Journal List > Korean J Nosocomial Infect Control > v.19(1) > 1098342

Jeong, Jae, Mi, Jeong, and Hye: The Hawthorne Effect between Covert and Overt Observations in the Monitoring of Hand Hygiene Adherence among Healthcare Personnel at Coronary Care Unit and Cardiac Surgery Intensive Care Unit

Abstract

Background

Direct observation of healthcare workers is commonly used in hospitals to investigate hand hygiene compliance. However, the hand hygiene compliance rate may increase due to the Hawthorne effect, which is the modification of behavior simply because subjects become aware that they are being observed. The objective of this study was to investigate the occurrence of the Hawthorne effect when directly observing hand hygiene compliance in intensive care unit (ICU) healthcare personnel.

Methods

A total of 87 staff members from the coronary care unit and cardiac surgery ICU of a general hospital in Seoul were included in this study: 24 residents and interns, 55 nurses, and 8 nursing assistants. Both covert and overt observations, where subjects were either unaware or aware of any direct observation, were performed on separate occasions.

Results

A total of 1,052 covert and 1,336 overt observations were documented over 30 and 34 occasions, respectively. Overall hand hygiene compliance was significantly higher with overt observation than with covert observation (1,041/1,336, 77.9% vs. 659/1,052, 62.6%, P<0.001). The Hawthorne effect was present in all professions and behaviors, with the exception of nursing assistants, and prior to touching a patient.

Conclusion

Direct observation of hand hygiene compliance was associated with the Hawthorne effect when observations were made overtly and this was likely to contribute to an overestimation of compliance rate.

References

1. Chen YY, Chou YC, Chou P. Impact of nosocomial infection on cost of illness and length of stay in intensive care units. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2005; 26:281–7.
crossref
2. Allegranzi B, Pittet D. Role of hand hygiene in healthcare-associated infection prevention. J Hosp Infect. 2009; 73:305–15.
crossref
3. Pittet D, Hugonnet S, Harbarth S, Mourouga P, Sauvan V, Touveneau S, et al. Effectiveness of a hospital-wide programme to improve compliance with hand hygiene. Infection Control Programme. Lancet. 2000; 356:1307–12.
4. Jeong JS, Choe MA. The effect of hand washing improving programs on the adherence of hand washing and nosocomial infections in a surgical intensive care unit. Korean J Nosocomial Infect Control. 2004; 9:117–29.
5. Levchenko AI, Boscart VM, Fernie GR. The feasibility of an automated monitoring system to improve nurses’ hand hygiene. Int J Med Inform. 2011; 80:596–603.
crossref
6. Marra AR, Moura DF Jr, Paes AT, dos Santos OF, Edmond MB. Measuring rates of hand hygiene adherence in the intensive care setting: a comparative study of direct observation, product usage, and electronic counting devices. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010; 31:796–801.
crossref
7. Holden JD. Hawthorne effects and research into professional practice. J Eval Clin Pract. 2001; 7:65–70.
crossref
8. Kohli E, Ptak J, Smith R, Taylor E, Talbot EA, Kirkland KB. Variability in the Hawthorne effect with regard to hand hygiene performance in high- and low-performing inpatient care units. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009; 30:222–5.
crossref
9. Eckmanns T, Bessert J, Behnke M, Gastmeier P, Ruden H. Compliance with antiseptic hand rub use in intensive care units: the Hawthorne effect. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006; 27:931–4.
crossref
10. WHO.WHO Guidelines Approved by the Guidelines Review Committee: Geneva: World Health Organization. 2009; http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2009/9789241597906_eng.pdf. (Updated on May 23, 2011).
11. McLaws ML, Pantle AC, Fitzpatrick KR, Hughes CF. Improvements in hand hygiene across New South Wales public hospitals: clean hands save lives, part III. Med J Aust. 2009; 191(8 Suppl):S18–24.
crossref
12. Bischoff WE, Reynolds TM, Sessler CN, Edmond MB, Wenzel RP. Handwashing compliance by health care workers: The impact of introducing an accessible, alcohol-based hand antiseptic. Arch Intern Med. 2000; 160:1017–21.
13. Hugonnet S, Perneger TV, Pittet D. Alcohol-based handrub improves compliance with hand hygiene in intensive care units. Arch Intern Med. 2002; 162:1037–43.
crossref
14. Longtin Y, Sax H, Allegranzi B, Hugonnet S, Pittet D. Patients’ beliefs and perceptions of their participation to increase healthcare worker compliance with hand hygiene. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2009; 30:830–9.
crossref
15. Ciofi degli Atti ML, Tozzi AE, Ciliento G, Pomponi M, Rinaldi S, Raponi M. Healthcare workers’ and parents’ perceptions of measures for improving adherence to hand-hygiene. BMC Public Health. 2011; 11:466.
crossref
16. Cantrell D, Shamriz O, Cohen MJ, Stern Z, Block C, Brezis M. Hand hygiene compliance by physicians: marked heterogeneity due to local culture? Am J Infect Control. 2009; 37:301–5.
crossref

Table 1.
Distribution of hand hygiene observation number by professionals between covert and overt observation period
Professionals Covert observation period Overt observation period P*
N (%) N (%)
Residents 146 (13.9) 106 (7.9) ä0.001
Interns 210 (20.0) 365 (27.3)  
Nurses 498 (47.3) 724 (54.2)  
Nurse aides 198 (18.8) 141 (10.6)  
Total 1,052 (100.0) 1,336 (100.0)

*chi-square test.

