ObjectiveTo investigate the effects of friendly competition on hand hygiene compliance as part of a multimodal intervention program.DesignProspective observational study in which the primary outcome was hand hygiene compliance. Differences were analyzed using the Pearson χ2 test. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval were calculated using multilevel logistic regression.SettingObservations were performed in 9 public hospitals and 1 rehabilitation center in Rotterdam, Netherlands.ParticipantsFrom 2014 to 2016, at 5 time points (at 6-month intervals) in 120 hospital wards, 20,286 hand hygiene opportunities were observed among physicians, nurses, and other healthcare workers (HCWs).InterventionThe multimodal, friendly competition intervention consisted of mandatory interventions: monitoring and feedback of hand hygiene compliance and optional interventions (ie, e-learning, kick-off workshop, observer training, and team training). Hand hygiene opportunities, as formulated by the World Health Organization (WHO), were unobtrusively observed at 5 time points by trained observers. Compliance data were presented to the healthcare organizations as a ranking.ResultsThe overall mean hand hygiene compliance at time point 1 was 42.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 41.4–44.4), which increased to 51.4% (95% CI, 49.8–53.0) at time point 5 (P<.001). Nurses showed a significant improvement between time points 1 and 5 (P<.001), whereas the compliance of physicians and other HCWs remained unchanged. In the multilevel logistic regressions, time points, type of ward, and type of HCW showed a significant association with compliance.ConclusionBetween the start and the end of the multimodal intervention program in a friendly competition setting, overall hand hygiene compliance increased significantly.

Background: Isolation precautions are recommended when caring for patients identified with highly resistant micro-organisms (HRMOs). However, the direct costs of patients in isolation are largely unknown. Aim: To obtain detailed information on the daily direct costs associated with isolating patients identified with HRMOs. Methods: This study was performed from November until December 2017 on a 12-bed surgical ward. This ward contained solely isolation rooms with anterooms. The daily direct costs of isolation were based on three cost items: (1) additional personal protective equipment (PPE), measured by counting the consumption of empty packaging materials;(2) cleaning and disinfection of the isolation room, based on the costs of an outsourced cleaning company; and (3) additional workload for healthcare workers, based on literature and multiplied by the average gross hourly salary of nurses. A distinction was made between the costs for strict isolation, contact-plus isolation, and contact isolation. Findings: During the study period, 26 patients were nursed in isolation because of HRMO carriage. Time for donning and doffing of PPE was 31 min per day. The average daily direct costs of isolation were the least expensive for contact isolation (gown, gloves), V28/$31, and the most expensive for strict isolation (surgical mask, gloves, gown, cap), V41/$47. Conclusion: Using a novel, easy method to estimate consumption of PPE, we conclude that the daily direct costs of isolating a patient differ per type of isolation. Insight into the direct costs of isolation is of utmost importance when developing or updating infection prevention policies.

Background There are differences in infection prevention and control (IPC) policies to prevent transmission of highly resistant microorganisms (HRMO). The aim of this study is to give an overview of the IPC policy of six European hospitals and their HRMO prevalence, to compare the IPC policies of these hospitals with international guidelines, and to investigate the hospitals’ adherence to their own IPC policy. Methods The participating hospitals were located in Salzburg (Austria), Vienna (Austria), Kayseri (Turkey), Piraeus (Greece), Rome (Italy) and Rotterdam (The Netherlands). Data were collected via an online survey. Questions were aimed at prevalence rates in the years 2014, 2015, 2016 of carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae (CPK), carbapenemase-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CPPA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VRE) and hospitals’ IPC policies of 2017. Implemented IPC measures (i.e. with a self-reported adherence of > 90%) were counted (26 points maximal). Results The self-reported prevalence of CPK per year was low in the Austrian and Dutch hospitals and high in the Turkish and Greek hospitals. CPPA was highly prevalent in the Turkish hospital only, while the prevalence of VRE in four hospitals, except the Austrian hospitals which reported lower prevalence numbers, was more evenly distributed. The Dutch hospital had implemented the most IPC measures (n = 21), the Turkish and Greek hospitals the least (n = 14 and 7, respectively). Conclusion Hospitals with the highest self-reported prevalence of CPK and CPPA reported the least implemented IPC measures. Also, hospitals with a higher prevalence often reported a lower adherence to own IPC policy.

No abstract