Shock

  • Posted: April 26th, 2011 - 1:38pm by Doug Powell

    hospital.administrator.monty_.python.jpg

    Money is a good way to get an administrator’s attention.

    Monty Python figured this out in 1983’s, The Meaning of Life.

    In The Miracle of Birth bit, as a laboring woman is wheeled into the delivery room surrounded by the machines meant to assist birth, the hospital administrator, Mr. Pycroft, arrives.

    “Wonderful what we can do nowadays.
    [ping]

    “Aah! I see you have the machine that goes 'ping'.

    “You see, we lease this back from the company we sold it to, and that way, it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.
    [applause]

    “Thank you. Thank you. We try to do our best. Well, do carry on.”

    Tina Rosenberg of the N.Y. Times reports on the health blog today that handwashing compliance in hospitals generally sucks, provides a thorough overview of why it sucks, and notes that hospitals are now paying more attention to the matter: money.

    “In 2008, hospitals were told that Medicare would no longer reimburse them for the cost of treating preventable hospital-acquired conditions it calls “never events,” which includes many kinds of hospital-acquired infections. The new health care reform bill instructs states to do the same with Medicaid. Many insurance companies also now refuse to pay for never events. This tends to concentrate the minds of hospital executives. …

    “In the last year or two, several new ways to promote hand-washing – all things that beep – have made their debut: HyGreen, BioVigil, Patient Care Technology System’s Amelior 360 and Proventix’s nGage are some of them, but there are others. Some are spinoffs of systems widely used to track hospital equipment (this is how hospitals can find a wheelchair when it is needed). All employ new technology that can detect alcohol — which in hospitals is a component not only of rubbing gel but also soap.

    “They work like this: every health care worker wears an electronic badge. When she washes her hands or uses alcohol rub, a sensor at the sink or dispenser or her own badge smells the alcohol and registers that she has washed her hands.

    “Another sensor near the patient detects when her badge enters a room or the perimeter around a patient that the hospital sets. If that badge shows that her hands were recently washed, it displays a green light or something else the patient can see. If she hasn’t washed, her hands, the badge says so and emits a signal to remind her to do so. The sensor also sends this information to a central data base. Information about the hand-washing practices of a particular unit, shift or individual is instantly available.”

    There is some evidence the systems work, but they are also expensive.

    And sorta useless without a culture change.

    Rosenberg writes any technological fix should be accompanied by “creating a culture of accountability, redesigning hand hygiene systems to make hand-washing easy and automatic, and other strategies.”

    We prefer shock and shame.
     

    Your rating: None (2 votes)
    Bookmark and Share
  • Posted: March 14th, 2011 - 9:13am by Doug Powell

    snot.kid_.hands_.jpg

    Graphic messages and reminders that use a shock-and-shame approach may get more people to wash their hands, according to a Kansas State University professor and his colleagues.

    "Those 'Employees Must Wash Hands' signs in bathrooms may not be the most effective reminder," said Doug Powell, professor of food safety at K-State. "We wanted a comprehensive review of what others had done, and combined this with our own work on food safety messages that lead to behavior change. We weren't interested in self-reported surveys where everyone says they always wash their hands, but studies based on observed increases in handwashing compliance."

    Powell worked with Casey Jacob, a former K-State research assistant in the department of diagnostic medicine and pathobiology, and Sarah Wilson, formerly of the University of Guelph. Their review of techniques to improve handwashing behavior was just published in the journal Critical Public Health.

    The review was conducted as background for several ongoing experiments involving Powell and colleagues to increase handwashing rates in cafeterias, restaurants, hospitals, veterinary clinics and petting zoos. The team has previously designed handwashing campaigns at K-State involving both shock and shame.

    "Social pressure, or shame, has been successfully used, especially within an entire organization," Powell said. "If you were in the bathroom at a restaurant and saw an employee not washing his or her hands, would you say, 'Dude, wash your hands?' The shock approach is designed to get people to 'be the bug' -- just for a moment -- and think about where their hands have been and where they are going to be, especially when around hospitals, food service or animals. Dangerous microorganisms move around a lot."

    Behavior-change interventions to improve hand-hygiene practice: A review of alternatives to education
    03.mar.11
    Critical Public Health
    Sarah Wilson; Casey J. Jacob; Douglas Powell
    http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a934338802~db=all~jumptype=rss
    Despite the role of hand hygiene in preventing infectious disease, compliance remains low. Education and training are often cited as essential to developing and maintaining hand-hygiene compliance, but generally have not produced sustained improvements. Consequently, this literature review was conducted to identify alternative interventions for compelling change in hand-hygiene behavior. Of those, interventions employing social pressures have demonstrated varying influence on an individual’s behavior, while interventions that focus on organizational culture have demonstrated positive results. However, recent research indicates that handwashing is a ritualized behavior mainly performed for self-protection. Therefore, interventions that provoke emotive sensations (e.g., discomfort, disgust) or use social marketing may be the most effective.

    Your rating: None (1 vote)
    Bookmark and Share
  • Posted: October 15th, 2009 - 1:31pm by Doug Powell

    A British study by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine concluded that people are more likely to wash their hands properly after using the toilet if they are shamed into it or think they are being watched.

    As part of a flood of handwashing information for today’s World Handwashing Day, the study, published in the American Journal of Public Health found that with no reminders, 32 percent of men and 64 percent of women used soap.

    The observational study reported on the behavior of people using toilets at motorway service stations in Britain over 32 days.

    When prompted by an electronic message flashing up on a board asking: "Is the person next to you washing with soap?," around 12 percent more men and 11 percent more women used soap.

    Other messages flashed on the electronic boards included:

    • Water doesn't kill germs, soap does; and,
    • Don't be a dirty soap dodger.

    The message that produced the strongest positive response was: "Is the person next to you washing with soap?"

    The researchers also noted "intriguing differences" in the behavior of men and women: While women responded to simple reminders, men tended to react best to messages that invoked disgust, such as:

    • Don't take the loo with you -- wash with soap, and
    • Soap it off or eat it later.

    I like the last one.

    We’ve undertaken both shock and shame attempts at handwashing messages (below). Results pending.

    Your rating: None
    Bookmark and Share