Table 2.
Distribution of hand hygiene observation number by activities between covert and overt observation period
Activities Covert observation period Overt observation period P*
N (%) N (%)
Before touching a patient 302 (28.7) 351 (26.3) 0.146
Before clean/aseptic procedures 156 (14.8) 236 (17.7)  
After body fluid exposure/risk 163 (15.5) 236 (17.7)  
After touching a patient 288 (27.4) 345 (25.8)  
After touching patient surroundings 143 (13.6) 168 (12.6)  
Total 1,052 (100.0) 1,336 (100.0)

*chi-square test.

Table 3.
Hand hygiene adherence rate by activities between covert and overt observation period
Activities Covert observation period Overt observation period P
N* (%) N (%)
Before touching a patient 192/302 (63.6) 249/351 (70.9) 0.054
Before clean/aseptic procedures 100/156 (64.1) 197/236 (83.5) ä0.001
Vascular system 48/90 (53.3) 112/146 (76.7) ä0.001
Non-vascular system 9/11 (53.3) 16/19 (84.2) 0.865
Dressing 13/16 (81.3) 11/13 (84.6) 0.811
Mucous membrane care 1/3 (33.3) 3/3 (100.0) 0.400
Body fluid aspiration 26/28 (92.9) 46/47 (97.9) 0.284
After body fluid exposure/risk 101/163 (62.0) 195/236 (82.6) ä0.001
After touching a patient 193/288 (67.0) 281/345 (81.4) ä0.001
After touching patient surroundings 73/143 (51.0) 119/168 (70.8) ä0.001
Total 659/1,052 (62.6) 1,041/1,336 (77.9) ä0.001

*No. hand hygiene adherence/No. indications which hand hygiene is recommended. Fisher’s exact test.

Table 4.
Hand hygiene adherence rate in activities by professionals between covert and overt observation period
Activities Covert observation period Overt observation period P
N* (%) N (%)
Residents      
Before touching a patient 13/50 (26.0) 16/35 (45.7) 0.068
Before clean/aseptic procedures 12/17 (70.6) 14/17 (82.4) 0.688
After body fluid exposure/risk 6/20 (30.0) 11/13 (84.6) 0.004
After touching a patient 18/49 (36.7) 18/34 (52.9) 0.179
After touching patient surroundings 0/10 (0.0) 6/7 (85.7) 0.001
Subtotal 49/146 (33.6) 65/106 (61.3) ä0.001
Interns      
Before touching a patient 6/43 (14.0) 17/69 (24.6) 0.231
Before clean/aseptic procedures 16/50 (32.0) 48/77 (62.3) 0.001
After body fluid exposure/risk 20/45 (44.4) 63/95 (66.3) 0.017
After touching a patient 9/47 (19.1) 22/59 (37.3) 0.054
After touching patient surroundings 14/25 (56.0) 34/65 (50.3) 0.816
Subtotal 65/210 (31.0) 184/365 (50.4) ä0.001
Nurses      
Before touching a patient 97/129 (75.2) 156/183 (85.2) 0.028
Before clean/aseptic procedures 68/85 (80.0) 132/139 (95.0) 0.602
After body fluid exposure/risk 53/74 (71.6) 111/118 (94.1) ä0.001
After touching a patient 100/117 (85.5) 183/192 (95.3) ä0.001
After touching patient surroundings 48/93 (51.6) 77/92 (83.7) ä0.001
Subtotal 366/498 (73.5) 659/724 (91.0) ä0.001
Nurse aides      
Before touching a patient 76/80 (95.0) 60/64 (93.8) 1.000
Before clean/aseptic procedures 4/4 (100.0) 3/3 (100.0) 1.000
After body fluid exposure/risk 22/24 (91.7) 10/10 (100.0) 1.000
After touching a patient 66/75 (88.0) 58/60 (96.7) 0.111
After touching patient surroundings 11/15 (73.3) 2/4 (50.0) 0.557
Subtotal 179/198 (90.4) 133/141 (94.3) 0.225

*No. hand hygiene adherence/No. indications which hand hygiene is recommended. Fisher’s exact test.

Table 5.
Agents for hand hygiene
Method of hand hygiene Covert observation period Overt observation period P
N* (%) N (%)
Alcohol-based 613 (93.0) 944 (90.7) 0.091
hand rubs      
Handwash 46 (7.0) 97 (9.3)  
with antiseptics      
Total 659 (100.0) 1,041 (100.0)

*No. method of hand hygiene/No. agents used for hand hygiene. chi-square test.

TOOLS
Similar articles