Table 1 : Hand hygiene compliance per hospital during baseline and intervention Hospital Number of HCWs HH (%) during baseline HH (%) after intervention Percentage points change in overall HH (95% confidence interval) Proportion of improving HCWs (%) Proportion of non‐ changing HCWs (%) Proportion of worsening HCWs (%) A 52 44.1 48.7 4.7 (0.84–8.5) 32.7 51.9 15.4 B 64 16.7 34.7 18.0 (15.1–20.9) 82.8 4.7 12.5 C 28 36.6 49.0 12.4 (8.3–16.5) 71.4 14.3 14.3 D 21 47.1 78.6 31.5 (24.9–38.2) 95.2 4.8 0.0 E 25 62.7 90.9 28.3 (22.6–33.9) 68.0 28.0 4.0 F 36 62.2 79.8 17.5 (13.4–21.7) 61.1 38.9 0.0 G 54 55.5 69.2 13.7 (10.1–17.3) 46.3 42.6 11.1 Total 280 43.1 58.7 15.6 (14.0–17.2) 62.1 28.2 9.6 HCW, healthcare worker; HH, hand hygiene with the nurse‐to‐patient ratio (ρ 0.23; CI ‐0.64‐0.84) or the overall baseline compliance (ρ 0.37; ‐0.86‐0.54). The average improvement in HH compliance was negatively associated with the activity index (Additional file 1: Table S1). Model 2: Association of the intervention effect between individual HCWs and the overall ICU The median increase in HH compliance of Improving HCWs per ICU ranged from 16 pp to 34 pp (Additional file 1: Fig S2) and was significantly associated with the overall improvement among all HCWs in the corresponding ICU (ρ 0.79; CI 0.08‐0.97) (Fig. 2). The overall proportion of Improving HCWs was 62.1% with an inter‐ICU range of 32.7% to 95.2% (Table 1). This proportion of Improving HCWs per ICU was associated with the overall HH improvement among all HCWs (Spearman rank correlation (ρ) 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.18‐0.97) (Table 1, Fig. 3).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw