Explore the vast range of titles available.

The gold standard for hand hygiene (HH) while wearing gloves requires removing gloves, performing HH, and donning new gloves between WHO moments. The novel strategy of applying alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) directly to gloved hands might be effective and efficient. A mixed-method, multicenter, 3-arm, randomized trial. Adult and pediatric medical-surgical, intermediate, and intensive care units at 4 hospitals. Healthcare personnel (HCP). HCP were randomized to 3 groups: ABHR applied directly to gloved hands, the current standard, or usual care. Gloved hands were sampled via direct imprint. Gold-standard and usual-care arms were compared with the ABHR intervention. Bacteria were identified on gloved hands after 432 (67.4%) of 641 observations in the gold-standard arm versus 548 (82.8%) of 662 observations in the intervention arm ( < .01). HH required a mean of 14 seconds in the intervention and a mean of 28.7 seconds in the gold-standard arm ( < .01). Bacteria were identified on gloved hands after 133 (98.5%) of 135 observations in the usual-care arm versus 173 (76.6%) of 226 observations in the intervention arm ( < .01). Of 331 gloves tested 6 (1.8%) were found to have microperforations; all were identified in the intervention arm [6 (2.9%) of 205]. Compared with usual care, contamination of gloved hands was significantly reduced by applying ABHR directly to gloved hands but statistically higher than the gold standard. Given time savings and microbiological benefit over usual care and lack of feasibility of adhering to the gold standard, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization should consider advising HCP to decontaminate gloved hands with ABHR when HH moments arise during single-patient encounters. NCT03445676.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the microbiologic effectiveness of the World Health Organization's 6-step and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 3-step hand hygiene techniques using alcohol-based handrub. DESIGN A parallel group randomized controlled trial. SETTING An acute care inner-city teaching hospital (Glasgow). PARTICIPANTS Doctors (n=42) and nurses (n=78) undertaking direct patient care. INTERVENTION Random 1:1 allocation of the 6-step (n=60) or the 3-step (n=60) technique. RESULTS The 6-step technique was microbiologically more effective at reducing the median log10 bacterial count. The 6-step technique reduced the count from 3.28 CFU/mL (95% CI, 3.11-3.38 CFU/mL) to 2.58 CFU/mL (2.08-2.93 CFU/mL), whereas the 3-step reduced it from 3.08 CFU/mL (2.977-3.27 CFU/mL) to 2.88 CFU/mL (-2.58 to 3.15 CFU/mL) (P=.02). However, the 6-step technique did not increase the total hand coverage area (98.8% vs 99.0%, P=.15) and required 15% (95% CI, 6%-24%) more time (42.50 seconds vs 35.0 seconds, P=.002). Total hand coverage was not related to the reduction in bacterial count. CONCLUSIONS Two techniques for hand hygiene using alcohol-based handrub are promoted in international guidance, the 6-step by the World Health Organization and 3-step by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The study provides the first evidence in a randomized controlled trial that the 6-step technique is superior, thus these international guidance documents should consider this evidence, as should healthcare organizations using the 3-step technique in practice. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:661-666.

Soil transmitted helminths (STH) can affect over 50% of children in some parts of Tanzania. Control measures involve annual deworming campaigns in schools, but re-infection is rapid. This paper presents the design and baseline survey results of an ongoing school-based cluster-randomised controlled trial in Kagera region, NW Tanzania. The trial aims to determine whether the effect of routine deworming on the prevalence of Ascaris lumbricoides and Trichuris trichiura infections among school aged children can be sustained when combined with a behaviour change intervention promoting handwashing with water and soap. As part of the trial, a total of 16 schools were randomised to receive the intervention (N = 8) or as controls (N = 8). Randomisation was stratified per district and restricted to ensure pre-trial STH prevalence was balanced between study arms. The combination intervention to be tested comprises class-room based teacher-led health education, improvement of handwash stations, coloured nudges to facilitate handwashing and parental engagement sessions. The impact evaluation involves two cross-sectional surveys conducted at baseline and endline. The objectives of the baseline survey were: (i) to confirm whether the deworming campaign was successful, and identify and treat students still infected about 2 weeks after deworming, (ii) to document any baseline differences in STH prevalence between trial arms, and (iii) to assess handwashing behaviours, and access to water and sanitation at school and home. We randomly sampled 35 students per class in Grades 1-6 (an average of 200 children per school), stratified to ensure equal representation between genders. Assenting students were interviewed using a structured questionnaire and asked to provide a stool specimen. Results of the baseline survey conducted about 2 weeks after deworming shows balanced demographic and STH prevalence data across trial arms. We observed a low prevalence of ascariasis (< 5%) as expected; however, the prevalence of trichuriasis was still about 35% in both arms. The randomisation procedure was successful in achieving a balanced distribution of demographic characteristics and helminth infections between trial arms. The intervention is being rolled out. The current deworming treatment regimen may need to be revised with regards to the treatment of trichuriasis.

Background Implementation science experts define champions as “supporting, marketing, and driving through an implementation, overcoming indifference or resistance that the intervention may provoke in an organization.” Many hospitals use designated clinical champions—often called “hand hygiene (HH) champions”—typically to improve hand hygiene compliance. We conducted an ethnographic examination of how infection control teams in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) use the term “HH champion” and how they define the role. Methods An ethnographic study was conducted with infection control teams and frontline staff directly involved with hand hygiene across 10 geographically dispersed VHA facilities in the USA. Individual and group semi-structured interviews were conducted with hospital epidemiologists, infection preventionists, multi-drug-resistant organism (MDRO) program coordinators, and quality improvement specialists and frontline staff from June 2014 to September 2017. The team coded the transcripts using thematic content analysis content based on a codebook composed of inductive and deductive themes. Results A total of 173 healthcare workers participated in interviews from the 10 VHA facilities. All hand hygiene programs at each facility used the term HH champion to define a core element of their hand hygiene programs. While most described the role of HH champions as providing peer-to-peer coaching, delivering formal and informal education, and promoting hand hygiene, a majority also included hand hygiene surveillance. This conflation of implementation strategies led to contradictory responsibilities for HH champions. Participants described additional barriers to the role of HH champions, including competing priorities, staffing hierarchies, and turnover in the role. Conclusions Healthcare systems should consider narrowly defining the role of the HH champion as a dedicated individual whose mission is to overcome resistance and improve hand hygiene compliance—and differentiate it from the role of a “compliance auditor.” Returning to the traditional application of the implementation strategy may lead to overall improvements in hand hygiene and reduction of the transmission of healthcare-acquired infections.

To assess the effectiveness of a multimodal information technology-based hand hygiene strategy in improving knowledge, compliance, accuracy, and healthcare-associated infections density in Taiwan’s nursing homes. Hand hygiene is the most effective and cost-efficient method for preventing healthcare-associated infections. However, compliance rates among healthcare workers in Taiwan remain low (3.6–17.3 %) due to insufficient knowledge, limited amenities, unfamiliar procedures, neglect of protocols, and lack of habitual handwashing. Cluster-randomized controlled trial. This study involved 77 nurses and nursing assistants from four nursing homes. The experimental group received a three-month information technology-enhanced program, including hygiene amenities, reminders, education, observations with feedback, and patient safety climate improvements. The control group continued routine care. Data were collected at baseline and at one, two-, and three-months post-intervention and analyzed using generalized estimating equations. The experimental group exhibited significantly greater improvement in knowledge scores than the control group (Wald χ² = 86.63, p < .001). The hand hygiene compliance and accuracy rates of the experimental group also improved significantly more than those of the control group at three post-intervention time points (all p < .001). The density of healthcare-associated infections was reduced more in the experimental group than in the control group after three months, although the difference was not statistically significant (Wald χ² = 0.25, p = .618). Information technology-based hand hygiene strategies effectively enhanced knowledge, compliance, and accuracy among nurses and nursing assistants. Integrating this approach into routine hand hygiene practices may improve behavior, care quality, and patient safety. •A multimodal information technology-based hand hygiene strategy enhanced hand hygiene knowledge, compliance, accuracy.•Smart hand sanitizer dispensers cut monitor time and prevent the Hawthorne effect.•Promoting this strategy indirectly reduces healthcare-associated infection density.

We conducted a non-blinded randomized trial to determine the impact of a patient hand-hygiene intervention on contamination of hospitalized patients’ hands with healthcare-associated pathogens. Among patients with negative hand cultures on admission, recovery of pathogens from hands was significantly reduced in those receiving the intervention versus those receiving standard care. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:595–597

BACKGROUND Healthcare provider hands are an important source of intraoperative bacterial transmission events associated with postoperative infection development. OBJECTIVE To explore the efficacy of a novel hand hygiene improvement system leveraging provider proximity and individual and group performance feedback in reducing 30-day postoperative healthcare-associated infections via increased provider hourly hand decontamination events. DESIGN Randomized, prospective study. SETTING Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in New Hampshire and UMass Memorial Medical Center in Massachusetts. PATIENTS Patients undergoing surgery. METHODS Operating room environments were randomly assigned to usual intraoperative hand hygiene or to a personalized, body-worn hand hygiene system. Anesthesia and circulating nurse provider hourly hand decontamination events were continuously monitored and reported. All patients were followed prospectively for the development of 30-day postoperative healthcare-associated infections. RESULTS A total of 3,256 operating room environments and patients (1,620 control and 1,636 treatment) were enrolled. The mean (SD) provider hand decontamination event rate achieved was 4.3 (2.9) events per hour, an approximate 8-fold increase in hand decontamination events above that of conventional wall-mounted devices (0.57 events/hour); P<.001. Use of the hand hygiene system was not associated with a reduction in healthcare-associated infections (odds ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.82-1.40], P=.626). CONCLUSIONS The hand hygiene system evaluated in this study increased the frequency of hand decontamination events without reducing 30-day postoperative healthcare-associated infections. Future work is indicated to optimize the efficacy of this hand hygiene improvement strategy. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:888-895.

Background Recent studies put under scrutiny the prevailing hand hygiene guidelines, which incorporate quantitative parameters regarding handrub volume and hand size. Understanding the criticality of complete (i.e., efficient) hand hygiene in healthcare, objectivization of hand hygiene related parameters are paramount, including the formulation of the ABHR. Complete coverage can be achieved with optimal Alcohol-Based Hand Rub (ABHR) provided. The literature is limited regarding ABHR formulation variances to antimicrobial efficiency and healthcare workers’ preference, while public data on clinically relevant typical application differences is not available. This study was designed and performed to compare gel and liquid format ABHRs (the two most popular types in Europe) by measuring several parameters, including application time, spillage and coverage. Methodology Senior medical students were invited, and randomly assigned to receive pre-determined ABHR volumes (1.5 or 3 ml). All the 340 participants were given equal amounts of gel and liquid on two separate hand hygiene occasions, which occurred two weeks apart. During the hand hygiene events, by employing a digital, fully automated system paired with fluorescent-traced ABHRs, disinfectant hand coverage was objectively investigated. Furthermore, hand coverage in relation to the participants’ hand sizes was also calculated. Additional data collection was performed regarding volume differences and their effect on application time, participants’ volume awareness (consciousness) and disinfectant spillage during the hand hygiene events. Results The 1.5 ml ABHR volume (commonly applied in healthcare settings) is insufficient in either formulation, as the non-covered areas exceeded significant (5%+) of the total hand surface area. 3 ml, on the contrary, resulted in almost complete coverage (uncovered areas remained below 1.5%). Participants typically underestimated the volume which they needed to apply. While the liquid ABHR spreads better in the lower, 1.5 ml volume compared to the gel, the latter was easier handled at larger volume. Drying times were 30/32 s (gel and liquid formats, respectively) when 1.5 ml handrub was applied, and 40/42 s when 3 ml was used. As the evaporation rates of the ABHR used in the study are similar to those available on the market, one can presume that the results presented in the study apply for most WHO conform ABHRs. Conclusion The results show that applying 1.5 ml volume was insufficient, as large part of the hand surface remained uncovered (7.0 ± 0.7% and 5.8 ± 1.0% of the hand surface in the case of gel and liquid, respectively) When 3 ml handrub was applied drying times were 40 and 42 s (gel and liquid, respectively), which is a very long time in daily clinical practice. It looks like we cannot find a volume that fits for everyone. Personalized, hand size based ABHR volumes may be the solution to find an optimal balance between maximize coverage and minimise spillage and drying time. 3 ml can be a good volume for those who have medium size hands. Large handed people should use more handrub to reach appropriate coverage, while small-handed ones may apply less to avoid massive spillage and not to take unrealistically long to dry.

