Why don't doctors wash their hands? A correlational study of thinking styles and hand hygiene.

Department of Palliative & Supportive Services, School of Medicine, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
American journal of infection control (Impact Factor: 3.01). 09/2008; 36(6):399-406. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2007.11.002
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The World Health Organization has identified cognitive determinants of hand hygiene as an outstanding research question. This study investigated whether doctors' preferences for a rational thinking style or an experiential thinking style are associated with hand hygiene compliance.
This was an observational study of hand hygiene practices of 32 doctors in 2 teaching hospitals in South Australia. Compliance rates were correlated with self-reported thinking styles. The doctors were observed by a trained observer during a ward round or outpatient clinic and were unaware that hand hygiene was under observation. The main outcome measures were hand hygiene compliance (hand hygiene compliance tool) and thinking style (Rational-Experiential Inventory).
An overall mean compliance rate of 7.6% (standard deviation +/- 7.2%) was found. Compliance was significantly positively correlated with experiential/automatic thinking (r = .46; P = .004) and the observational setting of ward rounds (vs clinics) (r = -.47; P = .003). No significant relationship was found between compliance and a rational/deliberate thinking style (r = -.01; P = .472).
Hand hygiene is more experiential than rational. Findings suggest that certain promotional strategies appealing to the experiential thinking mode may improve compliance, and that traditional approaches based on logic and reasoning alone probably will not work.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients could help to improve the hand hygiene (HH) compliance of healthcare professionals (HCPs) by reminding them to sanitize their hands. To review the effectiveness of strategies aimed at increasing patient involvement in reminding HCPs about their HH. A systematic review was conducted across Medline, EMBASE and PsycINFO between 1980 and 2013. Twenty-eight out of a possible 1956 articles were included. Of these, 23 articles evaluated the effectiveness of developed patient-focused strategies and five articles examined patients' attitudes towards hypothetical strategies. Sixteen articles evaluated single-component strategies (e.g. videos) and 12 articles evaluated multi-modal approaches (e.g. combination of video and leaflet). Overall, the strategies showed promise in helping to increase patients' intentions and/or involvement in reminding HCPs about their HH. HCP encouragement appeared to be the most effective strategy. However, the methodological quality of the articles in relation to addressing the specific aims of this review was generally weak. A number of strategies are available to encourage patients to question HCPs about their HH. Better controlled studies with more robust outcome measures will enhance understanding about which strategies may be most successful and why. Copyright © 2015 The Healthcare Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Journal of Hospital Infection 12/2014; 89(3). DOI:10.1016/j.jhin.2014.11.010 · 2.78 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Investigaciones realizadas demuestran falta de patronización de los métodos de evaluación de la adherencia de los profesionales de salud a la práctica de la higiene de las manos. Así, este estudio de revisión tuvo como objetivo identificar los diferentes métodos utilizados para la evaluación de la adherencia a esa práctica, refrendados en la literatura por medio de consulta a las siguientes bases de datos - Literatura Latino-Americana y del Caribe en Ciencias de la Salud, Medical Analysis Retrieval System Online e Scientific Eletronic Library Online en las cuales fueron identificados 210 estudios, de los cuales fueron seleccionados 34 artículos difundidos entre los años de 2001 a 2010. El estudio presenta los diferentes métodos adoptados para realizar la evaluación de la adherencia a los procedimientos de higiene de las manos y señala sus puntos fuertes y fragilidades, a fin de subsidiar un análisis crítico por parte de los profesionales de salud, con la intención de favorecer la elección del método más adecuado a cada institución y realidad.
    Acta Paulista de Enfermagem 12/2010; 24(3):407-413. · 0.27 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although the need for hand hygiene (HH) is generally accepted, studies continue to document inadequate compliance. Medical students are taught about the importance of HH to prevent nosocomial infections, and receive training in the correct procedures for HH. However, personality traits (social orientation and achievement orientation) may influence HH compliance. People with high social orientation feel socially responsible and act cooperatively, and people with high achievement orientation are ambitious and competitive. To evaluate the relationship between HH compliance and personality traits of medical students. The HH compliance of 155 students was observed during objective standardized clinical examinations (OSCEs). Social orientation and achievement orientation were measured using the corresponding scales of the Freiburg Personality Inventory - Revised. Social orientation did not differ between students with high HH compliance and students with low HH compliance [F(1) = 3.87, P = 0.052, η(2) = 0.045]. For achievement orientation, a moderate effect was found between low and high HH compliance [F(1) = 11.242, P = 0.001, η(2) = 0.119], and students with high HH compliance were found to be more achievement orientated than students with low HH compliance. Achievement orientation plays a major role during OSCEs, while social orientation is less emphasized. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to show that HH compliance is associated with achievement orientation in achievement situations. Copyright © 2014 The Healthcare Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Journal of Hospital Infection 12/2014; 89(3). DOI:10.1016/j.jhin.2014.11.014 · 2.78 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 17, 2014