Improving Hand Hygiene in Hospitals: A Comparative Study Using Body-Worn Cameras and Direct Observation.

IF 3.8 3区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
D Belman, E Ben-Chetrit, C Belman, P D Levin
{"title":"Improving Hand Hygiene in Hospitals: A Comparative Study Using Body-Worn Cameras and Direct Observation.","authors":"D Belman, E Ben-Chetrit, C Belman, P D Levin","doi":"10.1016/j.ajic.2025.06.025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hand hygiene (HH) prevents infections, but traditional monitoring is limited by office hours and the Hawthorne effect. This study used body-worn cameras in ICUs to compare video with direct observation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After ethics approval, healthcare personnel wore a GoPro™ on the upper abdomen to record HH during patient care. A trained observer documented opportunities and performance simultaneously. A blinded researcher later analyzed the video. Both methods were compared across four parameters: opportunities, compliance, performance, and duration.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventeen paired video and observer data sets captured 166 HH opportunities and 147 events. Of these, 118/147 (80%) were performed in response to a hand hygiene opportunity and 29/147 not (20%). Including HH performance related to events, overall HH compliance was 118/166 (71%). Both methods identified 80% of opportunities. The video detected 11.5% of missed opportunities, while the observer identified 8.5% missed by the video. Mean duration was comparable (Video: 11.3±9.2 sec, Observer: 12.0±9.8 sec, p=0.55).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Body-worn cameras effectively identified HH opportunities, performance, and duration, capturing events missed by observers ~20% of the time. However, video analysis had flaws, revealing missed events upon review. Observer data, long considered the gold standard, showed only 80% accuracy.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Body-worn cameras are a feasible tool for HH monitoring, but are labor-intensive. Automating video analysis could enhance feasibility for routine use.</p>","PeriodicalId":7621,"journal":{"name":"American journal of infection control","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of infection control","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2025.06.025","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Hand hygiene (HH) prevents infections, but traditional monitoring is limited by office hours and the Hawthorne effect. This study used body-worn cameras in ICUs to compare video with direct observation.

Methods: After ethics approval, healthcare personnel wore a GoPro™ on the upper abdomen to record HH during patient care. A trained observer documented opportunities and performance simultaneously. A blinded researcher later analyzed the video. Both methods were compared across four parameters: opportunities, compliance, performance, and duration.

Results: Seventeen paired video and observer data sets captured 166 HH opportunities and 147 events. Of these, 118/147 (80%) were performed in response to a hand hygiene opportunity and 29/147 not (20%). Including HH performance related to events, overall HH compliance was 118/166 (71%). Both methods identified 80% of opportunities. The video detected 11.5% of missed opportunities, while the observer identified 8.5% missed by the video. Mean duration was comparable (Video: 11.3±9.2 sec, Observer: 12.0±9.8 sec, p=0.55).

Discussion: Body-worn cameras effectively identified HH opportunities, performance, and duration, capturing events missed by observers ~20% of the time. However, video analysis had flaws, revealing missed events upon review. Observer data, long considered the gold standard, showed only 80% accuracy.

Conclusions: Body-worn cameras are a feasible tool for HH monitoring, but are labor-intensive. Automating video analysis could enhance feasibility for routine use.

改善医院手部卫生:使用随身相机与直接观察的比较研究。
背景:手卫生(HH)可以预防感染,但传统的监测受到办公时间和霍桑效应的限制。本研究在icu中使用穿戴式摄像机来比较视频与直接观察。方法:经伦理批准后,医护人员在患者护理过程中在上腹部佩戴GoPro™记录HH。训练有素的观察员同时记录机会和业绩。一名盲法研究人员随后分析了这段视频。两种方法通过四个参数进行比较:机会、依从性、性能和持续时间。结果:17个配对的视频和观察者数据集捕获了166个HH机会和147个事件。其中,118/147例(80%)是为了应对手卫生机会而进行的,29/147例(20%)不是。包括与事件相关的HH表现,总体HH依从性为118/166(71%)。两种方法都能识别80%的机会。视频发现了11.5%的错失机会,而观察者发现了8.5%的错失机会。平均持续时间可比较(视频:11.3±9.2秒,观察者:12.0±9.8秒,p=0.55)。讨论:随身摄像机有效地识别HH机会,表现和持续时间,捕捉到观察者错过的事件约20%的时间。然而,视频分析有缺陷,在审查时发现遗漏的事件。长期以来被视为黄金标准的观察者数据显示,准确率只有80%。结论:随身摄像机是一种可行的HH监测工具,但其劳动强度较大。自动化视频分析可以提高日常使用的可行性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
4.10%
发文量
479
审稿时长
24 days
期刊介绍: AJIC covers key topics and issues in infection control and epidemiology. Infection control professionals, including physicians, nurses, and epidemiologists, rely on AJIC for peer-reviewed articles covering clinical topics as well as original research. As the official publication of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信