Control (SPC) to measure process improvement. The application of SPC to

Control (SPC) to measure process improvement. The application of SPC to infection control is relatively new [27,28,29] and it requires the analysis of data through different types of control charts [25,30,31,32,33]. We undertook a 2 phase multifaceted hospital-wide HH intervention based on the multimodal WHO approach [34,35] and CQI philosophy over 2 years, focusing on achieving a sustained HH cultural change in our institution. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact and sustainability of this approach on HH compliance over time.the research without explicit consent from the participants because the management of our patients was not affected by the study.InterventionsThe pre-intervention period (March 2007 ecember 2009) and the main characteristics of our 2-phase multifaceted hospital-wide intervention on HH, phase 1 from January throughout December 2010 and phase 2 from January throughout December 2011 are shown in table 1. In summary, phase 1 was based on the WHO hand hygiene multimodal (five steps) intervention approach (table 1), a standardized framework [34,35] for training observers, performance of surveys and training of HCWs. Phase 2 was developed following the continuous quality improvement philosophy [32,33].The main interventions added during phase II as regards phase I (table 1) were: a) increase of AHR dispensers placement (from 0.57 dispensers/bed to 1.56); b) increase of frequency audits (from 25 days to 51 days and audits were dispersed more evenly over time [2 vs 17 evaluation periods]); c) feedback was more standardized and statistical control graphs were shown to health care workers in a bimonthly fashion; and d) implementation of a standardized process for BRDU supplier proactive corrective actions. A hand hygiene monitor team (HHMT) was created on March 2010 and included eight HCWs. The team attended a theoretical and practical workshop following the WHO video methodology. The HHMT achieved a median theoretical correct responses rates of 93.4 (95 CI: 90.4?6.4 ) after the WHO-recommended evaluation. Following WHO recommendations [35] four main professional categories were defined (assistant nurses, nurses, physicians, and “others” ncluding transport, laboratory and radiology technicians-) and 3 areas were defined (ICU, Emergency Department (ED) and medical-surgical wards). Observations were conducted at prespecified periods. Due to logistical reasons the weekends and night shifts were excluded. On each audit, all wards were monitored on the same day during 30 minutes except for ICU and ED where two different observations by two different HHMT members were planned. HCWs were informed about the observation schedule in advance. The observers were as unobtrusive as possible. The inter-observed variability [6] was also buy AICA Riboside checked during audits, being the infection control nurse the reference with respect to all other auditors. The concordance was high for all variables among all HHMT members (mean kappa values = 0.9; range = 0.85?.91). Finally, during the phase 2 of the intervention (2011), proactive corrective actions were also performed at the end of each observation period if deemed necessary by the auditor. This approach allowed us to clarify doubts of our HCWs concerning HH practices and to detect incorrect HH habits (meaning repetitive incorrect actions related to HH). In addition, an interactive and positive education approach without any punitive consequences was fostered. Corrective actions were registered i.Control (SPC) to measure process improvement. The application of SPC to infection control is relatively new [27,28,29] and it requires the analysis of data through different types of control charts [25,30,31,32,33]. We undertook a 2 phase multifaceted hospital-wide HH intervention based on the multimodal WHO approach [34,35] and CQI philosophy over 2 years, focusing on achieving a sustained HH cultural change in our institution. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact and sustainability of this approach on HH compliance over time.the research without explicit consent from the participants because the management of our patients was not affected by the study.InterventionsThe pre-intervention period (March 2007 ecember 2009) and the main characteristics of our 2-phase multifaceted hospital-wide intervention on HH, phase 1 from January throughout December 2010 and phase 2 from January throughout December 2011 are shown in table 1. In summary, phase 1 was based on the WHO hand hygiene multimodal (five steps) intervention approach (table 1), a standardized framework [34,35] for training observers, performance of surveys and training of HCWs. Phase 2 was developed following the continuous quality improvement philosophy [32,33].The main interventions added during phase II as regards phase I (table 1) were: a) increase of AHR dispensers placement (from 0.57 dispensers/bed to 1.56); b) increase of frequency audits (from 25 days to 51 days and audits were dispersed more evenly over time [2 vs 17 evaluation periods]); c) feedback was more standardized and statistical control graphs were shown to health care workers in a bimonthly fashion; and d) implementation of a standardized process for proactive corrective actions. A hand hygiene monitor team (HHMT) was created on March 2010 and included eight HCWs. The team attended a theoretical and practical workshop following the WHO video methodology. The HHMT achieved a median theoretical correct responses rates of 93.4 (95 CI: 90.4?6.4 ) after the WHO-recommended evaluation. Following WHO recommendations [35] four main professional categories were defined (assistant nurses, nurses, physicians, and “others” ncluding transport, laboratory and radiology technicians-) and 3 areas were defined (ICU, Emergency Department (ED) and medical-surgical wards). Observations were conducted at prespecified periods. Due to logistical reasons the weekends and night shifts were excluded. On each audit, all wards were monitored on the same day during 30 minutes except for ICU and ED where two different observations by two different HHMT members were planned. HCWs were informed about the observation schedule in advance. The observers were as unobtrusive as possible. The inter-observed variability [6] was also checked during audits, being the infection control nurse the reference with respect to all other auditors. The concordance was high for all variables among all HHMT members (mean kappa values = 0.9; range = 0.85?.91). Finally, during the phase 2 of the intervention (2011), proactive corrective actions were also performed at the end of each observation period if deemed necessary by the auditor. This approach allowed us to clarify doubts of our HCWs concerning HH practices and to detect incorrect HH habits (meaning repetitive incorrect actions related to HH). In addition, an interactive and positive education approach without any punitive consequences was fostered. Corrective actions were registered i.