Effect of Wearing a Novel Electronic Wearable Device on Hand Hygiene Compliance Among Health Care Workers: A Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.
Adult
Age Factors
Cross Infection
/ prevention & control
Female
Formative Feedback
Guideline Adherence
Hand Disinfection
/ standards
Hand Hygiene
Hand Sanitizers
Health Personnel
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Nurses
Nursing Assistants
Physical Therapists
Quality Improvement
Random Allocation
Wearable Electronic Devices
Workload
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 02 2021
01 02 2021
Historique:
entrez:
8
2
2021
pubmed:
9
2
2021
medline:
13
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Hand hygiene (HH) is essential to prevent hospital-acquired infections. To determine whether providing real-time feedback on a simplified HH action improves compliance with the World Health Organization's "5 Moments" and the quality of the HH action. This open-label, cluster randomized, stepped-wedge clinical trial was conducted between June 1, 2017, and January 6, 2018 (with a follow-up in March 2018), in a geriatric hospital of the University of Geneva Hospitals, Switzerland. All 12 wards and 97 of 306 eligible health care workers (HCWs) volunteered to wear a novel electronic wearable device that delivered real-time feedback on duration of hand rubbing and application of a hand-sized customized volume of alcohol-based handrub (ABHR). This study had 3 sequential periods: baseline (no device), transition (device monitoring without feedback), and intervention (device monitoring and feedback). The start of the transition period was randomly allocated based on a computer-generated block randomization. The primary outcome was HH compliance, according to the direct observation method during intervention as compared with baseline. Secondary outcomes included the volume of ABHR and duration of hand rubbing measured by the device during intervention as compared with transition. All wards and respective HCWs were evenly assigned to group 1 (26 participants), 2 (22 participants), 3 (25 participants), or 4 (24 participants). Twelve HCWs did not fully complete the intervention but were included in the analysis. During 759 observation sessions, 6878 HH opportunities were observed. HH compliance at intervention (62.9%; 95% CI, 61.1%-64.7%) was lower than at baseline (66.6%; 95% CI, 64.8%-68.4%). After adjusting for covariates, HH compliance was not different between periods (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.75-1.42; P = .85). Days since study onset (OR, 0.997; 95% CI, 0.994-0.998; P < .001), older age (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99; P = .015), and workload (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.20-0.41; P < .001) were independently associated with reduced HH compliance. The median (interquartile range) volume of ABHR and duration of hand rubbing in transition and intervention increased from 1.12 (0.76-1.68) mL to 1.71 (1.01-2.76) mL and from 6.5 (4.5-10.5) seconds to 8 (4.5-15.5) seconds, respectively. There were no serious adverse events. The use of this device did not change HH compliance, but increased the duration of hand rubbing and volume of ABHR used by HCWs. isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN25430066.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33555332
pii: 2776020
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.35331
pmc: PMC7871189
doi:
Substances chimiques
Hand Sanitizers
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2035331Références
Trials. 2015 Aug 17;16:354
pubmed: 26282553
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017 May;38(5):553-558
pubmed: 28222829
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jan;69:137-46
pubmed: 26344808
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2010 Nov;7(11):633-9
pubmed: 20865628
Am J Infect Control. 2019 Apr;47(4):439-447
pubmed: 30527285
J Hosp Infect. 2015 Jan;89(1):51-60
pubmed: 25480021
Euro Surveill. 2018 Nov;23(46):
pubmed: 30458912
Am J Infect Control. 2016 May 2;44(5 Suppl):e7-e12
pubmed: 27131139
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016 Feb;37(2):219-21
pubmed: 26598073
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010 Feb;31(2):133-41
pubmed: 20017633
Am J Infect Control. 2014 May;42(5):472-8
pubmed: 24773785
J Hosp Infect. 2020 Apr;104(4):419-424
pubmed: 31513881
PLoS Med. 2016 Oct 18;13(10):e1002150
pubmed: 27755545
Am J Infect Control. 2019 Mar;47(3):313-322
pubmed: 30322815
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017 May;38(5):547-552
pubmed: 28264743
Lancet Infect Dis. 2015 Feb;15(2):212-24
pubmed: 25467650
Am J Infect Control. 2016 Dec 1;44(12):1689-1691
pubmed: 27566875
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015 Dec;36(12):1444-50
pubmed: 26383964
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007 Jan;28(1):50-4
pubmed: 17230387
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2015 Jun 16;4 Suppl 1:I1-P308
pubmed: 28256991
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008 Oct;29(10):954-6
pubmed: 18754741
Am J Infect Control. 2017 May 1;45(5):528-535
pubmed: 28456322
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019 Jul;25(7):851-856
pubmed: 31203871
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017 Feb;38(2):230-233
pubmed: 27817763
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017 Jun;23(6):409.e1-409.e4
pubmed: 28062315
Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Aug 1;69(4):614-620
pubmed: 30395180
Lancet. 2000 Oct 14;356(9238):1307-12
pubmed: 11073019
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010 Mar;31(3):283-94
pubmed: 20088678
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017 Dec;38(12):1430-1434
pubmed: 29081301