneca and Lundbeck; fees for consulting from LivaNova, Janssen and Allergan; and research grant support from Lundbeck.

In the past 3 years A.C. has received fees for lecturing from pharmaceutical companies namely Lundbeck and Sunovion. In the past 3 years A.L.M. has received support for attending seminars and fees for consultancy work (including advisory board) from Medtronic Inc and LivaNova. R.M. holds joint research grants with a number of digital companies that investigate devices for depression including Alpha-stim, Big White Wall, P1vital, Intel, Johnson and Johnson and Lundbeck through his mindTech and CLAHRC EM roles. M.S. is an associate at Blueriver Consulting providing intelligence to NHS organisations, pharmaceutical and devices companies. He has received honoraria for presentations and advisory boards with Lundbeck, Eli Lilly, URGO, AstraZeneca, Phillips and Sanofi and holds shares in Johnson and Johnson. In the past 3 years P.R.A.S. has received support for research, expenses to attend conferences and fees for lecturing and consultancy work (including attending an advisory board) from life sciences companies including Corcept Therapeutics, Indivior and LivaNova. In the past 3 years P.S.T. has received consultancy fees as an advisory board member from the following companies: Galen Limited, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Europe Ltd, myTomorrows and LivaNova. A.H.Y. has undertaken paid lectures and advisory boards for all major pharmaceutical companies with drugs used in affective and related disorders and LivaNova. He has received funding for investigator initiated studies from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck and Wyeth.

To evaluate the impact of an institutional hand hygiene accountability program on healthcare personnel hand hygiene adherence.

Time-series design with correlation analysis.

Tertiary care academic medical center, including outpatient clinics and procedural areas.

Medical center healthcare personnel.

A comprehensive hand hygiene initiative was implemented in 2 major phases starting in July 2009. Key facets of the initiative included extensive project planning, leadership buy-in and goal setting, financial incentives linked to performance, and use of a system-wide shared accountability model. Adherence was measured by designated hand hygiene observers. Adherence rates were compared between baseline and implementation phases, and monthly hand hygiene adherence rates were correlated with monthly rates of device-associated infection.

A total of 109,988 observations were completed during the study period, with a sustained increase in hand hygiene adherence throughout each implementation phase (P<.0001) as well as from one phase to the next (P < .0001), such that adherence greater than 85% has been achieved since January 2011. Medical center departments were able to reclaim some rebate dollars allocated through a self-insurance trust, but during the study period, departments did not achieve full reimbursement. Hand hygiene adherence rates were inversely correlated with device-associated standardized infection ratios (R2 = 0.70).

Implementation of this multifaceted, observational hand hygiene program was associated with sustained improvement in hand hygiene adherence. The principles of this program could be applied to other medical centers pursuing improved hand hygiene adherence among healthcare personnel.

The success of central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) prevention programs in intensive care units (ICUs) has led to the expansion of surveillance at many hospitals. We sought to compare non-ICU CLABSI (nCLABSI) rates with national reports and describe methods of surveillance at several participating US institutions.

An electronic survey of several medical centers about infection surveillance practices and rate data for non-ICU Patients.

Ten tertiary care hospitals.

In March 2011, a survey was sent to 10 medical centers. The survey consisted of 12 questions regarding demographics and CLABSI surveillance methodology for non-ICU patients at each center. Participants were also asked to provide available rate and device utilization data.

Hospitals ranged in size from 238 to 1,400 total beds (median, 815). All hospitals reported using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definitions. Denominators were collected by different means: counting patients with central lines every day (5 hospitals), indirectly estimating on the basis of electronic orders (n = 4), or another automated method (n = 1). Rates of nCLABSI ranged from 0.2 to 4.2 infections per 1,000 catheter-days (median, 2.5). The national rate reported by the CDC using 2009 data from the National Healthcare Surveillance Network was 1.14 infections per 1,000 catheter-days.

Only 2 hospitals were below the pooled CLABSI rate for inpatient wards; all others exceeded this rate. Possible explanations include differences in average central line utilization or hospital size in the impact of certain clinical risk factors notably absent from the definition and in interpretation and reporting practices. Further investigation is necessary to determine whether the national benchmarks are low or whether the hospitals surveyed here represent a selection of outliers.

To determine the impact of known observers on hand hygiene performance in inpatient care units with differing baseline levels of hand hygiene compliance.

Observational study.

Three inpatient care units, selected on the basis of past hand hygiene performance, in a hospital where hand hygiene observation and feedback are routine.

Three infection control practitioners (ICPs) and a student intern observed hospital staff.

Beginning in late 2005, the 3 ICPs, who were well known to the hospital staff, performed frequent, regular observations of hand hygiene in all 3 inpatient care units of the hospital, as part of routine surveillance. During the study period (January-May 2007), a student intern who was unknown to the hospital staff also performed observations of hand hygiene in the 3 inpatient care units. The rates of hand hygiene compliance observed by the 3 ICPs were compared with those observed by the student intern.

The 3 ICPs observed 332 opportunities for hand hygiene during 15 observation periods, and the student intern observed 355 opportunities during 19 observation periods. The overall rate of hand hygiene compliance observed by the ICPs was 65% (ie, in 215 of the 332 opportunities, the performance of proper hand hygiene by hospital staff was observed), and the overall rate of hand hygiene compliance observed by the student intern was 58% (ie, in 207 of the 355 opportunities, the performance of proper hand hygiene by hospital staff was observed) (P = .1). Both the ICPs and the student intern were able to distinguish between inpatient care units with a high rate of hand hygiene compliance (hereafter referred to as high-performing units) and those with a low rate (hereafter referred to as low-performing units). However, in the 2 high-performing units, the ICPs observed significantly higher compliance rates than did the student intern, whereas in the low-performing unit, both the ICPs and the student intern measured similarly low rates of hand hygiene compliance.

Recognized observers are associated with higher rates of hand hygiene compliance, even in a healthcare setting where such observations have become routine. This effect (ie, the Hawthorne effect) is more pronounced in high-performing units and insignificant in low-performing units. The use of unrecognized observers may be important for verifying high performance but is probably unnecessary for documenting poor performance. Moreover, the Hawthorne effect may be a useful tool for sustaining and improving hand hygiene compliance.