A Review of Electronic Hand Hygiene Monitoring: Considerations for Hospital Management in Data Collection, Healthcare Worker Supervision, and Patient Perception
- PMID: 26554146
A Review of Electronic Hand Hygiene Monitoring: Considerations for Hospital Management in Data Collection, Healthcare Worker Supervision, and Patient Perception
Abstract
Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) in U.S. acute care hospitals lead to a burden of $96-$147 billion annually on the U.S. health system and affect 1 in 20 hospital patients (Marchetti & Rossiter, 2013). Hospital managers are charged with reducing and eliminating HAIs to cut costs and improve patient outcomes. Healthcare worker (HCW) hand hygiene (HH) practice is the most effective means of preventing the spread of HAIs, but compliance is at or below 50% (McGuckin, Waterman, & Govednik, 2009). For managers to increase the frequency of HCW HH occurrences and improve the quality of HH performance, companies have introduced electronic technologies to assist managers in training, supervising, and gathering data in the patient care setting. Although these technologies offer valuable feedback regarding compliance, little is known in terms of capabilities in the clinical setting. Less is known about HCW or patient attitudes if the system allows feedback to be shared. Early-adopting managers have begun to examine their experiences with HH technologies and publish their findings. We review peer-reviewed research on infection prevention that focused on the capabilities of these electronic systems, as well as the related research on HCW and patient interactions with electronic HH systems. Research suggests that these systems are capable of collecting data, but the results are mixed regarding their impact on HH compliance, reducing HAIs, or both and their costs. Research also indicates that HCWs and patients may not regard the technology as positively as industry or healthcare managers may have intended. When considering the adoption of electronic HH monitoring systems, hospital administrators should proceed with caution.
Comment in
-
PRACTITIONER APPLICATION.J Healthc Manag. 2015 Sep-Oct;60(5):361-2. J Healthc Manag. 2015. PMID: 26554147 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Hand hygiene monitoring technology: protocol for a systematic review.Syst Rev. 2013 Nov 12;2:101. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-101. Syst Rev. 2013. PMID: 24219817 Free PMC article.
-
Impact on hand hygiene compliance following migration to a new hospital with improved resources and the sequential introduction of World Health Organization recommendations.Am J Infect Control. 2012 Oct;40(8):737-41. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2011.09.012. Epub 2012 Jan 30. Am J Infect Control. 2012. PMID: 22285712
-
Parent willingness to remind health care workers to perform hand hygiene.Am J Infect Control. 2013 Jun;41(6):492-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2012.08.006. Epub 2012 Dec 20. Am J Infect Control. 2013. PMID: 23261347
-
Measuring healthcare worker hand hygiene activity: current practices and emerging technologies.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011 Oct;32(10):1016-28. doi: 10.1086/662015. Epub 2011 Aug 24. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011. PMID: 21931253 Review.
-
New technologies to monitor healthcare worker hand hygiene.Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014 Jan;20(1):29-33. doi: 10.1111/1469-0691.12458. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014. PMID: 24245809 Review.
Cited by
-
Obstacles to the successful introduction of an electronic hand hygiene monitoring system, a cohort observational study.Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2019 Feb 22;8:43. doi: 10.1186/s13756-019-0498-2. eCollection 2019. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2019. PMID: 30834111 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical