Electronic hand hygiene monitoring systems can be well-tolerated by health workers: findings of a qualitative study

Kelly, D. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1847-0655, Purssell, E., Wigglesworth, N. and Gould, D. J. 2021. Electronic hand hygiene monitoring systems can be well-tolerated by health workers: findings of a qualitative study. Journal of Infection Prevention 22 (6) , pp. 246-251. 10.1177/17571774211012781

PDF - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial. Download (116kB)

Abstract

Background: Electronic hand hygiene monitoring overcomes limitations associated with manual audit but acceptability to health workers varies and may depend on culture of the ward and the nature of the system. Objectives: Evaluate the acceptability of a new fifth type electronic monitoring system to frontline health workers in a National Health Service trust in the UK. Methods: Qualitative interviews with 11 informants following 12 months experience using an electronic monitoring system. Results: Informants recognised the importance of hand hygiene and embraced technology to improve adherence. Barriers to hand hygiene adherence included heavy workload, dealing with emergencies and ergonomic factors related to placement of alcohol dispensers. Opinions about the validity of the automated readings were conflicting. Some health workers thought they were accurate. Others reported problems associated with differences in the intelligence of the system and their own clinical decisions. Opinions about feedback were diverse. Some health workers thought the system increased personal accountability for hand hygiene. Others ignored feedback on suboptimal performance or ignored the data altogether. It was hard for health workers to understand why the system registered some instances of poor performance because feedback did not allow omissions in hand hygiene to be related to the context of care. Conclusion: Electronic monitoring can be very well tolerated despite some limitations. Further research needs to explore different reactions to feedback and how often clinical emergencies arise. Electronic and manual audit have complementary strengths.

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Published Online
Status:	Published
Schools:	Healthcare Sciences
Additional Information:	This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)
Publisher:	SAGE Publications
ISSN:	1757-1774
Date of First Compliant Deposit:	25 June 2021
Date of Acceptance:	6 April 2021
Last Modified:	23 May 2023 15:54
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/142151

Citation Data

Cited 5 times in Scopus. View in Scopus. Powered By Scopus® Data

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item