Empowering Patient Hand Hygiene and Reducing Infection in the Oncology Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Significant focus has been placed on healthcare worker hand hygiene, but little attention is has been assigned to the role of patient hand hygiene (HH) in reducing hospital acquired infections. Therefore, in this quality improvement study, we examined the impact of providing patients with hand hygiene products around mealtime on increasing patient HH adherence and on reducing acquisition of nosocomial antibiotic resistant organisms. Methods: Patients on two inpatient leukemia units at a tertiary oncologic center were provided with a single use pre-packaged alcohol wipe on their meal trays prior to every meal (three times daily). Additionally, an information card explaining to patients how and when to use the alcohol wipe was provided on the meal trays three times a week. Both the wipe and instructions were designed with input from patient representatives at the hospital. Two oncologic control units were selected where no specific intervention for patient hand hygiene was conducted. Patient hand hygiene adherence on the control and intervention units were measured through once monthly patient interviews conducted after meals where patients were asked to recall whether they washed their hands prior to eating (using any product). Vancomycin Resistant Enterococcus (VRE) incidence was compared on the intervention and control units during the 7 months prior and 7 months following initiating the intervention. Results: During the seven-month intervention period, more than 15 000 wipes were dispensed to patients on the intervention units. Through interview, 91% of 87 patients on the intervention units reported cleaning their hands before eating a meal using any cleaning product compared to 72% of 68 patients on the control units (X2 = 9.32, p = 0.002). Furthermore, on the intervention units, 30 (38%) patients endorsed using the provided hand hygiene product. During intervention period, the combined incidence rate of VRE the intervention units was 1.85 case/1000 patient-days compared to 5.35 cases/1000 patient-days during the 7 months prior to intervention (t = 3.24, p=0.007)(Figure 1). Conclusions: This patient-centered quality improvement intervention increased patient hand hygiene and potentially reduced VRE incidence in a vulnerable oncologic population. This practical intervention that incorporated the patient perspective provided accessible hand hygiene products with simple instruction and reminders required minimal participation of unit staff. Further application of the intervention in non-oncologic populations is needed to further establish the relationship between patient hand hygiene and the acquisition of nosocomial infections.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".