Browsing by Author "Boyce, John M."

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4

The Effect of a Prospective Intervention Program with Automated Monitoring on Hand Hygiene Performance in Long-term and Acute Care Units at a Veteran Affairs Medical Center
(Oxford University Press, 2022-12) Starrett, W. Grant; Arbogast, James W.; Parker, Albert E.; Wagner, Pamela T.; Mahrer, Susan E.; Christian, Vanessa; Lane, Barbara L.; Cheek, V. Lorraine; Robbins, Gregory A.; Boyce, John M.; Polenakovik, Hari
Background. There is emerging evidence that implementation of an automated hand hygiene monitoring system (AHHMS) must be part of a multimodal hand hygiene (HH) program that includes complementary strategies. There are few published studies describing in detail the intervention strategies used with an AHHMS. Methods. An AHHMS that provides group HH performance rates (100 x HH product dispenses divided by the number of room entries plus exits) was implemented on two Acute Care (AC) units and six long-term care (LTC) units at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center from March 2021 through April 2022. After a 4-week baseline period and 2.5-week washout period, the 52-week intervention period included many components, such as weekly huddles, unit nurse manager engagement, vendor provided clinician-based training and feedback, leadership support, unit recognition, signage and development of a new slogan to remind colleagues to perform HH. Statistical analysis was performed with a Poisson general additive mixed model. Results. During the 4-week baseline period, the median HH performance rate was 18.6 (95% CI: [16.5, 21.0]) for all 8 units. During the intervention period, the median HH rate increased to 21.6 [19.1, 24.4], and during the last 4 weeks of the intervention period (exactly 1 year after baseline), the 8 units exhibited a median HH rate of 25.1 [22.2, 28.4], (p < 0.0001) [Figure 1]. The median HH rate increased from 17.5 to 20.0 (p < 0.0001) in LTC units and from 22.9 to 27.2 (p < 0.0001) in AC units. The intervention increased the use of hand sanitizer from 57.5% during baseline to 65.1% (p < 0.0001). The increase in HH rates was due to HH events increasing from 88,758 dispenses during the baseline to 123,722 dispenses during the last 4 weeks of the intervention. Direct observation results during the same periods showed HH compliance ranging from 61-86%. Figure 1- Monthly Hand Hygiene Performance Rates for all Units The green curve shows the change in the median HH rate during the intervention period compared to the baseline and washout periods, with vertical bars showing 95% confidence intervals for the monthly HH rate. Conclusion. The intervention increased hand sanitizer usage and HH performance rates for all units. AC units were consistently better than LTC units, which have more visitors and more mobile veterans. Further HH improvement will rely on continued implementation of complementary strategies and long-term monitoring.
Impact of an automated hand hygiene monitoring system and additional promotional activities on hand hygiene performance rates and healthcare-associated infections
(2019-07) Boyce, John M.; Laughman, Jennifer A.; Ader, Michael H.; Wagner, Pamela T.; Parker, Albert E.; Arbogast, James W.
Objective: Determine the impact of an automated hand hygiene monitoring system (AHHMS) plus complementary strategies on hand hygiene performance rates and healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Design: Retrospective, nonrandomized, observational, quasi-experimental study. Setting: Single, 93-bed nonprofit hospital. Methods: Hand hygiene compliance rates were estimated using direct observations. An AHHMS, installed on 4 nursing units in a sequential manner, determined hand hygiene performance rates, expressed as the number of hand hygiene events performed upon entering and exiting patient rooms divided by the number of room entries and exits. Additional strategies implemented to improve hand hygiene included goal setting, hospital leadership support, feeding AHHMS data back to healthcare personnel, and use of Toyota Kata performance improvement methods. HAIs were defined using National Healthcare Safety Network criteria. Results: Hand hygiene compliance rates generated by direct observation were substantially higher than performance rates generated by the AHHMS. Installation of the AHHMS without supplementary activities did not yield sustained improvement in hand hygiene performance rates. Implementing several supplementary strategies resulted in a statistically significant 85% increase in hand hygiene performance rates (P < .0001). The incidence density of non–Clostridioies difficile HAIs decreased by 56% (P = .0841), while C. difficile infections increased by 60% (P = .0533) driven by 2 of the 4 study units. Conclusion: Implementation of an AHHMS, when combined with several supplementary strategies as part of a multimodal program, resulted in significantly improved hand hygiene performance rates. Reductions in non–C. difficile HAIs occurred but were not statistically significant.
