Abstract
Purpose
This paper evaluates a theory-driven, interactive hand hygiene (HH) intervention, the Safe Hands project, based on theories of organizational learning and culture including leadership support, dialogue and co-creation.
Design
This prospective quasi-experimental study used unobtrusive overt observations to evaluate adherence to HH recommendations after implementing an infection-prevention intervention.
Methods
The primary outcome was differences in HH practices “Before aseptic/clean procedure” (WHO moment 2), “After body fluid exposure risk” (WHO moment 3) and performance of aseptic techniques. One operating room (OR) department served as the study hospital and the other as the control hospital, both at Swedish university hospitals. Adherence to HH guidelines was measured 4 times during 2015 to 2017.
Findings
The intervention site displayed a significant improvement in adherence to HH guidelines and aseptic techniques. WHO 2; from 23.8% to 36.2%, (P = .014), WHO 3; from 22.2% to 42.3%, (P = .002), and aseptic techniques; from 17.5% to 31.6%, (P = .003). No changes in adherence were identified at the control site. The use of contaminated gloves decreased post intervention at the study operating department.
Conclusions
This study shows that implementing tailored interventions that are underpinned by theories from organizational learning and culture can improve adherence to hand hygiene in a complex setting as the OR up to 6 months post-intervention. The interprofessional co-creation of standards operating procedures addressing specific care procedures and emphasizing the importance of aseptic techniques can be an acceptable and feasible way to reduce the risks of contaminating medical devices and patients during perioperative care.
Keywords
As early as in the mid-19th century, Ignaz Semmelweis
1
,2
endorsed the importance of hand hygiene (HH). In the subsequent years, studies have continued to confirm the importance for health care workers (HCW) to adopt and adhere to HH guidelines in patient care, as one of the simplest yet most effective strategies to prevent the spread of microorganisms and health care-associated infections (HAIs).3
, 4
, 5
, 6
, 7
Despite this, low adherence to HH guidelines and aseptic techniques have been identified in the operating room (OR), an environment where asepsis is a core element of clinical practice.8
, 9
, 10
, 11
, 12
, 13
, 14
, - Megeus V
- Nilsson K
- Karlsson J
- Eriksson BI
- Erichsen Andersson A
Hand contamination, cross-transmission, and risk-associated behaviors: an observational study of team members in ORs.
AORN J. 2015; 102https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2015.06.018
15
, 16
, 17
There is growing evidence that the low adoption of HH guidelines and aseptic techniques in the OR is contributing to the occurrence of postoperative infections.18
, 19
, 20
, 21
, 22
The most effective HH implementation strategy is yet to be established22
,23
but there is a movement towards using social science or organizational learning theories addressing behavioral change, culture and attitudes to promote a change in HCWs practice and ownership of preventing HAIs.23
,24
This paper is one in a series in the Safe Hands project (Clinical Trials. gov ID: NCT02983136), with goals of increasing awareness and understanding of infection prevention within all professional groups in the OR. The project was theory driven based on the work of Schein,
26
and Issacs.27
The goal was to create a shared sense of urgency through interprofessional learning to drive and support improvements, by adopting preventive measures such as HH and aseptic techniques as a means of reducing HAIs. But also, to facilitate new practices for HH where correct HH according to WHO is not fully applicable in the OR context. The implementation strategy was based on partnership and dialogue between HCWs, management and facilitators and the co-creation of improved ways of working. In previous papers,28
,29
we have described the intervention and the implementation process in detail. The aim of this study was to describe how adherence to HH guidelines and aseptic techniques changed after the Safe Hands project (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02983136), comparing baseline observations with post-intervention observations at the intervention site and the control site.Methods
Design
A prospective quasi-experimental design was used, including unobtrusive overt observations to evaluate adherence to HH recommendations before, during and after implementing an infection-prevention intervention. The study period lasted 24 months, mid-2015 to mid-2017. The primary outcome was differences in HH adherence rates in relation the World Health Organization (WHO) moments 2 and 330 and aseptic techniques (for terminology, see Supplementary Box 1).
Setting and Participants
Two OR departments at 2 Swedish university hospitals participated in the study. One location served as the intervention hospital (I-OR) and the other location was the control hospital (C-OR). The I-OR had 7 orthopedic ORs and the C-OR had 5. Both sites had a similar staff mix of anesthesiologists, nurse assistants, registered nurses (RNs): certified nurse anesthetists and certified OR nurses. All HCWs are instructed to follow Swedish regulations based on basic hygiene routines.
30
These regulations include detailed instructions on when and how to perform HH, as well as the use of work attire and personal protection equipment (Supplementary Box 2). In addition, all HCWs perform an annual, mandatory e-learning activity on hand hygiene. The HCWs in the I-OR participated in the Safe Hands intervention during 2016 to 2017.The National Board of Health and Welfare. Basic hygiene in health care and care, SOSFS 2015:10 2015-5-10. Accessed June 6, 2021. https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/globalassets/sharepoint-dokument/artikelkatalog/foreskrifter-och-allmanna-rad/2015-5-10-english.pdf
28
Data Collection
Data was collected 4 times over a 2-year period at both study sites: at baseline, once during the intervention, once 2 weeks after and then 6 months after the intervention. The observations were carried out during daytime, for 1 week per observational period.
