Hand hygiene monitoring technology: A descriptive study of ethics and acceptance in nursing

Abstract

Background:

Nosocomial infections represent a serious challenge for healthcare systems worldwide. Adherence to hand hygiene plays a major role in infection prevention and control. These adherence rates can be improved through behaviour tracking innovations. This requires the systems to be widely implemented and accepted. Therefore, both a systematic analysis of the normative issues related and the evaluation of technology acceptance are equally important.

Objectives:

To explore and describe relevant aspects regarding the acceptance of technology and ethical implications using a tracking device to measure and improve adherence to hand hygiene.

Research design:

A quantitative study with a descriptive design was performed.

Participants and research context:

A total of 75 questionnaires were collected in three hospitals in Germany. Acceptance of technology was measured with n = 60 participants (n = 50 nurses; n = 9 physicians; n = 1 not disclosed) and ethical assessment with n = 15 participants (nurses only).

Ethical considerations:

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the institutional review board.

Findings:

The acceptance of technologies improving hygiene in general was good (median = 80.5, interquartile range = 28, range: 0–100). The experience with technologies in general (median = 48.5, interquartile range = 57, range: 0–100) and the acceptance of the specific technology (mean = 82.23, standard deviation = 15.16 (range: 23–138)) was moderate. There was a significant positive correlation between the acceptance and experience of technology in general (r = 0.217, p = .025). Ethical concerns played a minor role. The need for practical support was a key topic.

Discussion:

Study participants accepted technologies improving hygiene; however, the specific device implemented was only moderately accepted. This creates specific opportunities in the implementation process for higher later acceptance. More practical support and an increase in experience may create opportunities for device implementation with high acceptance and low ethical concerns.

Conclusion:

Study results indicate a vast potential for improving the implementation process of hand hygiene technologies. Ethical concerns in this study did not seem to be a relevant barrier for successful implementation of hand hygiene technologies.

Keywords

Ethics infection prevention and control nurse technology acceptance theories model ethical assessment

Introduction

Since hand hygiene is important but still insufficiently followed, it is supported by tracking technologies to increase adherence. The expectations placed on these devices are high but their implementation and evaluation hold numerous challenges,^1,2 and quite a few of these innovations fail in practice due to inconvenience and/or inaccuracy.³ In addition to the focus on the efficacy of these systems,⁴ a systematic analysis of the normative issues related is equally important for both the nurses themselves and the patients. Empirical information about the effect and impact of their implementation is fundamental to the ethical evaluation. This responsibility is also formulated in the “ICN Code of Ethics for Nurses” that demands from them that “the nurse, in providing care, ensures that use of technology and scientific advances are compatible with the safety, dignity and rights of people”⁵ (p. 3). Therefore, this paper aimed to identify possible ethically relevant aspects associated with the use of electronic monitoring systems for hand hygiene surveillance purposes.

Background

Nosocomial infections pose a major threat to healthcare systems at the micro, meso and macro level.^6,7 Inter alia, they lead to prolonged hospitalization, increase patients’ morbidity, raise mortality rates and cause significant extra costs for treatment.⁸ The healthcare professionals’ (HCPs) ethical principle of doing no harm (“non-maleficence”), thus, entails high-quality hand hygiene aiming to maximise patient safety. However, nosocomial infections in Germany are currently estimated at 400,000 to 600,000 cases per year.⁹ Although evidence suggests that hand hygiene is an effective way to prevent nosocomial infections and HCPs possess adequate knowledge and hold positive attitudes,¹⁰ their adherence In contrast to the majority of publications on this topic, the authors refer to the term ‘adherence’ instead of ‘compliance’. This is especially due to the fact that the term stresses the knowledge and agreement of nurses with guidelines for good practice concerning hand hygiene. Adherence emphasises nurses’ active professional role rather than viewing them as persons who are expected to do what they are told. However, when citing other studies, the original wording of the authors is used. rates remain inadequate. Adherence and compliance cannot be used synonymously.¹¹ The main difference is the integration of the perspective of the healthcare professional in the term adherence.¹² A recent review reports a mean hand hygiene compliance of 59.6 % from HCPs.¹³ The World Health Organization stresses that “evaluation and repeated monitoring of a range of indicators reflecting hand hygiene infrastructures and practices […] [are] a vital component of any successful hand hygiene campaign”.¹⁴ Several approaches, such as education and different forms of reminders, are thus, followed to improve this compliance with uncertain evidence for their success.¹⁵

