Objective: To synthesize the literature describing interventions to improve hand hygiene (HH) in Intensive Care Units (ICUs), to evaluate the quality of the extant research, and to outline the type, and efficacy, of interventions described.Data sources: Systematic searches were conducted in November 2016 using five electronic databases: Medline, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Embase, and Web of Science. Additionally, the reference lists of included studies and existing review papers were screened.Study selection: English language, peer-reviewed studies that evaluated an intervention to improve HH in an adult ICU setting, and reported HH compliance rates collected via observation, were included.Data extraction: Data were extracted on the setting, participant characteristics, experimental design, HH measurement, intervention characteristics and outcomes. Interventional components were categorized using the Behavior Change Wheel. Methodological quality was examined using the Downs and Black Checklist.Data synthesis: Thirty-eight studies were included. The methodological quality of studies was poor, with studies scoring a mean of 8.6 out of 24 (SD=2.7). Over 90% of studies implemented a bundled intervention. The most frequently employed interventional strategies were Education (78.9%), Enablement (71.1%), Training (68.4%), Environmental Restructuring (65.8%), and Persuasion (65.8%). Intervention outcomes were variable with a mean relative percentage change of 94.7% (SD=195.7; range: 4.3-1155.4%) from pre-to post-intervention.Conclusions: This review demonstrates that best practice for improving HH in ICUs remains unestablished. Future research employing rigorous experimental designs, careful statistical analysis, and clearly described interventions is important.

Background Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE), bacteria which are resistant to the carbapenem class of antibiotics, present an urgent public health risk. The objective of this study was to assess the potential costs and consequences of implementing a testing strategy involving a polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based diagnostic test for CPE amongst high risk patients upon admission to UK hospitals, to replace the current culture-based testing strategy. Methods A decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the expected medical care costs associated with a PCR testing strategy for CPE compared with the current culture testing strategy, and to consider the consequences, in terms of the diagnostic accuracy and associated cost implications, of each approach. The modelled population were patients admitted to hospital at high risk of colonisation with CPE, with model pathways for current practice based on those described in the Public Health England (PHE) toolkit for CPE testing. Costs were estimated from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective, with outcomes presented in terms of percentage of samples identified as true positive, false positive, true negative and false negative following each method of testing. Results Results indicated that the PCR testing strategy led to an estimated cost saving of £462 per patient for a 5-day hospital stay. For all sensitivity analyses conducted, PCR testing resulted in an expected cost saving. Potential cost savings approached £850 per patient for the sensitivity analysis assuming a 15-day hospital stay, indicating that PCR testing results in greater cost savings as length of stay increases. Fewer false positive, and more true negative, cases were identified with the PCR testing strategy in all analyses conducted. Conclusions This economic analysis gives an insight into the potential cost savings that could be made by the UK NHS through the introduction of a PCR-based diagnostic testing strategy to replace current recommended culture-based methods for the detection of CPE. Savings are due primarily to a faster time to result with PCR, meaning that CPE-free patients are not isolated unnecessarily. Therefore, a PCR-based diagnostic may aid appropriate use of isolation resource.

Background: Despite the effectiveness of hand hygiene (HH) for infection control, there is a lack of robust scientific data to guide how HH can be improved in intensive care units (ICUs).  The aim of this study is to use the literature, researcher, and stakeholder opinion to explicate potential interventions for improving HH compliance in the ICU, and provide an indication of the suitability of these interventions. Methods: A four-phase co-design study was designed. First, data from a previously completed systematic literature review was used in order to identify unique components of existing interventions to improve HH in ICUs. Second, a workshop was held with a panel of 10 experts to identify additional intervention components. Third, the 91 intervention components resulting from the literature review and workshop were synthesised into a final list of 21 hand hygiene interventions. Finally, the affordability, practicability, effectiveness, acceptability, side-effects/safety, and equity of each intervention was rated by 39 stakeholders (health services researchers, ICU staff, and the public). Results: Ensuring the availability of essential supplies for HH compliance was the intervention that received most approval from stakeholders. Interventions involving role models and peer-to-peer accountability and support were also well regarded by stakeholders. Education/training interventions were commonplace and popular. Punitive interventions were poorly regarded. Conclusions: Hospitals and regulators must make decisions regarding how to improve HH compliance in the absence of scientific consensus on effective methods. Using collective input and a co-design approach, the guidance developed herein may usefully support implementation of HH interventions that are considered to be effective and acceptable by stakeholders.

Background: Although appropriate hand hygiene (HH) practices are recognised as the most effective preventative strategy for infection, adherence is suboptimal. Previous studies in intensive care units (ICUs) have found differences in HH compliance between those moments that protect the patient, and those that protect the healthcare provider. However, such studies did not control for other variables known to impact HH compliance. Aim: To examine HH among healthcare workers (HCWs) in ICU settings, and identify whether there is a statistical difference in HH compliance between patient-protective and self-protective moments, while controlling for other variables known to influence HH compliance (i.e. professional role, unit and shift time). Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted in four ICUs across three Irish hospitals. Compliance was assessed according to the WHO’s ‘five moments for hand hygiene’. HCW professional role, total number of ‘opportunities’ for HH and whether compliance was achieved were recorded. Results: A total of 712 HH opportunities were recorded, with an overall compliance rate of 56.9%. Logistic regression analysis revealed that physicians, allied healthcare professionals and auxiliary staff were less likely than nurses to engage in HH. HCWs were more likely to comply during night shifts compared to morning shifts, and with self-protective as compared to patient-protective HH moments. Conclusion: The information provided in this study provides a data-driven approach that ICUs can use to tailor HH interventions to where, when and for whom they are most required.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Despite the effectiveness of hand hygiene (HH) for infection control, there is a lack of robust scientific data to guide how HH can be improved in intensive care units (ICUs).  The aim of this study is to use the literature, researcher, and stakeholder opinion to explicate potential interventions for improving HH compliance in the ICU, and provide an indication of the suitability of these interventions. Methods: A four-phase co-design study was designed. First, data from a previously completed systematic literature review was used in order to identify unique components of existing interventions to improve HH in ICUs. Second, a workshop was held with a panel of 10 experts to identify additional intervention components. Third, the 91 intervention components resulting from the literature review and workshop were synthesised into a final list of 21 hand hygiene interventions. Finally, the affordability, practicability, effectiveness, acceptability, side-effects/safety, and equity of each intervention was rated by 39 stakeholders (health services researchers, ICU staff, and the public). Results: Ensuring the availability of essential supplies for HH compliance was the intervention that received most approval from stakeholders. Interventions involving role models and peer-to-peer accountability and support were also well regarded by stakeholders. Education/training interventions were commonplace and popular. Punitive interventions were poorly regarded. Conclusions: Hospitals and regulators must make decisions regarding how to improve HH compliance in the absence of scientific consensus on effective methods. Using collective input and a co-design approach, the guidance developed herein may usefully support implementation of HH interventions that are considered to be effective and acceptable by stakeholders.