Nd implementation of a standardized proactive corrective form that helped to

Nd implementation of a standardized proactive corrective form that helped to gauge the extent of our intervention. To our knowledge, these aspects have not been previously analysed in detail.Comparison with other studiesPhase 1 intervention (2010) share key components with other successful hospital-wide WHO strategy based interventions [6,7,8,9,10] and included the five progressive steps such as administrative support and multidisciplinary approach, promotion of easy access to alcohol hand-rub solutions in points of care (AHR at bedside) educational interventions, strategically placed reminders, audits by direct observation and feedback on performance.Discussion OverviewThe most remarkable findings of our strategy were: a) a significant improvement in HH compliance with respect to baseline (a 25 percentage point increase in the mean during thePLOS ONE | www.plosone.orgHospital Wide Hand Hygiene InterventionFigure 2. Binomial control chart (statistical hand hygiene compliance process control during phase 2 according HCW categories). A: nursing assistants. B: nurses. C: Leupeptin (hemisulfate) supplier physicians. Sets of points are highlighted (circles) and the rules (special causes) are shown. Three zones (C, B, A) that emanate outward from the center line (CL) are labeled (often referred as “sigma limits”). See legend in Figure 1 for control R848 chemical information charts rules explanation. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047200.gPhase 2 strategy (2011) added some particularities such as a continuous scheduled assessment of HH process and the application of a Statistical Process Control methodology. The use of brief monitoring audits (half an hour) maintained over time (three randomized days every three weeks) was shown a successful approach. In this regard some considerations should be taken into account: a) the methodology was by itself an improvement toolsince it acted as a continuous reminder of the expected behaviour [17] from our HCWs and interacted with the subjective norm (a person’s perception of pressure from peers and other social groups); b) it was an ideal scenario to encourage better performance, clarify doubts and modify “incorrect HH habits” in real time. This fact is shown by the 42 corrections made during phase 2 intervention. The immediate and individual feedbackPLOS ONE | www.plosone.orgHospital Wide Hand Hygiene InterventionFigure 3. Binomial control chart (statistical hand hygiene compliance process control during phase 2 according working areas). A: medical-surgical wards. B: intensive care unit. C: emergency department. Sets of points are highlighted (circles) and the rules (special causes) are shown. Three zones (C, B, A) that emanate outward from the center line (CL) are labeled (often referred as “sigma limits”). See legend in Figure 1 for control charts rules explanation. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047200.g[44,45] has been a key point in influencing HCWs performance; c) auditors can identify barriers to compliance and seek local solutions [46]; d) it is currently the only method that can detect all types of HH opportunities; and e) it is the only strategy that can provide detailed information about HH techniques.PLOS ONE | www.plosone.orgRecently a successful HH program in which a key component was a continuous HH monitoring and feedback has been published [21]. Altogether, both strategies reinforces that frequent feedback is linked to improvement in healthcare quality [45].Hospital Wide Hand Hygiene InterventionFigure 4. Poisson control chart (statistical overall.Nd implementation of a standardized proactive corrective form that helped to gauge the extent of our intervention. To our knowledge, these aspects have not been previously analysed in detail.Comparison with other studiesPhase 1 intervention (2010) share key components with other successful hospital-wide WHO strategy based interventions [6,7,8,9,10] and included the five progressive steps such as administrative support and multidisciplinary approach, promotion of easy access to alcohol hand-rub solutions in points of care (AHR at bedside) educational interventions, strategically placed reminders, audits by direct observation and feedback on performance.Discussion OverviewThe most remarkable findings of our strategy were: a) a significant improvement in HH compliance with respect to baseline (a 25 percentage point increase in the mean during thePLOS ONE | www.plosone.orgHospital Wide Hand Hygiene InterventionFigure 2. Binomial control chart (statistical hand hygiene compliance process control during phase 2 according HCW categories). A: nursing assistants. B: nurses. C: physicians. Sets of points are highlighted (circles) and the rules (special causes) are shown. Three zones (C, B, A) that emanate outward from the center line (CL) are labeled (often referred as “sigma limits”). See legend in Figure 1 for control charts rules explanation. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047200.gPhase 2 strategy (2011) added some particularities such as a continuous scheduled assessment of HH process and the application of a Statistical Process Control methodology. The use of brief monitoring audits (half an hour) maintained over time (three randomized days every three weeks) was shown a successful approach. In this regard some considerations should be taken into account: a) the methodology was by itself an improvement toolsince it acted as a continuous reminder of the expected behaviour [17] from our HCWs and interacted with the subjective norm (a person’s perception of pressure from peers and other social groups); b) it was an ideal scenario to encourage better performance, clarify doubts and modify “incorrect HH habits” in real time. This fact is shown by the 42 corrections made during phase 2 intervention. The immediate and individual feedbackPLOS ONE | www.plosone.orgHospital Wide Hand Hygiene InterventionFigure 3. Binomial control chart (statistical hand hygiene compliance process control during phase 2 according working areas). A: medical-surgical wards. B: intensive care unit. C: emergency department. Sets of points are highlighted (circles) and the rules (special causes) are shown. Three zones (C, B, A) that emanate outward from the center line (CL) are labeled (often referred as “sigma limits”). See legend in Figure 1 for control charts rules explanation. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047200.g[44,45] has been a key point in influencing HCWs performance; c) auditors can identify barriers to compliance and seek local solutions [46]; d) it is currently the only method that can detect all types of HH opportunities; and e) it is the only strategy that can provide detailed information about HH techniques.PLOS ONE | www.plosone.orgRecently a successful HH program in which a key component was a continuous HH monitoring and feedback has been published [21]. Altogether, both strategies reinforces that frequent feedback is linked to improvement in healthcare quality [45].Hospital Wide Hand Hygiene InterventionFigure 4. Poisson control chart (statistical overall.