All observations at the 2 sites were made by the same single observer, a certified registered nurse anesthetist with over 30 years of clinical experience and specifically trained for the study without any prior connection to either site. The observations started in the preoperative center or preparation rooms, where the first available team was observed until the patient was ready for surgery. Consecutive OR teams were then similarly observed during the day, but no observations were made during the intraoperative- or post-surgery periods.
Monitoring of indications and opportunities for HH during anesthetic care procedures were limited to include “Before aseptic/clean procedure” WHO 2, including preparing drugs for intravenous use and handling invasive devices for patient care before and during induction whether gloves were used and, “After body fluid exposure risk” WHO 3, including HH after glove removal.
31
A HH indication was defined as the reason for why a HH action was required. A HH opportunity was defined as moments when HH was required to effectively interrupt microbial transmission during the care sequence. Aseptic techniques are vital to maintain the sterility of medical devices during insertion and were therefore also recorded along with glove use.The volume of hand disinfection used, and the duration of its application were not recorded. Thus, a modified version of the WHO's observational tool,
32
tested and adapted to the OR context,13
was used.With an assumed baseline HH compliance of 10%
11
,13
and a power of 90% with an alpha level of 5% and an estimated difference before and after the intervention of 10%, the sample size was calculated to include 100 care procedures at each time point generating approximately 150 to 250 opportunities for HH per observational period and site.The Intervention
Prior to the intervention, a researcher and senior expert in infection control and prevention gave the OR staff, at both sites, the same 2-hour state-of-the-art lecture on postoperative infections, their origins, incidence, and prevention. The intervention site also participated in the complete Safe Hands intervention program.
28
,29
The results from the baseline observations of HH were subsequently given as feedback to staff at both study sites.In the intervention group, participants from the I-OR department, together with the facilitators, co-created new procedures, that is specific standard operating procedures (SOP) all addressing device-related infections, in an iterative, collaborative process. A SOP describes “step by step” how to perform a complex multistep procedure, where photographs visualized the steps. Participants decided which specific activities they wanted to improve. As a result, 4 SOPs were created during the implementation period: the insertion of an arterial catheter, neuraxial anesthesia (spinal), artificial airway access and urinary catheter insertion (Supplementary Table 1). In addition, participants identified a shortage of handy disinfection dispensers in the I-OR, and therefore fixed hand disinfection dispensers were strategically placed in the OR next to exit/entrance doors, in the preparation rooms, in the anesthesia working areas and on the ventilators.
Ethics
Approval was obtained from the Regional Ethical Review Board of Gothenburg, Sweden (no 166-15). The study adhered to the principles of the Helsinki Declarations.
34
All the participants received written and oral information about the observations of compliance with hand hygiene guidelines. The observations were based on specific procedures, not personnel. Gender and professional role were not recorded to avoid the risk of identification. Each OR staff member had the option of declining observation.Statistical Analysis
Hand hygiene adherence was calculated by dividing the number of HH actions by the number of opportunities for HH in relation to WHO moments 2 and 3. Adherence to aseptic techniques were calculated by dividing successful aseptic techniques by the number of opportunities for aseptic techniques. The observed care procedures were grouped as: (1) Preparation and administration of intravenous injection/infusion and handling of sterile products, (2) Insertion of peripheral venous, arterial, or central line catheters, (3) Artificial airway access, (4) Urinary catheterization and (5) Regional anesthesia. Glove use was divided into; clean, previously used (contaminated) and non-use. Glove use was also assessed as indicated or not indicated, in relation to the type of care procedure performed.
Categorical variables are presented as numbers and percentages (%). Differences between groups were compared against those at baseline and 6 months post-intervention, at both the intervention and control sites. The χ2 test (2-sided) with Yates Continuity Correction was used to compare categorical variables at baseline with post-observations at the respective study site, to compare categorical variables at baseline between I-OR and C-OR and for the sub-analysis of grouped care procedures. If the expected frequencies were <10, Fisher's exact test (2-sided) was used. The significance level defined as a P < .05. All the data were analyzed using International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Statistics, version 27.
33
Findings
During 320 study hours, we observed a total number of 1,592 clean/aseptic care procedures, resulting in 2,693 opportunities for HH, in relation to WHO moments 2 and 3. From baseline to 6 months post-intervention, we found a significant improvement in adherence to HH guidelines and aseptic techniques at the I-OR. In contrast, no changes in HH or aseptic techniques were detected at the C-OR. (Table 1).
WHO moment 2, before clean/aseptic procedures.
