Evaluating the economics of the Australian National Hand Hygiene Initiative

The National Hand Hygiene Initiative, implemented in Australia in 2009, is currently being evaluated for effectiveness and cost-effectiveness by a multidisciplinary team of researchers. Data from a wide range of sources are being harvested to address the research questions. The data are observational and appropriate statistical and economic modelling methods are being used. Decision makers will be provided with new knowledge about how hand hygiene interventions should be organised and what investment decisions are justified. This is novel research and the authors are unaware of any other evaluation of hand hygiene improvement initiatives. This paper describes the evaluation currently underway.

Changing learning to improve practice : hand hygiene education in Queensland medical schools

The aim of Queensland Health’s ‘Clean hands are life savers’ program is to change the culture and behaviour of healthcare workers related to hand hygiene. Hand hygiene is considered to be the most effective means of preventing pathogen cross-transmission and healthcare-associated infections. Most hospitals throughout Queensland as well as Australia now manage a hand hygiene program to increase the hand hygiene compliance of all healthcare workers. Reports taken from routine hand hygiene observations reveal that doctors are usually less compliant in their hand-washing practices than other healthcare worker groups. The Centre for Healthcare Related Infection Surveillance and Prevention (CHRISP) has attempted to have an impact on this challenging group through their Medical Leadership Initiative. With education as a core component of the program, efforts were made to ensure our future doctors were receiving information that aligned with Queensland Health standards during their formative years at medical school. CHRISP met with university instructors to understand what infection prevention education was currently included in the curriculum and support the introduction of new learning activities that specifically focused on hand hygiene. This prompted change to the existing curriculum and a range of interventions were employed with mixed success. Although met with challenges, methods to integrate more infection prevention teaching were found.

Linking scientific evidence and decision making : A case study of hand hygiene interventions

We consider how data from scientific research should be used for decision making in health services. Whether a hand hygiene intervention to reduce risk of nosocomial infection should be widely adopted is the case study. Improving hand hygiene has been described as the most important measure to prevent nosocomial infection. 1 Transmission of microorganisms is reduced, and fewer infections arise, which leads to a reduction in mortality2 and cost savings.3 Implementing a hand hygiene program is itself costly, so the extra investment should be tested for cost-effectiveness.4,5 The first part of our commentary is about cost-effectiveness models and how they inform decision making for health services. The second part is about how data on the effectiveness of hand hygiene programs arising from scientific studies are used, and 2 points are made: the threshold for statistical inference of .05 used to judge effectiveness studies is not important for decision making,6,7 and potentially valuable evidence about effectiveness might be excluded by decision makers because it is deemed low quality.8 The ideas put forward will help researchers and health services decision makers to appraise scientific evidence in a more powerful way.

Changes in healthcare-associated Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections after the introduction of a national hand hygiene initiative

Background. Interventions that prevent healthcare-associated infection should lead to fewer deaths and shorter hospital stays. Cleaning hands (with soap or alcohol) is an effective way to prevent the transmission of organisms, but rates of compliance with hand hygiene are sometimes disappointingly low. The National Hand Hygiene Initiative in Australia aimed to improve hand hygiene compliance among healthcare workers, with the goal of reducing rates of healthcare-associated infection. Methods. We examined whether the introduction of the National Hand Hygiene Initiative was associated with a change in infection rates. Monthly infection rates for healthcare-associated Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections were examined in 38 Australian hospitals across 6 states. We used Poisson regression and examined 12 possible patterns of change, with the best fitting pattern chosen using the Akaike information criterion. Monthly bed-days were included to control for increased hospital use over time. Results. The National Hand Hygiene Initiative was associated with a reduction in infection rates in 4 of the 6 states studied. Two states showed an immediate reduction in rates of 17% and 28%, 2 states showed a linear decrease in rates of 8% and 11% per year, and 2 showed no change in infection rates. Conclusions. The intervention was associated with reduced infection rates in most states. The failure in 2 states may have been because those states already had effective initiatives before the national initiative’s introduction or because infection rates were already low and could not be further reduced.

Changes in healthcare-associated infections after the introduction of a national hand hygiene initiative

Introduction: Interventions that prevent healthcare-associated infections should lead to fewer deaths and shorter hospital stays. Cleaning hands with soap and water or alcohol rub is an effectiveway to prevent the transmission of organisms, but compliance is sometimes low. The National Hand Hygiene Initiative in Australia aimed to improve hand hygiene compliance among healthcare workers, with the goal of reducing rates of healthcare-associated infections. Methods: We examined if the introduction of the National Hand Hygiene Initiative was associated with a change in infection rates. Monthly infection rates for six types of healthcare-associated infections were examined in 38 Australian hospitals across six states. Infection categories were: bloodstream infections, centralline associated bloodstream infections, methicillin-resistant and methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia and surgical site infections. Results: The National Hand Hygiene Initiative was associated with a statistically significant reduction in infection rates in 11 out of 23 state and infection combinations studied. There was no change in infection rates for nine combinations, and there was an increase in three infection rates in South Australia. Conclusions: The intervention was associated with reduced infection rates in many cases. The lack of improvement in nine cases may have been because they already had effective initiatives before the national initiative’s introduction.

