4.5 Article

Measurement and interpretation of hand hygiene compliance rates: importance of monitoring entire care episodes

期刊

JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL INFECTION
卷 72, 期 3, 页码 211-217

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2009.03.025

关键词

Hand hygiene; Nosocomial infection; Observational study

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Our objective was to assess the importance of monitoring hand hygiene compliance (HHC) during series of successive contacts with patients or surroundings for measurement and interpretation of the compliance rates. A direct observational study of HHC was performed in four intensive care units (ICUs) and four healthcare settings with non-intensive care wards (NICWs). Hand hygiene (HH) opportunities were differentiated into two categories: extra-series opportunities (ESOs) (before or after a single contact, and before the first contact or after the last contact of a series of successive contacts) or as intra-series opportunities (ISOs) (from the opportunity following the first contact to the opportunity preceding the last in the same series). In all, 903 opportunities of HH were performed in ICUs and 760 in NICWs. The proportion of ISOs was 46.0% in ICUs and 22.9% in NICWs. The overall HHC was significantly higher in NICWs than in ICUs (61.2% vs 47.5%, P < 0.00001). The HHC was significantly higher for ESOs than for ISOs (67.7% vs 28.5%, P < 0.00001). The HHC for ISOs was significantly higher in ICUs (32.2% vs 19.0%, P < 0.005). If the distribution of categories of HH opportunities observed in NICWs had been the same as in ICUs, the overall HHC would have been similar in NICWs (46.4%) and in ICUs (47.5%). Monitoring HHC during entire care episodes in series of successive contacts is necessary to avoid a strong overestimation of the overall compliance rates. Concurrently, comparison of compliance data should take into account the proportion of ISOs included in the evaluation study. (c) 2009 The Hospital Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据