Table 1Adherence to Hand Hygiene in Relation to WHO Moments 2 and 3, Maintained Aseptic Techniques, at Intervention-OR and Control-OR
| Baseline, September 2015 | During Intervention May 2016 | Post-intervention I, December 2016 | Post-intervention II May 2017 | P-value | P-value | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I-OR | C-OR, | I-OR | C-OR, | I-OR, | C-OR, | I-OR, | C-OR, | I-OR, | C-OR, | I-OR vs | |
| Study | Control | Study | Control | Study | Control | Study | Control | Study | Control | C-OR at Baseline | |
| WHO 2 | 39 (23.8) | 63 (42.3) | 88 (43.1) | 82 (39.2) | 85 (41.5) | 87 (41.4) | 76 (36.2) | 87 (36.7) | 0.014 | .324 | .001 |
| n=164 | n=149 | n=204 | n=209 | n=205 | n=210 | n=210 | n=237 | ||||
| WHO 3 | 22 (22.2) | 48 (47.5) | 55 (49.5) | 62 (49.2) | 84 (45.9) | 72 (39.5) | 61 (42.3) | 79 (49.6) | 0.002 | .832 | .001 |
| n=99 | n=101 | n=111 | n=126 | n=183 | n=182 | n=144 | n=159 | ||||
| Aseptic techniques | 28 (17.5) | 42 (29.4) | 65 (33.2) | 53 (25.6) | 69 (33.5) | 60 (28.6) | 66 (31.6) | 73 (30.8) | 0.003 | .858 | .021 |
| n=160 | n=143 | n=196 | n=207 | n=206 | n=210 | n=209 | n=237 | ||||
OR, operating room.
† WHO moment 3, after risk for body fluid exposure.
‡ Baseline vs post-observation II, 6 months post-intervention, Chi2 with Yates Continuity Correction (2-sided).
We found significantly improved adherence to HH at the I-OR for both WHO moments 2 and 3 when comparing baseline with post-intervention, for inserting venous, arterial and central line catheters (Tables 2 and 3). A significant increase in the use of HH was also observed after IV injections/infusions and handling sterile products (for the latter HH is not indicated) (Table 3). In the I-OR successful aseptic techniques improved for inserting venous-, arterial- and central-line catheters, as well as for injections/infusions and handling sterile products (Table 4). No significant improvements were observed at the C-OR.
Baseline vs post-observation II, 6 months post-intervention.
Baseline vs postobservation II, 6 months postintervention.
Baseline vs 6 months post-intervention.
Table 2Adherence to WHO Moment 2 in Relation to Care Procedures, Intervention-OR (I-OR) n = 783, Control-OR (C-OR) n = 805, [N = 1592]
| Type of Indication, n (%) | Baseline, | During Intervention | Postintervention I, | Postintervention II | P-Value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| September 2015 | May 2016 | December 2016 | May 2017 | |||||||
| I-OR | C-OR, | I-OR | C-OR, | I-OR, | C-OR, | I-OR, | C-OR, | I-OR, | C-OR, | |
| Study | Control | Study | Control | Study | Control | Study | Control | Study | Control | |
| Preparing and giving IV medication or handling sterile products | 16 (17.0) | 29 (34.5) | 49 (38.0) | 41 (34.7) | 35 (29.2) | 36 (30.0) | 33 (24.8) | 42 (32.6) | 0.214 | 0.882 |
| n = 94 | n = 84 | n = 129 | n = 118 | n = 120 | n = 120 | n = 133 | n =129 | |||
| Inserting peripheral venous catheter, arterial catheter or central line catheter | 7 (21.2) | 15 (48.4) | 14 (53.8) | 13 (32.5) | 20 (64.5) | 22 (48.9) | 20 (58.8) | 23 (39.7) | 0.004 | 0.570 |
| n = 33 | n = 31 | n = 26 | n = 40 | n = 31 | n = 45 | n = 34 | n = 58 | |||
| Artificial airway access | 2 (25.0) | 13 (56.5) | 4 (23.5) | 10 (43.5) | 6 (66.7) | 13 (59.1) | 9 (45.0) | 9 (29.0) | 0.419 | 0.080 |
| n = 8 | n = 23 | n = 17 | n = 23 | n = 9 | n = 22 | n = 20 | n = 31 | |||
| Indwelling urinary catheter or intermittent catheterization | 5 (55.6) | 3 (50.0) | 9 (75.0) | 9 (75.0) | 8 (72.7) | 7 (63.6) | 10 (76.0) | 9 (81.8) | 0.376 | 0.280 |
| n = 9 | n = 6 | n = 12 | n = 12 | n = 11 | n = 11 | n = 13 | n = 11 | |||
| Regional anesthesia | 9 (45.0) | 3 (60.0) | 12 (60.0) | 9 (56.3) | 16 (47.1) | 9 (75.0) | 4 (40.0) | 4 (50.0) | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| n = 20 | n = 5 | n = 20 | n = 16 | n = 34 | n = 12 | n = 10 | n = 8 | |||
| Total care procedures, N | N = 164 | N = 149 | N = 204 | N = 209 | N = 205 | N = 210 | N = 210 | N = 237 | ||
IV, intravenous; OR, operating room.