The impact of automated hand hygiene monitoring with and without complementary improvement strategies on performance rates
(Cambridge University Press, 2022-08) Arbogast, James W.; Moore, Lori D.; DiGiorgio, Megan; Robbins, Greg; Clark, Tracy L.; Thompson, Maria F.; Wagner, Pamela T.; Boyce, John M.; Parker, Albert E.
Objective: To determine how engagement of the hospital and/or vendor with performance improvement strategies combined with an automated hand hygiene monitoring system (AHHMS) influence hand hygiene (HH) performance rates. Design: Prospective, before-and-after, controlled observational study. Setting: The study was conducted in 58 adult and pediatric inpatient units located in 10 hospitals. Methods: HH performance rates were estimated using an AHHMS. Rates were expressed as the number of soap and alcohol based hand rub portions dispensed divided by the number of room entries and exits. Each hospital self-assigned to one of the following intervention groups: AHHMS alone (control group), AHHMS plus clinician-based vendor support (vendor-only group), AHHMS plus hospital led unit-based initiatives (hospital-only group), or AHHMS plus clinician-based vendor support and hospital-led unit-based initiatives (vendor-plus-hospital group). Each hospital unit produced 1–2 months of baseline HH performance data immediately after AHHMS installation before implementing initiatives. Results: Hospital units in the vendor-plus-hospital group had a statistically significant increase of at least 46% in HH performance compared with units in the other 3 groups (P ≤ .006). Units in the hospital only group achieved a 1.3% increase in HH performance compared with units that had AHHMS alone (P = .950). Units with AHHMS plus other initiatives each had a larger change in HH performance rates over their baseline than those in the AHHMS-alone group (P < 0.001). Conclusions: AHHMS combined with clinician-based vendor support and hospital-led unit-based initiatives resulted in the greatest improvements in HH performance. These results illustrate the value of a collaborative partnership between the hospital and the AHHMS vendor.
Nursing Preference for Alcohol-Based Hand Rub Volume
(Cambridge University Press (CUP), 2019-09) Martinello, Richard A.; Arbogast, James W.; Guercia, Kerri; Parker, Albert E.; Boyce, John M.
Background:The effectiveness of alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) is correlated with drying time, which depends on the volume applied. Evidence suggests that there is considerable variation in the amount of ABHR used by healthcare providers. Objective:We sought to identify the volume of ABHR preferred for use by nurses. Methods:A prospective observation study was performed in 8 units at a tertiary-care hospital. Nurses were provided pocket-sized ABHR bottles with caps to record each bottle opening. Nurses were instructed to use the volume of ABHR they felt was best. The average ABHR volume used per hand hygiene event was calculated using cap data and changes in bottle mass. Results:In total, 53 nurses participated and 140 nurse shifts were analyzed. The average ABHR dose was 1.09 mL. This value was greater for non-ICU nurses (1.18 mL) than ICU nurses (0.96 mL), but this difference was not significant. We detected no significant association between hand surface area and preferred average dose volume. The ABHR dose volume was 0.006 mL less per use as the number of applications per shift increased (P = .007).Conclusions:The average dose of ABHR used was similar to the dose provided by the hospital’s automated dispensers, which deliver 1.1 mL per dose. The volume of ABHR dose was inversely correlated with the number of applications of ABHR per shift and was not correlated with hand size. Further research to understand differences and drivers of ABHR volume preferences and whether automated ABHR dosing may create a risk for people with larger hands is warranted.