DESIGN: Randomized-controlled study.
SETTING: Two internal medicine wards of a public, university-affiliated, tertiary-care hospital in Malaysia.
METHODS: We randomly allocated 2 wards to hand hygiene promotion delivered either by PICAs (study arm 1) or by MSCAs (study arm 2). The primary outcome was hand hygiene compliance using direct observation by validated auditors. Secondary outcomes were hand hygiene knowledge and observations from ward tours.
RESULTS: Mean hand hygiene compliance in study arm 1 and study arm 2 improved from 48% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44%-53%) and 50% (95% CI, 44%-55%) in the preintervention period to 66% (63%-69%) and 65% (60%-69%) in the intervention period, respectively. We detected no statistically significant difference in hand hygiene improvement between the 2 study arms. Knowledge scores on hand hygiene in study arm 1 and study arm 2 improved from 60% and 63% to 98% and 93%, respectively. Staff in study arm 1 improved hand hygiene because they did not want to disappoint the efforts taken by the PICAs. Staff in study arm 2 felt pressured by the MSCAs to comply with hand hygiene to obtain good overall performance appraisals.
CONCLUSION: Although the attitude of PICAs and MSCAs in terms of leadership, mode of action and perception of their task by staff were very different, or even opposed, both PICAs and MSCAs effectively changed behavior of staff toward improved hand hygiene to comparable levels.
Methods: This study, stratified in pre-, during, and post-intervention periods, was conducted between February 2017 and March 2018 in two wards at a tertiary care hospital in Malaysia. Hand hygiene promotion was facilitated either by PICAs (study arm 1) or MSCAs (study arm 2), and the two wards were randomly allocated to one of the two interventions. Outcomes were: 1) perceived leadership styles of PICAs and MSCAs by staff, vocalised during question and answer sessions; 2) the social network connectedness and communication patterns between HCWs and change agents by applying social network analysis; and 3) hand hygiene leadership attributes obtained from HCWs in the post-intervention period by questionnaires.
Results: Hand hygiene compliance in study arm 1 and study arm 2 improved by from 48% (95% CI: 44-53%) to 66% (63-69%), and from 50% (44-55%) to 65% (60-69%), respectively. There was no significant difference between the two arms. Healthcare workers perceived that PICAs lead by example, while MSCAs applied an authoritarian top-down leadership style. The organisational culture of both wards was hierarchical, with little social interaction, but strong team cohesion. Position and networks of both PICAs and MSCAs were similar and generally weaker compared to the leaders who were nominated by HCWs in the post-intervention period. Healthcare workers on both wards perceived authoritative leadership to be the most desirable attribute for hand hygiene improvement.
Conclusion: Despite experiencing successful hand hygiene improvement from PICAs, HCWs expressed a preference for the existing top-down leadership structure. This highlights the limits of applying leadership models that are not supported by the local organisational culture.