Using a theory of planned behaviour framework to explore hand hygiene beliefs at the ‘5 critical moments’ among Australian hospital-based nurses

Background Improving hand hygiene among health care workers (HCWs) is the single most effective intervention to reduce health care associated infections in hospitals. Understanding the cognitive determinants of hand hygiene decisions for HCWs with the greatest patient contact (nurses) is essential to improve compliance. The aim of this study was to explore hospital-based nurses’ beliefs associated with performing hand hygiene guided by the World Health Organization’s (WHO) 5 critical moments. Using the belief-base framework of the Theory of Planned Behaviour, we examined attitudinal, normative, and control beliefs underpinning nurses’ decisions to perform hand hygiene according to the recently implemented national guidelines. Methods Thematic content analysis of qualitative data from focus group discussions with hospital-based registered nurses from 5 wards across 3 hospitals in Queensland, Australia. Results Important advantages (protection of patient and self), disadvantages (time, hand damage), referents (supportive: patients, colleagues; unsupportive: some doctors), barriers (being too busy, emergency situations), and facilitators (accessibility of sinks/products, training, reminders) were identified. There was some equivocation regarding the relative importance of hand washing following contact with patient surroundings. Conclusions The belief base of the theory of planned behaviour provided a useful framework to explore systematically the underlying beliefs of nurses’ hand hygiene decisions according to the 5 critical moments, allowing comparisons with previous belief studies. A commitment to improve nurses’ hand hygiene practice across the 5 moments should focus on individual strategies to combat distraction from other duties, peer-based initiatives to foster a sense of shared responsibility, and management-driven solutions to tackle staffing and resource issues. Hand hygiene following touching a patient’s surroundings continues to be reported as the most neglected opportunity for compliance.

Key beliefs of hospital nurses’ hand-hygiene behaviour: Protecting your peers and needing effective reminders

Issues addressed: Hand hygiene in hospitals is vital to limit the spread of infections. This study aimed to identify key beliefs underlying hospital nurses’ hand-hygiene decisions to consolidate strategies that encourage compliance. Methods: Informed by a theory of planned behaviour belief framework, nurses from 50 Australian hospitals (n = 797) responded to how likely behavioural beliefs (advantages and disadvantages), normative beliefs (important referents) and control beliefs (barriers) impacted on their hand-hygiene decisions following the introduction of a national ‘5 moments for hand hygiene’ initiative. Two weeks after completing the survey, they reported their hand-hygiene adherence. Stepwise regression analyses identified key beliefs that determined nurses’ hand-hygiene behaviour. Results: Reducing the chance of infection for co-workers influenced nurses’ hygiene behaviour, with lack of time and forgetfulness identified as barriers. Conclusions: Future efforts to improve hand hygiene should highlight the potential impact on colleagues and consider strategies to combat time constraints, as well as implementing workplace reminders to prompt greater hand-hygiene compliance. So what? Rather than emphasising the health of self and patients in efforts to encourage hand-hygiene practices, a focus on peer protection should be adopted and more effective workplace reminders should be implemented to combat forgetting.

The role of time pressure and different psychological safety climate referents in the prediction of nurses’ hand hygiene compliance

In this study of 638 Australian nurses, compliance to hand hygiene (HH), as defined by the “five moments” recommended by the World Health Organisation (2009), was examined. Hypotheses focused on the extent to which time pressure reduces compliance and safety climate (operationalised in relation to HH using colleagues, manager, and hospital as referents) increases compliance. It also was proposed that HH climate would interact with time pressure, such that the negative effects of time pressure would be less marked when HH climate is high. The extent to which the three HH climate variables would interact among each other, either in the form of boosting or compensatory effects, was tested in an exploratory manner. A prospective research design was used in which time pressure and the HH climate variables were assessed at Time 1 and compliance was assessed by self-report two weeks later. Compliance was high but varied significantly across the 5 HH Moments, suggesting that nurses make distinctions between inherent and elective HH and also seemed to engage in some implicit rationing of HH. Time pressure dominated the utility of HH climate to have its positive impact on compliance. The most conducive workplace for compliance was one low in time pressure and high in HH climate. Colleagues were very influential in determining compliance, more so than the manager and hospital. Manager and hospital support for HH enhanced the positive effects of colleagues on compliance. Providing training and enhancing knowledge was important, not just for compliance, but for safety climate.

