Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30482180›Full record

Observational studyBMC public health2018

Hand hygiene in hospitals: an observational study in hospitals from two southern states of India.

Mukta Tyagi, Claudia Hanson, Joanna Schellenberg, Swecha Chamarty, Samiksha Singh

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Mukta TyagiPublic Health Foundation, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad, 500081, India. mukta.tyagi@iiphh.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9821-934X
Claudia HansonDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Joanna SchellenbergDepartment of Disease Control, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England.
Swecha ChamartyPublic Health Foundation, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad, 500081, India.
Samiksha SinghPublic Health Foundation, Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad, 500081, India.

Funding

Children's Investment Fund Foundation G-1601-00920
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHand hygiene is a simple and low-cost measure to reduce healthcare associated infection yet it has always been a concern in low as well as high resource settings across the globe. Poor hand hygiene during intra-partum and newborn care may result in sepsis, which is a major cause of death among newborns and puts a financial burden on already strained health systems.

methodsWe conducted non-participatory observations in newborn care units and labour rooms from secondary and tertiary level, public and private hospitals, as part of a baseline evaluation of a quality improvement collaborative across two southern states of India. We assessed hand hygiene compliance during examinations and common procedures, using tools adapted from internationally recommended checklists and World Health Organization's concept of five moments of hand hygiene. We assessed differences in compliance by type (public/private), level (secondary/tertiary) and case load (low/intermediate/high). Analysis was adjusted for clustering and weighted as appropriate.

resultsWe included 49 newborn care units (19 private, 30 public) and 35 labour rooms (5 private, 30 public) that granted permission. We observed 3661 contacts with newborns and their environment, 242 per-vaginal examinations and 235 deliveries. For the newborns, a greater proportion of contacts in private newborn units than public complied with all steps of hand hygiene (44% vs 12%, p < 0.001), and similarly in tertiary than secondary units (33% vs 12%, p < 0.001) but there was no evidence of a difference by case load of the facility (low load-28%; intermediate load-14%; high load- 24%, p = 0.246). The component with lowest compliance was glove usage where indicated (20%). For deliveries, hand hygiene compliance before delivery was universal in private facilities but seen in only about one-quarter of observations in public facilities (100% vs 27%, p = 0.012). Average overall compliance for hand-hygiene during per-vaginal examinations was 35% and we found no evidence of differences by type of facility.

conclusionObserved compliance with hand hygiene was low overall, although better in private than public facilities in both newborn units and labour rooms. Glove usage was a particular problem in newborn care units.

trial registrationRetrospectively registered with Clinical Trials Registry- India ( CTRI/2018/04/013014 ).

Indexed as

Hand HygieneHospitalsCross InfectionCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery RoomsFemaleGloves, ProtectiveGuideline AdherenceHumansIndiaInfant, NewbornInfection ControlIntensive Care Units, NeonatalPregnancyComplianceHand hygieneHealthcare associated infection

Identifiers

PMID30482180
PMCPMC6257976

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.