Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electronic hand hygiene monitoring overcomes limitations associated with manual audit but acceptability to health workers varies and may depend on culture of the ward and the nature of the system. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the acceptability of a new fifth type electronic monitoring system to frontline health workers in a National Health Service trust in the UK. METHODS: Qualitative interviews with 11 informants following 12 months experience using an electronic monitoring system. RESULTS: Informants recognised the importance of hand hygiene and embraced technology to improve adherence. Barriers to hand hygiene adherence included heavy workload, dealing with emergencies and ergonomic factors related to placement of alcohol dispensers. Opinions about the validity of the automated readings were conflicting. Some health workers thought they were accurate. Others reported problems associated with differences in the intelligence of the system and their own clinical decisions. Opinions about feedback were diverse. Some health workers thought the system increased personal accountability for hand hygiene. Others ignored feedback on suboptimal performance or ignored the data altogether. It was hard for health workers to understand why the system registered some instances of poor performance because feedback did not allow omissions in hand hygiene to be related to the context of care. CONCLUSION: Electronic monitoring can be very well tolerated despite some limitations. Further research needs to explore different reactions to feedback and how often clinical emergencies arise. Electronic and manual audit have complementary strengths.