† Yates Continuity Correction (2-sided).
‡ Fisher's Exact Test (2-sided).
Table 3Adherence to WHO Moment 3, Care Procedures, Intervention-OR (I-OR) n = 537, Control-OR (C-OR) n = 568, [N = 1105]
| Type of Indication, n (%) | Baseline, | During Intervention | Postintervention I, | Postintervention II | P-Value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| September 2015 | May 2016 | December 2016 | May 2017 | |||||||
| I-OR | C-OR, | I-OR | C-OR, | I-OR, | C-OR, | I-OR, | C-OR, | I-OR, | C-OR, | |
| Study | Control | Study | Control | Study | Control | Study | Control | Study | Control | |
| Preparing and giving IV. medication or handling sterile products | 3 (8.1) | 17 (37.0) | 15 (31.9) | 18 (36.0) | 29 (28.7) | 22 (23.9) | 22 (29.3) | 19 (35.2) | .022 | 1.000 |
| n = 37 | n = 461 | n = 47 | n = 50 | n = 101 | n = 92 | n = 75 | n = 54 | |||
| Inserting peripheral venous | 7 (24.1) | 14 (56.0) | 16 (66.7) | 14 (48.3) | 23 (74.2) | 18 (40.0) | 16 (57.1) | 29 (51.8) | 0.023 | .912 |
| catheter, arterial- catheter or central line catheter | n = 29 | n = 25 | n = 24 | n = 29 | n = 31 | n = 45 | n = 28 | n = 56 | ||
| Artificial airway access | 2 (25.0) n = 8 | 8 (42.1) n = 19 | 9 (64.3) n = 14 | 9 (47.4) n = 19 | 7 (77.8) n = 9 | 13 (59.1) n = 22 | 9 (50.0) n = 18 | 18 (60.0) n = 30 | 0.395 | .353 |
| Indwelling urinary catheter or intermittent catheterization | 5 (55.6) n = 9 | 6 (100) n = 6 | 8 (66.7) n = 12 | 11 (91.7) n = 12 | 9 (81.8) n = 11 | 9 (81.8) n = 11 | 9 (69.2) n = 13 | 9 (81.8) n = 11 | 0.662 | .515 |
| Regional anesthesia | 5 (31.3) n = 16 | 3 (60.0) n = 5 | 7 (50.0) n = 14 | 10 (62.5) n = 16 | 16 (51.6) n = 31 | 10 (83.3) n = 12 | 5 (50.0) n = 10 | 4 (50.0) n = 8 | 0.425 | 1.000 |
| Total care procedures, N++ | N = 99 | N = 101 | N = 111 | N = 126 | N = 183 | N = 182 | N = 144 | N = 159 | ||
IV, intravenous; OR, operating room.
† Yates Continuity Correction (2-sided).
‡ Fisher's exact test (2-sided).
Table 4Successful Aseptic Technique per Targeted (Grouped) Care Procedures, Intervention-OR n = 771, Control-OR n = 797, [N = 1568]
| Type of Indication | Baseline, | During Intervention | Post-intervention I, | Post-intervention II | P-value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| September 2015 | May 2016 | December 2016 | May 2017 | |||||||
| I-OR | C-OR, | I-OR | C-OR, | I-OR, | C-OR, | I-OR, | C-OR, | I-OR, | C-OR, | |
| Study | Control | Study | Control | Study | Control | Study | Control | Study | Control | |
| Preparing and giving IV. medication or handling sterile products | 11 (12.0) | 21 (25.6) | 35 (28.2) | 23 (19.7) | 23 (19.2) | 24 (20.0) | 32 (24.1) | 38 (29.5) | 0.036 | 0.653 |
| n = 92 | n = 82 | n = 124 | n = 117 | n = 120 | n = 120 | n = 133 | n = 129 | |||
| Inserting peripheral venous catheter, arterial catheter or central line catheter | 4 (12.5) | 12 (40.0) | 11 (44.0) | 8 (20.5) | 18 (56.3) | 13 (28.9) | 15 (45.5) | 15 (25.9) | 0.008 | 0.263 |
| n = 32 | n = 30 | n = 25 | n = 39 | n = 32 | n = 45 | n = 33 | n = 58 | |||
| Artificial airway | 2 (25.0) | 4 (18.2) | 4 (22.2) | 6 (26.1) | 6 (66.7) | 9 (40.9) | 7 (35.0) | 8 (25.8) | 1.000 | 0.740 |
| n = 8 | n = 22 | n = 18 | n = 23 | n = 9 | n = 22 | n = 20 | n = 31 | |||
| Indwelling urinary catheter or intermittent catheterization | 4 (44.4) | 3 (75.0) | 7 (58.3) | 9 (75.0) | 7 (63.6) | 6 (54.5) | 8 (61.5) | 8 (72.7) | 0.666 | 1.000 |
| n = 9 | n = 4 | n = 12 | n = 12 | n = 11 | n = 11 | n = 13 | n = 11 | |||
| Regional anesthesia | 7 (36.8) | 2 (40.0) | 8 (47.1) | 7 (43.8) | 15 (44.1) | 8 (66.7) | 4 (40.0) | 4 (50.0) | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| n = 19 | n = 5 | n = 17 | n = 16 | n = 34 | n = 12 | n = 10 | n = 8 | |||
| Total care procedures, N | N = 160 | N = 143 | N = 196 | N = 207 | N = 206 | N = 210 | N = 209 | N = 237 | ||
IV, intravenous, OR, operating room.
† Chi2 with Yates Continuity Correction (2-sided).
‡ Fisher's Exact Test (2-sided).
Overall glove uses at the I-OR decreased between baseline and 6 months post-intervention: (68,9%, n = 113%-47,2%, n = 94, P =.0001), The largest reductions in glove use were seen for injections/infusions and handling sterile products (46,8%, n = 94%-73,4%, n = 124), P =.0001.
In contrast, an increase of glove use was observed at the C-OR, (35.5%, n = 99%-64.5%, n = 180, P =.056). In addition, there was a significant increase in the use of contaminated gloves at the C-OR for IV injections/infusions and handling sterile products (30%, n = 40%-53,8%, n = 80, P =.023).
At baseline in the I-OR, 164 care procedures were observed for glove use, 77 were clean before use, 36 were contaminated and in 51 cases no gloves were use. Of the clean gloves used (34%) were used without indication. Of the contaminated gloves, 66% were used without indication. For the 51 cases where no gloves were used, gloves were not required. At baseline in the C-OR, 149 care procedures were observed for glove use, 74 were clean before use, 25 contaminated and in 50 cases no gloves were used. Of the clean gloves used 33% were used without indication. For the contaminated gloves, 45% were used without indication. In 33% of the cases, no gloves were used and not required.
At post-intervention II in the I-OR, 199 care-procedures were observed for glove use, 74 were clean before use, 20 contaminated and in 105 no gloves were used. Of all clean glove used 27% were used without indication. Of the contaminated gloves 55% were used without indication. For no-glove use, in 1 case, glove use was indicated. At post-intervention II the C-OR, of the 237 care procedures observed for glove use, 113 were clean, 67 contaminated and in 57 cases no gloves were used. Of the clean gloves used 33% were used without indication. Of the contaminated gloves 64% were used without indication. In the cases where no gloves were used, in 1 case glove use was required.
Discussion
In this study, we have described improvements in HH and aseptic techniques over time after implementing an infection-prevention intervention, based on knowledge from theories on organizational learning and culture,
26
,27
including leadership support and interprofessional co-creation of SOPs for the insertion of medical devices.Hand Hygiene, Aseptic Techniques, and Glove Use
Significant and sustained improvements in HH were identified for WHO moments 2, 3 and aseptic techniques at the intervention site, while remaining unchanged at the control site. The improvements in HH and aseptic techniques are encouraging, as these moments are crucial in preventing HAIs.
31
However, correctly performed WHO moments 2 and 3 do not necessarily mean that the aseptic techniques are maintained, as the devices can be contaminated during insertion.10
,35
, 36
, 37
So, even though we identified an overall improvement in aseptic techniques at the I-OR, asepsis was still only maintained in one third of the observed moments. Further, we found greater adherence to WHO moment 3 and poorer adherence to WHO moment 2, in line with previous research in the OR.11
, 12
, 13
,16
,38
As identified in larger health care settings,39
, 40
, 41
this result may be related to the internalized and socially driven behavior of cleaning one's hands after doing anything that is defined as “dirty.”42
In contrast, disinfecting the hands prior to a clean aseptic procedure making it necessary to incorporate new ways of both thinking and acting on risks.Incorrect glove use has been associated with the failure or inhibition of HH.
43
, 44
, - Fuller C
- Savage J
- Besser S
- Hayward A
- Cookson B
- Cooper B.
The dirty hand in the latex glove”: a study of hand hygiene compliance when gloves are worn.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011; 32: 1194-1199
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1086/662619.pdf
Date accessed: December 20, 2021
45
Misuse and failure to change or remove contaminated gloves has shown to be a major factor in poor compliance to HH.- Picheansathian W
- Chotibang J.
Glove utilization in the prevention of cross transmission: a systematic review.
JBI Evid Synth. 2015; 13: 188-230
https://journals.lww.com/jbisrir/Fulltext/2015/13040/Glove_utilization_in_the_prevention_of_cross.13.aspx
Date accessed: December 19, 2021
44
,- Fuller C
- Savage J
- Besser S
- Hayward A
- Cookson B
- Cooper B.
The dirty hand in the latex glove”: a study of hand hygiene compliance when gloves are worn.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011; 32: 1194-1199
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1086/662619.pdf
Date accessed: December 20, 2021
46
It does not only increase the risk of cross-contamination44
,- Fuller C
- Savage J
- Besser S
- Hayward A
- Cookson B
- Cooper B.
The dirty hand in the latex glove”: a study of hand hygiene compliance when gloves are worn.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011; 32: 1194-1199
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1086/662619.pdf
Date accessed: December 20, 2021
46
but it also represents a waste of health care equipment. It has been pointed out that correct glove use is a vital part of HH interventions.44
,- Fuller C
- Savage J
- Besser S
- Hayward A
- Cookson B
- Cooper B.
The dirty hand in the latex glove”: a study of hand hygiene compliance when gloves are worn.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011; 32: 1194-1199
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1086/662619.pdf
Date accessed: December 20, 2021
46
We identified a reduction in glove use and the use of contaminated gloves at the I-OR, along with increased adherence to HH at the I-OR, and a cautious interpretation is that gloves were replaced by HH, as reported in other studies.11
,16
We were unable to identify any significant change in adherence to HH in relation to the specifically developed SOPs, because of the à priori set study protocol. However, the urinary catheter SOP has been fully adopted at the interventional hospital on all wards. Moreover, in a recently published study we observed a substantial and significant reduction in urinary catheter-associated infections from 18.5% at baseline to 4.2% post-intervention.
47
Adhering to HH guidelines can be difficult in the OR setting, especially during critical moments such as induction, even where assistance from colleagues can facilitate appropriate HH. However, a prerequisite for this is that HCWs possess the knowledge and the intention to give and receive aid. The SOPs that were co-created facilitated this collaborationThe Intervention
The Safe Hands project used a theory-based approach to tailor interventions to reflect the OR context,
26
, 27
as a means of embedding and implementing improved best practice with the emphasis on HH and aseptic techniques to enhance HAI prevention.28
,29
We used leadership support, involved the whole OR team and created a safe place for learning with a no-blame and shame culture, which has been identified as an important factor in HAI prevention practices.24
,48
A collaborative culture within a work unit, related to teamwork with shared responsibility, has also been associated with greater adherence to HH49
,50
and increases in perceived safety climate.51
Further, applied patient safety science that interlinks technical skills and non-technical skills may facilitate a shared understanding of the complex performance in the OR and improve the procedural practices.52
Creating shared understandings among team members was also one of the goals of SOP development in our study.Very few interventional studies have previously addressed HH deficits in the OR.
11
,16
,53
All have included easy access to HH products, Scheithauer et al11
also included SOP developments and audit and feedback, and Paul et al16
included motivational and educational components. Scheithauer et al11
study was undertaken over 1 year and Paul et al16
had a 60 days post intervention follow up. Observing behavioral changes over time is important, as almost all interventions appear to have an initial positive improvement, followed by difficulty creating sustained improvements or loss to follow-up making it difficult to assess sustainability.23
Thus, our study ran for 2 years. However, it is difficult to directly compare these studies to ours due to differences in HH monitoring, interventional components and strategies and differences in baseline HH adherence. The aforementioned studies11
,16
already had substantially lower baseline adherence rates than those identified in the I-OR in our study and particularly the C-OR, who had higher adherence rates over all 4 measurement points. The C-OR also differed from the I-OR in relation to contextual factors. In contrast to the I-OR, the C-OR had a stable organization and staff had worked together for a long time with low turnover rates.Methodological Considerations
We acknowledge this study's strengths and limitations. We restricted the observations to include “Before aseptic/clean procedure” WHO 2 before and “After body fluid exposure risk” WHO 3, thereby omitting “Before patient contact” WHO 1, “After patient contact” WHO 4, “After contact with patient surroundings” WHO 5. The limitations and modifications applied were based on the premise that the work in the OR differs substantially from that on general wards in relation to tasks and task intensity.
15
,22
,52
,54
Direct observation for adherence to HH guidelines is widely acknowledged as the gold standard, performed either covertly or overtly.
55
,56
However, participant reactivity may lead to HCWs improving their behavior when they are observed.57
To overcome this limitation, the same trained observer undertook all observations in concordance with the study protocol, which eliminated the risk of inter-rater-related discrepancies. Moreover, the observations at both sites were made within a fortnight which reduced the impact of external confounding factors. There were no other HH campaigns performed at either site during the study period. Further, the observations were only made during daytime.To avoid selection bias, the observation strategy was stated à priori and predefined according to the well-known infection-prone procedures without singling out a particular OR personnel, and also not targeting the specific co-created SOPs. In hindsight, it would have been useful to have observed adherence directed towards the selected SOPs. However, this was not possible, as the co-development of specific SOPs was undertaken by study participants during the intervention, after the first time point measurement and changing the protocol during the ongoing study was not an option.
Conclusion
This study shows that implementing tailored interventions that are underpinned by theories from organizational learning and culture can improve adherence to hand hygiene in a complex setting as the OR up to 6 months post-intervention. The interprofessional co-creation of SOPs addressing specific care procedures and stressing the importance of aseptic techniques seems to be an acceptable and feasible way to reduce the risks of contaminating medical devices and patients.
