Interventions to improve hand hygiene compliance in patient care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health care-associated infection is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Hand hygiene is regarded as an effective preventive measure. OBJECTIVES: To assess the short and longer-term success of strategies to improve hand hygiene compliance and to determine whether a sustained increase in hand hygiene compliance can reduce rates of health care-associated infection. SEARCH STRATEGY: We conducted electronic searches of: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register of trials; MEDLINE; PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; and the BNI. All databases were searched to July 2006; MEDLINE was searched from 1980, CINAHL from its inception, and the remainder from 1990 until July 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials; controlled clinical trials; controlled before and after studies; and interrupted time series analyses meeting explicit entry and quality criteria used by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. Studies reporting proxy indicators of hand hygiene compliance were considered. Studies to promote compliance with universal precautions were included providing data relating specifically to hand hygiene were presented separately. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed data quality. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies met the criteria for review. One was a randomised controlled trial. The other was a controlled before and after study. Both were poorly controlled. Statistically significant post-intervention increase in hand washing was reported in one study up to four months after the intervention. In the other there was no post-intervention increase in hand hygiene compliance. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is little robust evidence to inform the choice of interventions to improve hand hygiene. It appears that single interventions based on short, 'one off' teaching sessions are unlikely to be successful, even short-term. There is a need to undertake methodologically robust research to explore the effectiveness of soundly designed interventions to increase hand hygiene compliance.
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 | 0.019 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".