Background
Methods
Electronic monitoring system - MedSense
Opportunity Detection
|
MedSense detects opportunities for hand hygiene in four steps: (i) badges detect "events" when the HCW moves in and out of patient zone; (ii) events are assigned a probability of patient contact based on duration; (iii) events with high probability of patient contact are split into "Before Touching a Patient" and "After Touching a Patient" hand hygiene indications; and (iv) isolated indications are counted as opportunities while "After Touching a Patient" indications followed by "Before Touching a Patient" indications in quick succession are combined into single opportunities. |
Event Detection
|
The system defines an "event" as an interval when a badge-wearing HCW spent time in a patient zone within range of a Beacon installed on the wall at the head of the patient's bed. The Beacons, which focus their transmissions into an elliptical field around the bed, periodically broadcast, and the Badges receive these "pings" and record the patient zone ID and signal strength. The "Received Signal Strength Indication" (RSSI) of the ping functions as an indicator of distance between the two devices. During the technical phase of the trial, the Beacons were calibrated such that a patient zone extending approximately arm's length from the bed's perimeter could be detected by applying a threshold to the RSSI (Figure 6). A detection algorithm inputs these ping data points and calibration values and outputs a series of events defined by start and stop times together with the patient zone and badge ID. The algorithm uses a timeout of one minute where a badge may leave the patient zone and return while continuing the active event. |
Patient Contact Inference
|
MedSense uses a predefined reference table to predict the probability of patient contact having occurred during an event. The table is indexed by event duration, and the corresponding probability value represents the probability of patient contact during the event. The table's values derive from the results of data observation on the unit, which showed a strong relationship between the duration spent in a patient zone and patient contact occurring. Figure 7 shows the probability of patient contact in relation to the event duration. Events with a low probability of patient contact (duration less than fifteen seconds) are disregarded, and the remaining events each create two indications for hand hygiene: "Before Touching a Patient" and "After Touching a Patient", which are assigned times equal to the start and end times of the events, respectively. In addition to type and time, the indications carry forward their probability of patient contact as a weighting factor to be used in the compliance calculation. |
Opportunity Algorithm
|
According to the WHO's recommendation, the occurrence of a single indication creates an opportunity for hand hygiene. MedSense therefore counts each isolated indication as an opportunity with probability of occurrence equal to the indication probability. When multiple indications occur at the same time, the WHO specifies that only a single opportunity should be counted. MedSense groups an "After Touching a Patient" followed by a "Before Touching a Patient" indication that happen within two minutes of each other as a single opportunity. When combining these two indications, the resulting opportunity has a probability equal to the probability that at least one of the two indications occurred. |
Action Detection
|
Wireless sensors detect when HCWs dispense alcohol and soap product, and then broadcast an activation message to proximate badges, which record the messages. The action algorithm selects activation messages with strong signal strength and assigns them to badges as hand hygiene actions. |
Activation Detection
|
Pump bottle sensors accommodate a single alcohol or soap bottle. The sensors can be mounted on a wall or placed on a flat surface. When the HCW presses on a bottle's pump to dispense product, a force sensor module in the bottom of the unit triggers and broadcasts a message indicating that a pump bottle "activation" occurred. |
Action Algorithm
|
Each badge that receives a particular activation message records the identifying information together with the time and RSSI. When this data is uploaded to the server, the action algorithm selects activations with an RSSI above a threshold as representing badges, and therefore HCWs, who could have initiated the hand hygiene action. When a single activation is selected for a particular action, the action algorithm directly assigns it to the corresponding badge. If multiple activations are selected, the algorithm assigns an action to each represented badge but with a flag marking them as uncertain. |
Compliance Algorithm
|
The compliance algorithm calculates compliance from a set of opportunities and actions in three steps. The first step involves matching the actions to opportunities based on temporal proximity. In the second step, the algorithm filters out the opportunities matched to uncertain actions. Finally, the matched and unmatched opportunities feed into a calculation that determines the compliance. |
Matching Actions to Opportunities
|
The matching algorithm uses the following criteria to determine which actions match to which opportunities: (i) an action can only match to a single opportunity; (ii) multiple actions may match to the same opportunity; (iii) a matching action and opportunity must occur within 90 seconds of each other; and (iv) an action cannot match an opportunity if there is an intervening opportunity. The algorithm determines each match in order from shortest to longest time between action and opportunity. When an action marked as certain (from the action algorithm) matches to an opportunity, the algorithm removes the opportunity from the potential match set so that no additional actions may match it. The end result is three types of opportunities: (i) no action matched; (ii) certain action matched; (iii) one or more uncertain actions matched. Figure 8 illustrates the matching algorithm. |
Filtering Out Uncertain Matches
|
The subset of the opportunities matched to uncertain actions represents a case where the system did not have the discriminatory power to determine compliance behavior. To reduce error in the final compliance calculation, the compliance algorithm filters out these ambiguous data points. The remaining opportunities, those with certain actions or no action at all, are referred to as compliance data points. |
