ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2020
An interventional implementation project: hand hygiene improvement.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGood hand hygiene is the most effective basic measure for preventing hospital-acquired infections. This research project, which originated from a project report on improving hand hygiene at a general hospital in Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China, aimed to investigate the effectiveness of hand hygiene improvement among the hospital staff.
methodsSince 2017, a hand hygiene improvement project involving the staff of a 2,500-bed general teaching hospital in Zhejiang, China, has been carried out. This study summarized the implementation and effectiveness of the project, which is based on the five factors of systematic evaluation. The research summary was divided into three phases: phase I (December 2017 to August 2018), phase 2 (September 2018 to April 2019), and phase 3 (May 2019 to December 2019). The data of hand hygiene compliance rates of different groups of professionals in the different research periods were statistically analyzed.
resultsThe results showed that continuous intervention led to a gradual increasing trend (Ptrend<0.001) in the hand hygiene implementation rate with as the intervention time and phases progressed. The hand hygiene compliance rates differed significantly during different phases (76.61%, 79.95%, and 83.34% in phases 1, 2, and 3, respectively, P<0.001). At the same time, the compliance rates of hand hygiene at each phase differed significantly between different professions (P<0.001, the compliance rate of hand hygiene among nurses was the highest and lowest among workers). The compliance rate of hand hygiene for different professions during the three phases were: nurses, 84.73%; doctors, 78.35%; interns, 77.62%; and other hospital workers, 72.79%.
conclusionsThe hand hygiene compliance rate was effectively improved among the hospital staff after the implementation of the hand hygiene improvement project. In this hospital, the project yielded remarkable results. Hand hygiene must be continuously practiced and improved to develop good habits. Effective and detailed planning as well as key factors, such as hand hygiene facilities, information monitoring, the active participation and response of employees, training and education, and supervision and feedback, could help to guarantee the effectiveness of the project.
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.