Effect of electronic real-time prompting on hand hygiene behaviors in health care workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Poor hand hygiene by health care workers is a major cause of nosocomial infections. This research evaluated the ability of an electronic monitoring system with real-time prompting capability to change hand hygiene behaviors. METHODS: Handwashing activity was measured by counting dispenser activations on a single nursing unit before, during, and after installation of the system. The effect of changing the prompt duration on hand hygiene performance was determined by a cluster-randomized trial on 3 nursing units with 1 acting as control. Sustainability of performance and participation was observed on 4 nursing units over a year. All staff were eligible to participate. RESULTS: [3] = 75.76; P < .0001). Hand hygiene performance dropped from 62.61% to 24.94% (odds ratio, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.38) when the prompting feature was removed. Staff participation had a negative trajectory of -0.72% (P < .001), whereas change in average performance was -0.18% (P < .001) per week for the year. CONCLUSIONS: Use of electronic monitoring with real-time prompts of 20 seconds' duration nearly doubles handwashing activity and causes handwashing to occur sooner after entering a patient room. These improvements are sustainable over a year.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".