4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Hand hygiene compliance monitoring: current perspectives from the USA

Journal

JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL INFECTION
Volume 70, Issue -, Pages 2-7

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0195-6701(08)60003-1

Keywords

Hand hygiene; Compliance; Monitoring

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Monitoring hand hygiene compliance and providing healthcare workers with feedback regarding their performance are considered integral parts of a successful hand hygiene promotion program. Direct observation of care providers by trained personnel is currently considered the gold standard. Advantages include the ability to determine if hand hygiene is being performed at the correct times, establish compliance rates by healthcare worker type, and assess hand hygiene technique. However, observation surveys are time-consuming, permit observation of only a small fraction of all hand hygiene opportunities, and can be influenced by inter-rater reliability. Comparison of compliance rates obtained through observation surveys is problematic due to tack of standardization of criteria for compliance and observation techniques. Self-reporting of compliance is not sufficiently reliable to be useful. Monitoring the usage of hand hygiene products requires much less time and can be performed on an ongoing basis, and is less complicated. However, it does not provide information about the appropriateness and quality of hand hygiene practices or compliance rates by health-care worker type. Furthermore, it is not clear how product usage correlates with compliance established by observational surveys. Electronic methods for monitoring compliance require further evaluation before they can be routinely recommended. Clearly, further research is needed to develop efficient, reliable, and reproducible methods for monitoring hand hygiene compliance. (c) 2008 The Hospital Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available