Costing the Australian National Hand Hygiene Initiative

Background The Australian National Hand Hygiene Initiative (NHHI) is a major patient safety programme co-ordinated by Hand Hygiene Australia (HHA) and funded by the Australian Commission for Safety and Quality in Health Care. The annual costs of running this programme need to be understood to know the cost-effectiveness of a decision to sustain it as part of health services. Aim To estimate the annual health services cost of running the NHHI; the set-up costs are excluded. Methods A health services perspective was adopted for the costing and collected data from the 50 largest public hospitals in Australia that implemented the initiative, covering all states and territories. The costs of HHA, the costs to the state-level infection-prevention groups, the costs incurred by each acute hospital, and the costs for additional alcohol-based hand rub are all included. Findings The programme cost AU$5.56 million each year (US$5.76, £3.63 million). Most of the cost is incurred at the hospital level (65%) and arose from the extra time taken for auditing hand hygiene compliance and doing education and training. On average, each infection control practitioner spent 5 h per week on the NHHI, and the running cost per annum to their hospital was approximately AU$120,000 in 2012 (US$124,000, £78,000). Conclusion Good estimates of the total costs of this programme are fundamental to understanding the cost-effectiveness of implementing the NHHI. This paper reports transparent costing methods, and the results include their uncertainty.

Understanding the determinants of Australian hospital nurses' hand hygiene decisions following the implementation of a national hand hygiene initiative

Hand hygiene is the primary measure in hospitals to reduce the spread of infections, with nurses experiencing the greatest frequency of patient contact. The ‘5 critical moments’ of hand hygiene initiative has been implemented in hospitals across Australia, accompanied by awareness-raising, staff training and auditing. The aim of this study was to understand the determinants of nurses’ hand hygiene decisions, using an extension of a common health decision-making model, the theory of planned behaviour (TPB), to inform future health education strategies to increase compliance. Nurses from 50 Australian hospitals (n = 2378) completed standard TPB measures (attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioural control [PBC], intention) and the extended variables of group norm, risk perceptions (susceptibility, severity) and knowledge (subjective, objective) at Time 1, while a sub-sample (n = 797) reported their hand hygiene behaviour 2 weeks later. Regression analyses identified subjective norm, PBC, group norm, subjective knowledge and risk susceptibility as the significant predictors of nurses’ hand hygiene intentions, with intention and PBC predicting their compliance behaviour. Rather than targeting attitudes which are already very favourable among nurses, health education strategies should focus on normative influences and perceptions of control and risk in efforts to encourage hand hygiene adherence.

Cost-effectiveness of a national initiative to improve hand hygiene compliance using the outcome of healthcare associated staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia

Background The objective is to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of the Australian National Hand Hygiene Inititiave implemented between 2009 and 2012 using healthcare associated Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia as the outcome. Baseline comparators are the eight existing state and territory hand hygiene programmes. The setting is the Australian public healthcare system and 1,294,656 admissions from the 50 largest Australian hospitals are included. Methods The design is a cost-effectiveness modelling study using a before and after quasi-experimental design. The primary outcome is cost per life year saved from reduced cases of healthcare associated Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia, with cost estimated by the annual on-going maintenance costs less the costs saved from fewer infections. Data were harvested from existing sources or were collected prospectively and the time horizon for the model was 12 months, 2011–2012. Findings No useable pre-implementation Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia data were made available from the 11 study hospitals in Victoria or the single hospital in Northern Territory leaving 38 hospitals among six states and territories available for cost-effectiveness analyses. Total annual costs increased by $2,851,475 for a return of 96 years of life giving an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $29,700 per life year gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed a 100% chance the initiative was cost effective in the Australian Capital Territory and Queensland, with ICERs of $1,030 and $8,988 respectively. There was an 81% chance it was cost effective in New South Wales with an ICER of $33,353, a 26% chance for South Australia with an ICER of $64,729 and a 1% chance for Tasmania and Western Australia. The 12 hospitals in Victoria and the Northern Territory incur annual on-going maintenance costs of $1.51M; no information was available to describe cost savings or health benefits. Conclusions The Australian National Hand Hygiene Initiative was cost-effective against an Australian threshold of $42,000 per life year gained. The return on investment varied among the states and territories of Australia.

Hand hygiene noncompliance and the cost of hospital-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection.

BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene noncompliance is a major cause of nosocomial infection. Nosocomial infection cost data exist, but the effect of hand hygiene noncompliance is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To estimate methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)-related cost of an incident of hand hygiene noncompliance by a healthcare worker during patient care. DESIGN: Two models were created to simulate sequential patient contacts by a hand hygiene-noncompliant healthcare worker. Model 1 involved encounters with patients of unknown MRSA status. Model 2 involved an encounter with an MRSA-colonized patient followed by an encounter with a patient of unknown MRSA status. The probability of new MRSA infection for the second patient was calculated using published data. A simulation of 1 million noncompliant events was performed. Total costs of resulting infections were aggregated and amortized over all events. SETTING: Duke University Medical Center, a 750-bed tertiary medical center in Durham, North Carolina. RESULTS: Model 1 was associated with 42 MRSA infections (infection rate, 0.0042%). Mean infection cost was $47,092 (95% confidence interval [CI], $26,040-$68,146); mean cost per noncompliant event was $1.98 (95% CI, $0.91-$3.04). Model 2 was associated with 980 MRSA infections (0.098%). Mean infection cost was $53,598 (95% CI, $50,098-$57,097); mean cost per noncompliant event was $52.53 (95% CI, $47.73-$57.32). A 200-bed hospital incurs $1,779,283 in annual MRSA infection-related expenses attributable to hand hygiene noncompliance. A 1.0% increase in hand hygiene compliance resulted in annual savings of $39,650 to a 200-bed hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Hand hygiene noncompliance is associated with significant attributable hospital costs. Minimal improvements in compliance lead to substantial savings.

Effect of a multifaceted intervention on adherence to hand hygiene among healthcare workers:A cluster-randomized trial

OBJECTIVES. Adherence to hand hygiene among healthcare workers (HCWs) is widely believed to be a key factor in reducing the spread of healthcare-associated infection. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a multifaceted intervention to increase rates of adherence to hand hygiene among HCWs and to assess the effect on the incidence of hospital-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization. DESIGN. Cluster-randomized controlled trial. SETTING. Thirty hospital units in 3 tertiary care hospitals in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. INTERVENTION. After a 3-month baseline period of data collection, 15 units were randomly assigned to the intervention arm (with performance feedback, small-group teaching seminars, and posters) and 15 units to usual practice. Hand hygiene was observed during randomly selected 15-minute periods on each unit, and the incidence of MRSA colonization was measured using weekly surveillance specimens from June 2007 through May 2008. RESULTS. We found that 3,812 (48.2%) of 7,901 opportunities for hand hygiene in the intervention group resulted in adherence, compared with 3,205 (42.6%) of 7,526 opportunities in the control group (P <.001; independent t test). There was no reduction in the incidence of hospital-acquired MRSA colonization in the intervention group. CONCLUSION. Among HCWs in Ontario tertiary care hospitals, the rate of adherence to hand hygiene had a statistically significant increase of 6% with a multifaceted intervention, but the incidence of MRSA colonization was not reduced.

Adherence to hand hygiene and risk factors for poor adherence in 13 Ontario acute care hospitals

Multicenter studies assessing hand hygiene adherence and risk factors for poor performance are scarce. In an observational study involving 13 hospitals across Ontario, Canada, we found a mean adherence rate of 31.2%, and that adherence was positively associated with nurses, single rooms, contact precautions, and the availability of alcohol hand rub dispensers. Copyright © 2011 by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Improved hand hygiene compliance after eliminating mandatory glove use from contact precautions-Is less more?

BACKGROUND Guidelines recommend that health care personnel (HCP) wear gloves for all interactions with patients on contact precautions. We aimed to assess hand hygiene (HH) compliance during contact precautions before and after eliminating mandatory glove use. METHODS We assessed HH compliance of HCP in the care of patients on contact precautions in 50 series before (2009) and 6 months after (2012) eliminating mandatory glove use and compared these results with the hospital-wide HH compliance. RESULTS We assessed 426 HH indications before and 492 indications after the policy change. Compared with 2009, we observed a significantly higher HH compliance in patients on contact precautions in 2012 (52%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 47-57) vs 85%; 95% CI, 82-88; P < .001). During the same period, hospital-wide HH compliance also increased from 63% (95% CI, 61-65) to 81% (95% CI 80-83) (P < .001). However, the relative improvement (RI) of HH compliance during contact precautions was significantly higher than the hospital-wide relative improvement (RI, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.49-1.81 vs 1.29; 95% CI, 1.25-1.34), with a relative improvement ratio of 1.27 (95% CI, 1.15-1.41). CONCLUSION Eliminating mandatory glove use in the care of patients on contact precautions increased HH compliance in our institution, particularly before invasive procedures and before patient contacts. Further studies on the effect on pathogen transmission are needed before revisiting the current official guidelines on the topic.