in compliance and so we looked at our product used alongside of that and saw a really similar increase in our product use, which again, was affirming that we really were seeing an improved compliance. But certainly not as like a primary method for tracking our monitoring, just because of the inability to detect whether it’ s the right moments for using the product.”
Discussion then turned to personnel speaking up when hand hygiene is either not performed at all or performed sub-optimally or incorrectly.
“ We encourage our observers to do so, but we don’ t expect it because we don’ t want to identify the as observers. We really try to push everyone to speak up instead of just laying it at the feet of our observers.”
Sickbert-Benett addressed the success her system has experienced.
“ It’ s been a continuous process when we first started measuring our feedback rates for about 30 percent of our observations and now we’ re around 60 percent to 70 percent, which I do count as a tremendous success,” she said.“ I’ m more proud of that than an artificial compliance percentage number. Some of the things we tried were to encourage people to speak up during the times when they saw people washing their hands— as silly as it may seem— but just to get people talking about hand hygiene. I count those as wins when people are thinking about it and talking to each other about it. We’ ve also had some deliberate messaging around our program, reminding people that there are so many times throughout the day when you need to perform hand hygiene and that everyone forgets at times.”
She continued,“ When we first launched the program, we had little badge stickers where people took a pledge basically saying‘ I agree, everyone forgets, and I want to be reminded.’ Not that it wasn’ t okay to remind anybody, but just that it was a visible cue that many people had accepted this pledge and that it was something we all needed to help hold each other accountable. Those are strategies that helped, but we’ re not perfect. I’ ve looked at our hand hygiene feedback, and it
definitely happens more within a job class than between job classes.”
References:
Glowicz JB, Landon E, Sickbert-Bennett EE, Aiello AE, deKay K, Hoffmann KK, Maragakis L, Olmsted RN, Polgreen PM, Trexler PA, VanAmringe MA, Wood AR, Yokoe D, Ellingson KD. SHEA / IDSA / APIC Practice Recommendation: Strategies to prevent healthcare associated infections through hand hygiene: 2022 Update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2023 Mar; 44( 3): 355-376. doi: 10.1017 / ice. 2022.304. Epub 2023 Feb 8. PMID: 36751708; PMCID: PMC10015275.
Greene C, Vadlamudi G, Eisenberg M, Foxman B, Koopman J, Xi C. Fomite-fingerpad transfer efficiency( pick-up and deposit) of Acinetobacter baumannii with and without a latex glove. Am J Infect Control 2015; 43:928 – 934
Hewlett AL, Hohenberger H, Murphy CN, et al. Evaluation of the bacterial burden of gel fingernails, standard fingernail polish, and natural fingernails on the hands of healthcare workers. Am J Infect Control 2018; 46:1356-1359
SUBMISSIONS WANTED
Healthcare Hygiene magazine invites infection prevention stakeholders from all aspects of prevention and control( including IP / healthcare epidemiology, healthcare value analysis, quality / safety / risk management, surgical services, sterile processing, environmental services, biomedical engineering and scientific research) to submit sciencedriven, best practice-based articles for consideration for publication. Please, no public relations pitches or articles with commercial overtones. Send your queries to Kelly Pyrek at: kelly @ healthcarehygienemagazine. com
Keep up on the latest news headlines, monthly issues and special editions at: www. healthcarehygienemagazine. com
healthcarehygienemagazine