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
×

7 results

  • The impact of automated hand hygiene monitoring with and without complementary improvement strategies on performance rates

  • James W. Arbogast, Lori D. Moore, Megan DiGiorgio, Greg Robbins, Tracy L. Clark, Maria F. Thompson, Pamela T. Wagner, John M. Boyce, Albert E. Parker
  • Journal:
    Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology / Volume 44 / Issue 4 / April 2023
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    22 August 2022, pp. 638-642
    Print publication:
    April 2023
    • Article
      • You have access
      • Open access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation
  • Objective:

    To determine how engagement of the hospital and/or vendor with performance improvement strategies combined with an automated hand hygiene monitoring system (AHHMS) influence hand hygiene (HH) performance rates.

    Design:

    Prospective, before-and-after, controlled observational study.

    Setting:

    The study was conducted in 58 adult and pediatric inpatient units located in 10 hospitals.

    Methods:

    HH performance rates were estimated using an AHHMS. Rates were expressed as the number of soap and alcohol-based hand rub portions dispensed divided by the number of room entries and exits. Each hospital self-assigned to one of the following intervention groups: AHHMS alone (control group), AHHMS plus clinician-based vendor support (vendor-only group), AHHMS plus hospital-led unit-based initiatives (hospital-only group), or AHHMS plus clinician-based vendor support and hospital-led unit-based initiatives (vendor-plus-hospital group). Each hospital unit produced 1–2 months of baseline HH performance data immediately after AHHMS installation before implementing initiatives.

    Results:

    Hospital units in the vendor-plus-hospital group had a statistically significant increase of at least 46% in HH performance compared with units in the other 3 groups (P ≤ .006). Units in the hospital only group achieved a 1.3% increase in HH performance compared with units that had AHHMS alone (P = .950). Units with AHHMS plus other initiatives each had a larger change in HH performance rates over their baseline than those in the AHHMS-alone group (P < 0.001).

    Conclusions:

    AHHMS combined with clinician-based vendor support and hospital-led unit-based initiatives resulted in the greatest improvements in HH performance. These results illustrate the value of a collaborative partnership between the hospital and the AHHMS vendor.