• Aucun résultat trouvé

Effect of Wearing a Novel Electronic Wearable Device on Hand Hygiene Compliance Among Health Care Workers: A

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Partager "Effect of Wearing a Novel Electronic Wearable Device on Hand Hygiene Compliance Among Health Care Workers: A"

Copied!
6
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

Article

Reference

Effect of Wearing a Novel Electronic Wearable Device on Hand Hygiene Compliance Among Health Care Workers: A

Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

PIRES, Daniela, et al .

Abstract

Importance: Hand hygiene (HH) is essential to prevent hospital-acquired infections. Objective:

To determine whether providing real-time feedback on a simplified HH action improves compliance with the World Health Organization's "5 Moments" and the quality of the HH action. Design, setting, and participants: This open-label, cluster randomized, stepped-wedge clinical trial was conducted between June 1, 2017, and January 6, 2018 (with a follow-up in March 2018), in a geriatric hospital of the University of Geneva Hospitals, Switzerland. All 12 wards and 97 of 306 eligible health care workers (HCWs) volunteered to wear a novel electronic wearable device that delivered real-time feedback on duration of hand rubbing and application of a hand-sized customized volume of alcohol-based handrub (ABHR).

PIRES, Daniela, et al . Effect of Wearing a Novel Electronic Wearable Device on Hand Hygiene Compliance Among Health Care Workers: A Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

JAMA Network Open , 2021, vol. 4, no. 2, p. e2035331

(2)

Supplemental Online Content

Pires D, Gayet-Ageron A, Guitart C, et al. Effect of wearing a novel electronic

wearable device on hand hygeine compliance among health care workers: a stepped- wedge cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(2):e2035331.

doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.35331

eFigure 1. Poster Used to Recruit Participants to the Clinical Trial Aiming to Test a Novel Electronic Wearable Device (SmartRub)

eFigure 2. Photograph of SmartRub Device

eFigure 3. Staring Dates and Length of Periods of the SmartRub Study (Excluding Wash-out and Follow-up Periods)

eTable. HH Practices: Description of Number of Actions, Volume of Applied Alcohol- Based Handrub and Duration of Hand Rubbing, as Well as Overall Correctness of Each Action Per Group and Period as Recorded by SmartRub

This supplemental material has been provided by the authors to give readers additional information about their work.

(3)

eFigure 1. Poster used to recruit participants to the clinical trial aiming to test a novel electronic wearable device (SmartRub®) at the Geriatric Hospital of the University Hospitals of Geneva.

(4)

eFigure 2. Photograph of SmartRub Device. The novel electronic wearable device (SmartRub®) consists of two elements, the alcohol-based handrub bottle used at the University Hospitals of Geneva equipped with a volumetric flow meter, and an ergonomic wristband made from medical silicone. The flow meter measured the volume of ABHR poured onto hands and provided feedback by vibrating as soon as the pre-defined hand customized volume had been applied. The wristband measured the duration of each hand hygiene action and vibrated after 15 seconds, independently of the hand rubbing duration performed by the healthcare workers.

(5)

eFigure 3. Starting dates and length of periods of the SmartRub® study (excluding wash-out and follow-up periods). Hand hygiene observations were performed approximately once a month throughout the baseline, transition, intervention and follow-up periods. During the baseline period, healthcare workers did not wear the devices and only hand hygiene observations were performed.

During the transition period, the novel electronic wearable device was worn, but the feedback mode (vibration) was not activated, though the device actively monitored the volume of ABHR and duration of hand friction of each HH action. During the intervention period, the feedback (vibration) mode of the device was activated and the monitoring of practices by the device continued. At follow-up, only hand hygiene observations were performed.

After an initial one-month baseline period, wards were randomly assigned to start with the one-month transition period, followed by the intervention period at a rate of three wards per month (from Group1 to Group 4). In total, 12 wards were randomized, following a computer-generated block randomization (1:1:1:1) performed by an independent statistician.

Group 1 baseline transition intervention

Group 2 baseline transition intervention

Group 3 baseline transition intervention

Group 4 baseline transition intervention

01 Jun 02 Jul 07 Aug 26 Sep 07 Nov 06 Dec 06 Jan

(6)

eTable 1. HH practices: description of number of actions, volume of applied alcohol-based handrub and duration of hand rubbing, as well as overall correctness of each action per group and period as recorded by SmartRub®; SmartRub® study, Geriatric Hospital, University of Geneva Hospitals.

Group 1 (4 months of intervention)

Group 2 (3 months of intervention)

Group 3 (2 months of intervention)

Group 4 (1 month of intervention) Bottle actions (n)

Transition

Intervention 10’139

22’747 7’319

8’573 6’317

5’503 2’747

2’473 Median volume of applied ABHR per hand

rubbing action, mL (IQR)

Transition

Intervention 1.02 (0.72-1.49)

1.73 (1.03-2.81) 1.44 (0.92-2.22)

1.86 (1.10-2.93) 1.05 (0.78-1.55)

1.32 (0.87-2.34) 1.03 (0.69-1.56) 1.82 (0.87-2.79) Overall correctness of applied AHBR

volume*(95% CI, %)

Transition

Intervention 3.7 (3.3-4.1)

30.6 (30-31.2) 18.1 (17.3-19)

32.6 (31.6-33.6) 11.5 (10.7-12.3)

24.6 (23.4-25.7) 10.2 (9.1-11.3) 35.3 (33.4-37.2) Wristband actions (n)

Transition

Intervention 8’101

17’742 3’160

5’798 4’103

3’560 1484

1865 Median duration of hand rubbing

performed per HCWs, seconds (IQR)

Transition

Intervention 7 (4.5-11)

8 (5-15) 6.5 (4.5-11)

7 (4.5-15) 5 (4.5-8.5)

8 (4.5-15.5) 7 (4.5-11.5) 12 (5.5-17) Overall correctness of HH duration#,

seconds (95% CI, %)

Transition

Intervention 12.2 (11.5-13)

25.6 (25-26.3) 15.1 (13.9-16.4)

25.6 (24.5-26.7) 6 (5.3-6.8)

27.8 (26.4-29.3) 14.4 (12.6-16.2) 41.1 (38.8-43.3)

Références

Documents relatifs

The development of these examples consisted of several steps. A core group of hand hygiene experts leading on the preparation of the WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care

All 12 wards and 97 of 306 eligible health care workers (HCWs) volunteered to wear a novel electronic wearable device that delivered real-time feedback on duration of hand rubbing

Effects of Healthcare Worker’s Perception of Hygiene on Hand Hygiene Practices 2.4 Method used to analyze the Associated Words: Prototypical Analysis.. Prototypical analysis

We performed a literature search in Pubmed and on health authority websites for the most recent reports on hand skin damage following the frequent use of water and deter- gents or

All 12 wards and 97 of 306 eligible health care workers (HCWs) volunteered to wear a novel electronic wearable device that delivered real-time feedback on duration of hand rubbing

For hand rub 1, the total absorbed doses, calculated from ethanol with an inhalation flow of 24 L/min and an absorption rate of 62%, were 46.5 mg after one hygienic hand

This study provided valuable in-depth information about determinants that influence hand hygiene behaviours in select university hospitals in Egypt.. The information provided

What is the comparative efficacy of chlorine solutions for hand hygiene practices or disinfecting gloves for health workers compared with alcohol-based handrub or other