Hand Disinfectant Practice: The Impact of an Education Intervention

Hand hygiene prevents cross infection in hospitals, but compliance with recommended instructions is commonly poor. We attempted to promote hand hygiene by implementing a hospital-wide programme, with special emphasis on bedside, alcohol-based hand disinfection. We measured nosocomial infections in parallel. We monitored the overall compliance with hand hygiene during routine patient care in a teaching hospital in Geneva, Switzerland, before and during implementation of a hand-hygiene campaign. Seven hospital-wide observational surveys were done twice yearly from December, 1994, to December, 1997. Secondary outcome measures were nosocomial infection rates, attack rates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and consumption of handrub disinfectant. We observed more than 20,000 opportunities for hand hygiene. Compliance improved progressively from 48% in 1994, to 66% in 1997 (p<0.001). Although recourse to handwashing with soap and water remained stable, frequency of hand disinfection substantially increased during the study period (p<0.001). This result was unchanged after adjustment for known risk factors of poor adherence. Hand hygiene improved significantly among nurses and nursing assistants, but remained poor among doctors. During the same period, overall nosocomial infection decreased (prevalence of 16.9% in 1994 to 9.9% in 1998; p=0.04), MRSA transmission rates decreased (2.16 to 0.93 episodes per 10,000 patient-days; p<0.001), and the consumption of alcohol-based handrub solution increased from 3.5 to 15.4 L per 1000 patient-days between 1993 and 1998 (p<0.001). The campaign produced a sustained improvement in compliance with hand hygiene, coinciding with a reduction of nosocomial infections and MRSA transmission. The promotion of bedside, antiseptic handrubs largely contributed to the increase in compliance.

Educational outreach visits (EOVs) have been identified as an intervention that may improve the practice of healthcare professionals. This type of face-to-face visit has been referred to as university-based educational detailing, academic detailing, and educational visiting. To assess the effects of EOVs on health professional practice or patient outcomes. For this update, we searched the Cochrane EPOC register to March 2007. In the original review, we searched multiple bibliographic databases including MEDLINE and CINAHL. Randomised trials of EOVs that reported an objective measure of professional performance or healthcare outcomes. An EOV was defined as a personal visit by a trained person to healthcare professionals in their own settings. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. We used bubble plots and box plots to visually inspect the data. We conducted both quantitative and qualitative analyses. We used meta-regression to examine potential sources of heterogeneity determined a priori. We hypothesised eight factors to explain variation across effect estimates. In our primary visual and statistical analyses, we included only studies with dichotomous outcomes, with baseline data and with low or moderate risk of bias, in which the intervention included an EOV and was compared to no intervention. We included 69 studies involving more than 15,000 health professionals. Twenty-eight studies (34 comparisons) contributed to the calculation of the median and interquartile range for the main comparison. The median adjusted risk difference (RD) in compliance with desired practice was 5.6% (interquartile range 3.0% to 9.0%). The adjusted RDs were highly consistent for prescribing (median 4.8%, interquartile range 3.0% to 6.5% for 17 comparisons), but varied for other types of professional performance (median 6.0%, interquartile range 3.6% to 16.0% for 17 comparisons). Meta-regression was limited by the large number of potential explanatory factors (eight) with only 31 comparisons, and did not provide any compelling explanations for the observed variation in adjusted RDs. There were 18 comparisons with continuous outcomes, with a median adjusted relative improvement of 21% (interquartile range 11% to 41%). There were eight trials (12 comparisons) in which the intervention included an EOV and was compared to another type of intervention, usually audit and feedback. Interventions that included EOVs appeared to be slightly superior to audit and feedback. Only six studies evaluated different types of visits in head-to-head comparisons. When individual visits were compared to group visits (three trials), the results were mixed. EOVs alone or when combined with other interventions have effects on prescribing that are relatively consistent and small, but potentially important. Their effects on other types of professional performance vary from small to modest improvements, and it is not possible from this review to explain that variation.

Transmission of microorganisms from the hands of health care workers is the main source of cross-infection in hospitals and can be prevented by handwashing. To identify predictors of noncompliance with handwashing during routine patient care. Observational study. Teaching hospital in Geneva, Switzerland. Nurses (66%), physicians (10%), nursing assistants (13%), and other health care workers (11%). Compliance with handwashing. In 2834 observed opportunities for handwashing, average compliance was 48%. In multivariate analysis, noncompliance was higher among physicians (odds ratio [OR], 2.8 [95% CI, 1.9 to 4.1]), nursing assistants (OR, 1.3 [CI, 1.0 to 1.6]), and other health care workers (OR, 2.1 [CI, 1.4 to 3.2]) than among nurses and was lowest on weekends (OR, 0.6 [CI, 0.4 to 0.8]). Noncompliance was higher in intensive care than in internal medicine units (OR, 2.0 [CI, 1.3 to 3.1]), during procedures that carry a high risk for contamination (OR, 1.8 [CI, 1.4 to 2.4]), and when intensity of patient care was high (compared with 60 opportunities: OR, 2.1 [CI, 1.3 to 3.5]). Compliance with handwashing was moderate. Variation across hospital ward and type of health care worker suggests that targeted educational programs may be useful. Even though observational data cannot prove causality, the association between noncompliance and intensity of care suggests that understaffing may decrease quality of patient care.