Compliance Calculation
|
MedSense defines the compliance as the conditional probability of an action given an opportunity, denoted P(A|O). P(A|O) is equivalent to the joint probability of action and opportunity divided by the marginal probability of an opportunity, or P(AO)/P(O). Since the algorithm has removed the uncertain actions, this calculation becomes a weighted average where the action outcomes (zero or one) are weighted by the opportunity probabilities. This compliance calculation can be performed over any subset of the compliance data points, as is the case when calculating a compliance for a window of time, a category of HCWs, or any other grouping variable. |
The Pilot Trial
Comparing Human and System obtained Compliance Data
Comparing System Compliance with and without Observer on Unit
System Compliance over Temporal and Subject Dimensions
Workload Analysis using Event Duration
Statistical Analysis
Results
MedSense Setup
The Pilot Trial
Comparing Human and System Compliance Data
Moment | First session | Second session | Third session | Fourth session | Total | Percent |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Moment 1 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 13 | 40 | 49.3% |
Moment 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3.7% |
Moment 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 8 | 9.8% |
Moment 4 | 10 | 14 | 12 | 18 | 54 | 66.7% |
Moment 5 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 9.8% |
Opportunities | 14 | 21 | 18 | 28 | 81 | 100% |
Comparing System Compliance with and without Observer on Unit
System Compliance over Temporal and Subject Dimensions
Workload Analysis using Event Duration
Discussion
Study [reference] | Design, setting, and main intervention | Major outcome and remark |
---|---|---|
Swoboda SM et al (2004) [12] | Prospective 14-month study in a 14-bed intermediate care unit, Baltimore, US; Electronic monitoring system to record entry and exit from patient rooms, the use of toilet and dirty utility facilities, and the use of hand washing and hand hygiene devices; Phase 1 (6-month): electronic monitoring and 8-weeks of direct observation of staff interactions; Phase 2 (6-month): voice-prompt system giving prerecorded messages to remind the individual to wash hands if they had not done so before exiting the room or within 10 seconds in one of the sinks and dispensers; Phase 3 (2-month): electronic monitoring without voice-prompt system | Hand hygiene compliance in patient rooms improved by 37% during phase 2 and 41% in phase 3; while the number of infection decreased by 22% and 48% in the corresponding period; Patient care practice was not precisely observed |
Kinsella G et al (2007) [13] | A 47-day study in a 16-bed ICU, Salford, UK; Electronically record the use of wall-mounted soap and alcohol gel dispensers implanted in two bed areas and entrance of ICU; Measure the consumption pattern of wall-mounted soap and alcohol gel dispenser | Consumption of alcohol gel dispenser in bed area was correlated with the dependency of the patient (r = 0.5, p < 0.01); Compliance of hand hygiene was not measured |
Venkatesh AK et al (2008) [14] | Prospective 1-month study in a 30-bed hematopoietic stem cell transplantation & hematology unit, Chicago, US; Audible alert to prompt healthcare workers to perform hand hygiene on 12 electronically monitored rooms upon entry and exit; Phase 1 (2-week): monitor baseline compliance of hand hygiene Phase 2 (2-week): monitor hand hygiene compliance with automatic alerts | Improved compliance of hand hygiene from baseline (36.3%) to 70.1% during phase 2; Patient care practice was not precisely observed |
Marra AR et al (2008) [15] | A 6-month control trial in two 20-bed step-down units, Sao Paulo, Brazil; Electronic counting devices for wall-mounted alcohol gel dispensers were available in two step-down units, one with feedback intervention program and one without (control) | No significant difference in the amount of alcohol gel used and hand hygiene compliance; Patient care practice was not precisely observed |
Boscart VM et al (2008) [16] | Descriptive study in teaching facilities, Ontario, Canada; The wearable electronic monitoring device communicated with the alcohol gel dispensers and patient zone to provide signal to perform hand cleansing; The acceptability and usability of wearable electronic hand wash device was assessed | All ten staff accept the use of the electronic device; An individual patient environmental zone was defined |
Boyce JM et al (2009) [17] | Prospective observation trial for 6-month in a 22-bed general medical ward and a 15-bed surgical ICU, New Haven, US; Electronic device was used to record the frequency of dispenser used | The dispenser located in patient rooms account for 47% and 36% of hand hygiene events performed in surgical ICU and general medical ward respectively; The hand hygiene event was indirectly measured by the dispenser used. The compliance of hand hygiene was not assessed |
Sahud AG et al (2010) [18] | A 2-phase pilot study in 5 patient care units of a territory hospital, Pittsburgh, US; Electronic device was installed in 20 patient room entrances and 70 dispensers for soap or hand sanitizer; Phase 1 (8-month): manual observation at patient room entry and exit Phase 2 (4-week): observation using electronic device | Electronic device captured 98% of manually recorded room entries and 95% of dispensing event; The compliance was low (25.5%) |
Edmond MB et al (2010) [26] | A 2-phase study in a 35-bed orthopedic ward, Virginia, US; Volunteered nursing staff wore a credit-card-size alcohol sensor badge, which can detect alcohol vapor upon room entry or exit; if alcohol vapor was not detected within 8 s, the badge light would turn red and produce "beep" sound Phase 1 (21 days): direct observation of hand hygiene compliance Phase 2 (10 days): observation using electronic device | Compliance of hand hygiene among nursing staff increased from 73% in phase 1 to 93% in phase 2 (p = 0.01) The system only measured compliance on room entry and exit; the hand hygiene opportunities occurred inside patient room were missed |
Polgreen PM et al (2010) [27] | Description of an electronic device of small credit-card-sized without radio-frequency identification to monitor the use of hand hygiene dispensers before healthcare workers enter or exit patient rooms | No clinical data being mentioned |