Acknowledgments
We thank Lisbeth Sjöstedt for performing the observations in this study, and all the HCWs at the 2 OR departments participating in the Safe Hands project.
Appendix. Supplementary materials
References
- His life and his doctrine; a chapter in the history of medicine.Glasgow Med J. 1909; 72: 277-280
Best M, Neuhauser D. Ignaz Semmelweis and the birth of infection control. Qual Safe Health Care. 2004;13:233-234. doi:10.1136%2Fqshc.2004.010918
- Effectiveness of a hospital-wide programme to improve compliance with hand hygiene: Infection Control Programme.Lancet.2000: 356https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02814-2
- Role of hand hygiene in health care-associated infection prevention.J Hosp Infect. 2009; 73: 305-315https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2009.04.019
- Hand hygiene: Back to the basics of infection control.Indian J Med Res. 2011; 134 (10.4103%2F0971-5916.90985): 611-620
- Impact of a hospital-wide hand hygiene initiative on health care-associated infections: results of an interrupted time series.BMJ Qual Saf. 2012; 21: 1019-1026https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000800
- Reduction of health care-associated infections by exceeding high compliance with hand hygiene practices.Emerg Infect Dis. 2016; 22: 1628-1630https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2209.151440
- Semmelweis revisited: hand hygiene and nosocomial disease transmission in the anesthesia workstation.AANA J. 2009; 77: 229-237
- Hand-hygiene practices in the operating theatre: an observational study.Br J Anaesth. 2011; 107: 553-558https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aer162
- Quantification of anesthesia providers' hand hygiene in a busy metropolitan operating room: what would Semmelweis think?.Am J Infect Control. 2012; : 40https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2011.10.008
- Improving hand hygiene compliance in the anesthesia working room work area: more than just more hand rubs.Am J Infect Control. 2013; : 41https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2013.02.004
- Video observation to map hand contact and bacterial transmission in operating rooms.Am J Infect Control. 2014; 42: 698-701https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2014.02.021
Megeus V, Nilsson K, Eriksson B, Karlsson J, Andersson Erichsen A. Hand hygiene and aseptic techniques during routine anesthetic care: observations in the operating room. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2015;4: doi:10.1186%2Fs13756-015-0042-y
- Hand contamination, cross-transmission, and risk-associated behaviors: an observational study of team members in ORs.AORN J. 2015; 102https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2015.06.018
- Hand hygiene compliance monitoring in anaesthetics: feasibility and validity.J Infect Prevent. 2018; 19: 116-122https://doi.org/10.1177/1757177418755306
- Sleep safe in clean hands: improving hand hygiene compliance in the operating room through education and increased access to hand hygiene products.Am J Infect Control. 2019; 47: 504-508https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2018.10.021
- Frequency of interactions and hand disinfections among anesthesiologists while providing anesthesia care in the operating room: induction versus maintenance.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014; 35: 1056-1059
- Randomized crossover study evaluating the effect of a hand sanitizer dispenser on the frequency of hand hygiene among anesthesiology staff in the operating room.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014; 35: 717-720
- The dynamics and implications of bacterial transmission events arising from the anesthesia work area.Anesth Analg. 2015; 120: 853-860https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000000505
- Infection control in the operating room: is it more than a clean dish?.Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2016; 29: 192-197https://doi.org/10.1097/ACO.0000000000000300
- High-risk Staphylococcus aureus transmission in the operating room: a call for widespread improvements in perioperative hand hygiene and patient decolonization practices.Am J Infect Control. 2018; 46: 1134-1141https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2018.04.211
- Infection prevention in the operating room anesthesia work area.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018; 40: 1-17https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2018.303
Gould DJ, Moralejo D, Drey N, Chudleigh JH, Taljaard M. Interventions to improve hand hygiene compliance in patient care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;9:doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005186.pub4
- Promoting health workers' ownership of infection prevention and control: using normalization process theory as an interpretive framework.J Hosp Infect. 2016; 94: 373-380https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2016.09.015
- How to Offer, Give, and Receive Help.Barrett-Koehler, 2009
- Organizational culture and leadership.The Jossey-Bass Business & Management Series. Wiley, 2010
- Creating a Shared Field of Meaning: An Action Theory of Dialogue.Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2002 (sResearch in Public Policy Analysis and Management. Accessed December 20, 2021)
- Iterative co-creation for improved hand hygiene and aseptic techniques in the operating room: experiences from the safe hands study. journal article.BMC Health Serv Res. 2018; 18: 2https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2783-1
- The Safe Hands Study: implementing aseptic techniques in the operating room: facilitating mechanisms for contextual negotiation and collective action.Am J Infect Control. 2019; 47: 251-257https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2018.08.024
The National Board of Health and Welfare. Basic hygiene in health care and care, SOSFS 2015:10 2015-5-10. Accessed June 6, 2021. https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/globalassets/sharepoint-dokument/artikelkatalog/foreskrifter-och-allmanna-rad/2015-5-10-english.pdf
- My five moments for hand hygiene': a user-centred design approach to understand, train, monitor and report hand hygiene.J Hosp Infect. 2007; : 67https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2007.06.004
