Skip to main content
Open Forum Infectious Diseases logoLink to Open Forum Infectious Diseases
. 2022 Dec 15;9(Suppl 2):ofac492.1043. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofac492.1043

1210. A Lean Six Sigma Approach to Improving Accuracy of Manual Hand Hygiene Observations

Marci Drees 1, Kathleen Bonis 2, Krystal Coles 3, John Emberger 4, Lauri Littleton 5, Mark Mirage 6, Austin Mount-Campbell 7, Carol Briody 8,1
PMCID: PMC9752227

Abstract

Background

Hand hygiene (HH) is widely regarded as the most important factor in preventing transmission of infections. Since 2012 our health system has utilized unit-based direct observation to measure HH compliance. Although direct observation is widely used and considered gold standard, the discrepancy between unit-based HH compliance (UB-HH) and Infection Prevention validation HH audits (IP-HH) was increasing over time. To understand the drift in HH compliance, we began a Lean Six Sigma (LSS) Green Belt project to improve UB-HH observation accuracy.

Methods

The IP LSS Green Belt team included nursing, respiratory care, and human factors, and analyzed factors leading to inaccurate UB-HH using LSS tools including the Voice of the Customer, process mapping, fishbone diagrams, and failure modes and effects analysis. We updated HH observer web-based education; implemented a new process to ensure observer training; and eliminated unit report card penalties for poor UB-HH. We implemented a new, more accessible observation tool, which provides a dashboard for real-time access to HH results by all staff. IPs began weekly validation HH audits.

Results

Baseline data revealed a 34% discrepancy between UB-HH and IP-HH compliance (95% vs 61%) over 4 different monthly validation events; only 27% of observers had completed web-based training. Goal conflicts were discovered: units were penalized for poor HH, yet the observations were unit level self-report. These results prompted design changes to the online tool and the process flow of UB-HH observation; units implemented the new program sequentially between 9/20 and 12/20. These changes resulted in 99% of observers being web-trained; however, between 10/21-3/22, UB-HH compliance averaged 98% (n=19,940), while IP-HH compliance averaged 53% (n=579) (difference, 45%).

Conclusion

Using multidisciplinary process improvement, we enhanced our manual HH observation processes; however, no improvement in HH accuracy was observed. Unit-based staff, who lack dedicated time for HH observation, are biased to document HH compliance over non-compliance, even with recent re-training in non-biased HH observation processes and elimination of penalties. To improve HH accuracy, we recommend either dedicated neutral HH observers or automated systems.

Disclosures

All Authors: No reported disclosures.


Articles from Open Forum Infectious Diseases are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES