Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30834111›Full record

Observational studyAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2019

Obstacles to the successful introduction of an electronic hand hygiene monitoring system, a cohort observational study.

Phillip D Levin, Reut Razon, Carmela Schwartz, Alexander Avidan, Charles L Sprung, Allon E Moses, Shmuel Benenson

Abstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Phillip D Levin2Department of Anesthesiology, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Reut Razon3Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Carmela Schwartz1Unit for infection Prevention and Control, Department of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, POB 12000, 9112001 Jerusalem, Israel.
Alexander Avidan2Department of Anesthesiology, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Charles L Sprung2Department of Anesthesiology, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Allon E Moses1Unit for infection Prevention and Control, Department of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, POB 12000, 9112001 Jerusalem, Israel.
Shmuel Benenson1Unit for infection Prevention and Control, Department of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, POB 12000, 9112001 Jerusalem, Israel.ORCID 0000-0002-3977-1123

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Hand hygiene (HH) compliance remains low in many intensive care units (ICU). Technology has been suggested to improve HH compliance.We describe the introduction of an electronic HH surveillance and intervention system into the general ICU of a tertiary care teaching hospital, the obstacles to success and reasons for the system's ultimate failure and removal. Methods: The system was based on radiofrequency transmitters in patient areas, on HH dispensers, and individual personal bracelets. The transmitters were connected to a central computer. The system was designed to detect entry and exit from patient areas and provide real time alerts of missed HH performance Results: Data from 41 questionnaires revealed low satisfaction rate (21/41, 51%). Low system accuracy (31/41, 76%) and inconvenience (18/41, 44%) being the most frequent reasons.During 44 one hour observation periods the observer recorded more HH opportunities and performances than the electronic system (mean number of HH opportunities/hour 10.9 ± 7.6 vs 6.8 ± 6.9, Conclusions: The electronic HH system was not accepted by ICU staff principally due to inaccuracy and inconvenience. Inaccuracies were verified by direct observations. In order for an electronic HH system to succeed we suggest it must be highly accurate and comfortable to use.

Indexed as

Cohort StudiesCross InfectionData CollectionElectronic Data ProcessingGuideline AdherenceHand HygieneHospitals, TeachingHumansInfection ControlMalePopulation SurveillanceSurveys and QuestionnairesTertiary Care CentersElectronic HH systemHand hygieneSurveillance

Identifiers

PMID30834111
PMCPMC6387532

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.