A pragmatic randomised controlled trial of 6 step versus 3 step hand hygiene technique in acute hospital care
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
Published
Documents
Reilly, J et al (2016) Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology article
Rights statement: This is a final author version of the article originally published by Cambridge University Press in: Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology (2016), 37 (6), pp.661-666. © 2016 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.
Accepted author manuscript, 358 KB, PDF-document
DOI
- 10.1017/ice.2016.51
Final published version
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 661-666 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology |
| Volume | 37 |
| Issue number | 06 |
| Early online date | 7 Apr 2016 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jun 2016 |
Abstract
This study evaluated the microbiological effectiveness of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) 6 step and the Center for Disease Control’s 3 step hand hygiene techniques using alcohol based handrub (ABHR). A parallel group randomized controlled trial (RCT). An acute care inner city teaching hospital.
Participants: Doctors (n=42) and nurses (n=78) undertaking direct patient care.
Intervention: Random 1:1 allocation of the 6 step (n=60) or the 3 step technique (n=60). The 6 step technique was microbiologically more effective at reducing the median log10 bacterial count ((3.28 (95% CI 3.11, 3.38 cfu/ml) to 2.58 (95% CI 2.08, 2.93) cfu/ml)) than the 3 step ((3.08 (95% CI 2.977, 3.27) to 2.88 (95% CI 2.58, 3.15) cfu/ml)) (p=0.02), but did not increase the total hand coverage area (98.8% versus 99.0%, p=0.15) and required 15% (95% CI: 6%-24%) more time (42.50 seconds vs 35.0 seconds, p=0.002). Total hand coverage was not related to the reduction in bacterial count.
Participants: Doctors (n=42) and nurses (n=78) undertaking direct patient care.
Intervention: Random 1:1 allocation of the 6 step (n=60) or the 3 step technique (n=60). The 6 step technique was microbiologically more effective at reducing the median log10 bacterial count ((3.28 (95% CI 3.11, 3.38 cfu/ml) to 2.58 (95% CI 2.08, 2.93) cfu/ml)) than the 3 step ((3.08 (95% CI 2.977, 3.27) to 2.88 (95% CI 2.58, 3.15) cfu/ml)) (p=0.02), but did not increase the total hand coverage area (98.8% versus 99.0%, p=0.15) and required 15% (95% CI: 6%-24%) more time (42.50 seconds vs 35.0 seconds, p=0.002). Total hand coverage was not related to the reduction in bacterial count.
Keywords
- hand hygiene, Healthcare associated infection, randomised controlled trial
Download statistics
No data available
