ArticleOman medical journal2018
Assessment of Trained Hand Hygiene Observers Using Parallel Observations.
Article in Oman medical journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo validate hand hygiene (HH) observers following training and determine the concordance between the observers and the Kappa index.
methodsThis study was conducted during June 2017. HH observers from 15 hospital units received eight-hours training including a two-hour workshop conducted by the infection control practitioner and hospital epidemiologist. After its completion, parallel observations were conducted by trained nurses from each respective unit for a maximum of 20 minutes per session at any time or day.
resultsA total of 789 parallel observations were performed. In observed HH actions, the percentage of agreement between trained and experienced observers was 75.4%, with a Kappa index of agreement of 0.61 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.57-0.66). For the observed HH moments, the agreement among observers was 83.8% with a Kappa index of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.66-0.75).
conclusionsHH observers were validated after a dedicated training in correspondence with the recommendation to improve HH monitoring. Additional studies should focus on evaluating the sustainability of the agreement, the requirement of retraining, and other alternatives for observers' validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.