Key Points Question How have audit-and-feedback programs based on direct observations of hand hygiene compliance been implemented in real-world settings? Findings In this qualitative study of 108 hospital staff members in 10 acute care hospitals, the use of audit and feedback to improve hand hygiene compliance was problematic. Auditing by direct observation was perceived to collect inaccurate data and created tension with frontline staff, and the feedback process did not appear to encourage positive change. Meaning Strategies are needed to collect more reliable hand hygiene data and facilitate multidisciplinary collaboration toward improved hand hygiene compliance.

BackgroundImplementation science experts define champions as “supporting, marketing, and driving through an implementation, overcoming indifference or resistance that the intervention may provoke in an organization.” Many hospitals use designated clinical champions—often called “hand hygiene (HH) champions”—typically to improve hand hygiene compliance. We conducted an ethnographic examination of how infection control teams in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) use the term “HH champion” and how they define the role.MethodsAn ethnographic study was conducted with infection control teams and frontline staff directly involved with hand hygiene across 10 geographically dispersed VHA facilities in the USA. Individual and group semi-structured interviews were conducted with hospital epidemiologists, infection preventionists, multi-drug-resistant organism (MDRO) program coordinators, and quality improvement specialists and frontline staff from June 2014 to September 2017. The team coded the transcripts using thematic content analysis content based on a codebook composed of inductive and deductive themes.ResultsA total of 173 healthcare workers participated in interviews from the 10 VHA facilities. All hand hygiene programs at each facility used the term HH champion to define a core element of their hand hygiene programs. While most described the role of HH champions as providing peer-to-peer coaching, delivering formal and informal education, and promoting hand hygiene, a majority also included hand hygiene surveillance. This conflation of implementation strategies led to contradictory responsibilities for HH champions. Participants described additional barriers to the role of HH champions, including competing priorities, staffing hierarchies, and turnover in the role.ConclusionsHealthcare systems should consider narrowly defining the role of the HH champion as a dedicated individual whose mission is to overcome resistance and improve hand hygiene compliance—and differentiate it from the role of a “compliance auditor.” Returning to the traditional application of the implementation strategy may lead to overall improvements in hand hygiene and reduction of the transmission of healthcare-acquired infections.

ObjectiveAlthough most hospitals report very high levels of hand hygiene compliance (HHC), the accuracy of these overtly observed rates is questionable due to the Hawthorne effect and other sources of bias. In the study, we aimed (1) to compare HHC rates estimated using the standard audit method of overt observation by a known observer and a new audit method that employed a rapid (<15 minutes) “secret shopper” method and (2) to pilot test a novel feedback tool.DesignQuality improvement project using a quasi-experimental stepped-wedge design.SettingThis study was conducted in 5 acute-care hospitals (17 wards, 5 intensive care units) in the Midwestern United States.MethodsSites recruited a hand hygiene observer from outside the acute-care units to rapidly and covertly observe entry and exit HHC during the study period, October 2016–September 2017. After 3 months of observations, sites received a monthly feedback tool that communicated HHC information from the new audit method.ResultsThe absolute difference in HHC estimates between the standard and new audit methods was ~30%. No significant differences in HHC were detected between the baseline and feedback phases (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.84–1.01), but the standard audit method had significantly higher estimates than the new audit method (OR, 9.83; 95% CI, 8.82–10.95).ConclusionsHHC estimates obtained using the new audit method were substantially lower than estimates obtained using the standard audit method, suggesting that the rapid, secret-shopper method is less subject to bias. Providing feedback using HHC from the new audit method did not seem to impact HHC behaviors.

ICU telemedicine needs to develop an agreed upon typology for documenting ICU telemedicine utilization and incorporate these measures into models of its effect on clinical outcomes.

No abstract