- The World Health Organization hand hygiene observation method.Am J Infect Control. 2009; 37: 827-834https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2009.07.003
- IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0.IBM Corp, NY2020
- World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.J Am Coll Dent. Summer. 2014; 81: 14-18
- Postoperative infections traced to contamination of an intravenous anesthetic, propofol.N Engl J Med. 1995; : 333https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199507203330303
- Evidence-based model for hand transmission during patient care and the role of improved practices.Lancet Infect Dis. 2006; 6: 641-652https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(06)70600-4
- Reduction in intraoperative bacterial contamination of peripheral intravenous tubing through the use of a novel device.J Am Soc Anesthesiol. 2009; 110: 978-985https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181a06ec3
- The application of evidence-based measures to reduce surgical site infections during orthopedic surgery - report of a single-center experience in Sweden.Patient Saf Surg. 2012; : 6https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-9493-6-11
- Effects of the Australian national hand hygiene initiative after 8 years on infection control practices, health care worker education, and clinical outcomes: a longitudinal study.Lancet Infect Dis. 2018; 18: 1269-1277https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30491-2
- Health care workers' compliance to the My 5 moments for hand hygiene: comparison of 2 interventional methods.Am J Infect Control. 2017; 45: 89-91https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2016.08.012
- Effectiveness of a multimodal hand hygiene improvement strategy in the emergency department.Am J Infect Control. 2016; 44: 1203-1207https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2016.03.017
- Behavioural considerations for hand hygiene practices: the basic building blocks.J Hosp Infect. 2007; 65: 1-8https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2006.09.026
- Misuse of gloves: The foundation for poor compliance with hand hygiene and potential for microbial transmission?.J Hosp Infect. 2004; 57: 162-169https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2004.03.010
- The dirty hand in the latex glove”: a study of hand hygiene compliance when gloves are worn.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011; 32: 1194-1199https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1086/662619.pdfDate accessed: December 20, 2021
- Glove utilization in the prevention of cross transmission: a systematic review.JBI Evid Synth. 2015; 13: 188-230https://journals.lww.com/jbisrir/Fulltext/2015/13040/Glove_utilization_in_the_prevention_of_cross.13.aspxDate accessed: December 19, 2021
- Glove utilization in the prevention of cross transmission: a systematic review.JBI Database Syst Rev Implement Rep. 2015; 13: 188-230https://doi.org/10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1817
- Effectiveness of implementing a preventive urinary catheter care bundle in hip fracture patients.J Infect Prevent. 2022; 23: 41-48https://doi.org/10.1177/17571774211060417
- Psychological safety and infection prevention practices: results from a national survey.Am J Infect Control. 2020; 48: 2-6https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2019.09.027
- Impact of a team and leaders-directed strategy to improve nurses' adherence to hand hygiene guidelines: a cluster randomised trial.Int J Nurs Stud. 2013; : 50https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.08.004
- An exploratory study of safety culture, biological risk management and hand hygiene of health care professionals.J Adv Nurs. 2018; 74: 827-837https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13500
- Safety culture and hand hygiene: linking attitudes to behavior.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2012; 33: 1280-1282
- Team communications in surgery creating a culture of safety.J Interprof Care. 2013; 27: 387-393https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2013.784243
- Randomized crossover study evaluating the effect of a hand sanitizer dispenser on the frequency of hand hygiene among anesthesiology staff in the operating room.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014; 35: 717-720https://doi.org/10.1086/676425
- Safety in the operating theatre---Part 2: human error and organizational failure.Qual Saf Health Care. 2005; 14: 56-60
- Measurement of compliance with hand hygiene.J Hosp Infect. 2007; 66: 6-14https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2006.11.013
- Strategies to prevent health care-associated infections through hand hygiene.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014; 35: S155-S178https://doi.org/10.1086/677145
- The Hawthorne effect on adherence to hand hygiene in patient care.J Hosp Infect. 2020; 106: 311-317https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2020.07.028
Article info
Publication history
Published online: October 29, 2022
Footnotes
Conflict of Interest: None to report.
Funding: This work was supported by Landstingens Ömsesidiga Försäkringsbolag (http://lof.se) and the University of Gothenburg Centre for Person-centred Care (GPCC) Sweden, funded by the Swedish Government's grant for Strategic Research Areas (Care Sciences) and the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, and the Swedish Research Council funding for clinical research in medicine.
Data Availability Statement: The data can be shared in response to reasonable requests.
Identification
Copyright
© 2022 American Society of PeriAnesthesia Nurses. Published by Elsevier Inc.
User license
Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) | How you can reuse 
Elsevier's open access license policy
Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
Permitted
For non-commercial purposes:
- Read, print & download
- Redistribute or republish the final article
- Text & data mine
- Translate the article (private use only, not for distribution)
- Reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works
Not Permitted
- Sell or re-use for commercial purposes
- Distribute translations or adaptations of the article
Elsevier's open access license policy
