Assessing the accuracy of a new hand hygiene monitoring device (SmartRub®): from the laboratory to clinical practice.
Electronic monitoring device
Hand hygiene
Hospital acquired infections
Sensitivity
Specificity
Journal
Antimicrobial resistance and infection control
ISSN: 2047-2994
Titre abrégé: Antimicrob Resist Infect Control
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101585411
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 11 2021
06 11 2021
Historique:
received:
02
03
2021
accepted:
17
09
2021
entrez:
7
11
2021
pubmed:
8
11
2021
medline:
1
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We developed SmartRub® powered by iQati®, an electronic device composed of a wristband and an alcohol-based handrub pocket-sized dispenser that measures and provides feedback on the duration of hand friction and the volume poured during each hand hygiene action. We aimed to assess the accuracy of SmartRub®. The specificity, sensitivity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) of SmartRub® were assessed in a 3-phased experiment: (1) laboratory-controlled conditions with volunteers; (2) pre-planned clinical path with volunteers and (3) real clinical conditions with healthcare workers. The accuracy of SmartRub® was evaluated by quantifying its ability to correctly capture true hand hygiene actions and to not record other actions performed while wearing the device. In the laboratory, 7 volunteers performed 816 actions. Overall sensitivity was 94.1% (95% CI 91.4-96.2%) with a PPV of 99.0% (95% CI 97.3-99.6%) and specificity was 99.0% (95% CI 97.5-99.7%) with a NPV of 94.4% (95% CI 91.9-96.1%). During the pre-planned clinical path phase, 13 volunteers performed 98 planned paths and a total of 967 actions were performed. Overall sensitivity was 94.6% (95% CI 92.2-96.5%) with a PPV of 84.3% (95% CI 81.6-86.7%) and specificity was 82.4% (95% CI 78.7-85.7%) with a NPV of 93.9% (95% CI 91.3-95.7%). During the real clinical conditions phase, 17 healthcare workers were observed for a total of 15 h and 3 min while they performed 485 actions. Sensitivity was 96.8% (95% CI 93.8-98.6%) with a PPV of 98.3% (95% CI 95.6-99.3%) and specificity was 98.3% (95% CI 95.7-99.5%) with a NPV of 96.8% (95% CI 93.9-98.4%). Smartrub® is a highly reliable device for capturing hand hygiene actions under a range of conditions, from the laboratory to clinical care activities.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
We developed SmartRub® powered by iQati®, an electronic device composed of a wristband and an alcohol-based handrub pocket-sized dispenser that measures and provides feedback on the duration of hand friction and the volume poured during each hand hygiene action. We aimed to assess the accuracy of SmartRub®.
METHODS
The specificity, sensitivity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) of SmartRub® were assessed in a 3-phased experiment: (1) laboratory-controlled conditions with volunteers; (2) pre-planned clinical path with volunteers and (3) real clinical conditions with healthcare workers. The accuracy of SmartRub® was evaluated by quantifying its ability to correctly capture true hand hygiene actions and to not record other actions performed while wearing the device.
RESULTS
In the laboratory, 7 volunteers performed 816 actions. Overall sensitivity was 94.1% (95% CI 91.4-96.2%) with a PPV of 99.0% (95% CI 97.3-99.6%) and specificity was 99.0% (95% CI 97.5-99.7%) with a NPV of 94.4% (95% CI 91.9-96.1%). During the pre-planned clinical path phase, 13 volunteers performed 98 planned paths and a total of 967 actions were performed. Overall sensitivity was 94.6% (95% CI 92.2-96.5%) with a PPV of 84.3% (95% CI 81.6-86.7%) and specificity was 82.4% (95% CI 78.7-85.7%) with a NPV of 93.9% (95% CI 91.3-95.7%). During the real clinical conditions phase, 17 healthcare workers were observed for a total of 15 h and 3 min while they performed 485 actions. Sensitivity was 96.8% (95% CI 93.8-98.6%) with a PPV of 98.3% (95% CI 95.6-99.3%) and specificity was 98.3% (95% CI 95.7-99.5%) with a NPV of 96.8% (95% CI 93.9-98.4%).
CONCLUSIONS
Smartrub® is a highly reliable device for capturing hand hygiene actions under a range of conditions, from the laboratory to clinical care activities.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34742337
doi: 10.1186/s13756-021-01026-2
pii: 10.1186/s13756-021-01026-2
pmc: PMC8572444
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
158Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017 May;38(5):547-552
pubmed: 28264743
J Infect Prev. 2017 Nov;18(6):278-287
pubmed: 29344097
Am J Infect Control. 2018 Sep;46(9):1032-1035
pubmed: 29655670
Am J Infect Control. 2017 May 1;45(5):464-465
pubmed: 28456319
J Clin Diagn Res. 2016 Oct;10(10):YE01-YE06
pubmed: 27891446
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008 Oct;29(10):957-9
pubmed: 18754740
Lancet. 2011 Jan 15;377(9761):228-41
pubmed: 21146207
Am J Infect Control. 2014 Feb;42(2):144-7
pubmed: 24355492
Stat Med. 2007 May 10;26(10):2170-83
pubmed: 16927452
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016 Feb;37(2):219-21
pubmed: 26598073
Am J Infect Control. 2014 May;42(5):472-8
pubmed: 24773785
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008 Oct;29(10):954-6
pubmed: 18754741
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010 Aug;31(8):869-70
pubmed: 20586650
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017 Mar;38(3):348-352
pubmed: 27989240
Am J Infect Control. 2017 May 1;45(5):528-535
pubmed: 28456322