Background Hand hygiene (HH) among healthcare workers (HCWs) is critical for infection prevention and control (IPC) in healthcare facilities (HCFs). Nonetheless, it remains a challenge in HCFs, largely due to lack of high-impact and efficacious interventions. Environmental cues and mobile phone health messaging (mhealth) have the potential to improve HH compliance among HCWs, however, these remain under-studied. Our study will determine the impact of mhealth hygiene messages and environmental cues on HH practice among HCWs in the Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area (GKMA). Methods The study is a cluster-randomized trial, which will be guided by the behaviour centred design model and theory for behaviour change. During the formative phase, we shall conduct 30 key informants’ interviews and 30 semi-structured interviews to explore the barriers and facilitators to HCWs’ HH practice. Besides, observations of HH facilities in 100 HCFs will be conducted. Findings from the formative phase will guide the intervention design during a stakeholders’ insight workshop. The intervention will be implemented for a period of 4 months in 30 HCFs, with a sample of 450 HCWs who work in maternity and children’s wards. HCFs in the control arm will receive innovatively designed HH facilities and supplies. HCWs in the intervention arm, in addition to the HH facilities and supplies, will receive environmental cues and mhealth messages. The main outcome will be the proportion of utilized HH opportunities out of the 9000 HH opportunities to be observed. The secondary outcome will be E. coli concentration levels in 100mls of hand rinsates from HCWs, an indicator of recent fecal contamination and HH failure. We shall run multivariable logistic regression under the generalized estimating equations (GEE) framework to account for the dependence of HH on the intervention. Discussion The study will provide critical findings on barriers and facilitators to HH practice among HCWs, and the impact of environmental cues and mhealth messages on HCWs’ HH practice. Trial registration ISRCTN Registry with number ISRCTN98148144 . The trial was registered on 23/11/2020.

To prevent disease transmission, 0.05% chlorine solution is commonly recommended for handwashing in Ebola Treatment Units. In the 2014 West Africa outbreak this recommendation was widely extended to community settings, although many organizations recommend soap and hand sanitizer over chlorine. To evaluate skin irritation caused by frequent handwashing that may increase transmission risk in Ebola-affected communities, we conducted a randomized trial with 91 subjects who washed their hands 10 times a day for 28 days. Subjects used soap and water, sanitizer, or one of four chlorine solutions used by Ebola responders (calcium hypochlorite (HTH), sodium dichloroisocyanurate (NaDCC), and generated or pH-stabilized sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl)). Outcomes were self-reported hand feel, irritation as measured by the Hand Eczema Score Index (HECSI) (range 0-360), signs of transmission risk (e.g., cracking), and dermatitis diagnosis. All groups experienced statistically significant increases in HECSI score. Subjects using sanitizer had the smallest increases, followed by higher pH chlorine solutions (HTH and stabilized NaOCl), and soap and water. The greatest increases were among neutral pH chlorine solutions (NaDCC and generated NaOCl). Signs of irritation related to higher transmission risk were observed most frequently in subjects using soap and least frequently by those using sanitizer or HTH. Despite these irritation increases, all methods represented minor changes in HECSI score. Average HECSI score was only 9.10 at endline (range 1-33) and 4% (4/91) of subjects were diagnosed with dermatitis, one each in four groups. Each handwashing method has benefits and drawbacks: soap is widely available and inexpensive, but requires water and does not inactivate the virus; sanitizer is easy-to use and effective but expensive and unacceptable to many communities, and chlorine is easy-to-use but difficult to produce properly and distribute. Overall, we recommend Ebola responders and communities use whichever handwashing method(s) are most acceptable, available, and sustainable for community handwashing. International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Registry ISRCTN89815514.