As solely conventional measures/programmes to enhance adherence lack long-term effectiveness and require high staff resources (e.g., for periodic non-participant observations),¹⁵ new solutions and acquired techniques are increasingly requested. Electronic monitoring systems with feedback system are such an innovation that aims to enhance meeting disinfection standards through increasing adherence. A recent systematically performed review indicates that these systems hold the potential to increase adherence rates between 6.40 and 54.97 %.¹² Such devices aim to capture whether hand disinfection is performed when it is indicated, e.g., according to the World Health Organization’s “5 Moments for Hand Hygiene”.¹⁶

The philosophy of technology, respectively ethics of technology has been a matter of concern for a long time with related issues such as responsibility and the possibility of moral agency¹⁷ and thus also the - potential positive or negative - influence on the relationship with the patient.¹⁸ In the nursing ethics literature, both fundamental negative and positive attitudes towards the integration of technology in nursing care can be found¹⁹ along with approaches that seek to reconcile excessive optimism and pessimism and strive for a fruitful reorganisation.²⁰ However, ambivalent attitudes are the most common ones.¹⁹ Our work is guided by the premise that good care practice is characterised, among other things, by adherence to evidence-based standards that can help improve patient outcomes. Technologies should be established “wisely on behalf of ethical patient care”.²¹ We thus furthermore start from the premise, that technological innovations in nursing care themselves are not neutral but value-laden as they are created to reach this normative claim.

From a methodological point of view, bioethical debates traditionally proceed by means of theoretical analysis concerning moral-philosophical principles and reflecting on how to balance them and thus, do not capture nor integrate the empirical perspectives. Recently, bioethics applied the methods of socio-empirical research, e.g., on attitudes.²² Moreover, bioethical research has recently established its own distinct methodology, namely empirical-ethical research by which “empirical social scientific analysis is integrated with ethical analysis in order to draw normative conclusions”.²³ The present project used the methods of empirical social research with the guidance of an ethical framework (MEESTAR) to explore the problem area. We follow the view of Pols²⁴ that all technologies have specific impacts that can only be understood if they are studied empirically. This is carried our by collecting data to analyse the relationships between HCPs and the technologies they use.²⁴

Concerns about such technologies were raised particularly regarding a possible change in interpersonal interaction, data security, and the underlying concept of humans as “individuated, independent and rational agents”.²² According to Meng et al.,¹² “transparency and confidentiality” - which refer directly to ethical challenges arising from these innovations - are key elements that are crucial for the acceptance of electronic hand hygiene monitoring systems.

Objectives

The study aims to explore and describe relevant aspects regarding the acceptance of technology and ethical implications using technology to measure and improve the adherence of hand hygiene.

Research design

A cross-sectional study design has been used and data were collected after implementation of a wearable hand hygiene technology at three hospitals across Germany. The tracking devices were able to track the user’s behaviour related to hand hygiene. The device used in this study was wearable technology. The sensor was attached to the clothes of the participants. The sensor assessed the amount of ethanol in the air and calculated whether proper hand disinfection was performed. The hardware (fully operational) was in a final evaluation phase at the time of data collection. Further technological development based on the data is intended. This study presents a descriptive approach. Furthermore, the wearable technology implemented was able to provide hygiene behaviour–related real-time feedback to the user. This was possible because of (1) the technology’s ability to assess whether a hand disinfection took place or was not performed and (2) to communicate with patient beacons.

The tracking technology was able to follow the user’s movement, the proximity to a patient and the adherence to hand hygiene. If no hand disinfection was performed, the technology was able to provide haptic (vibration), audio (signal tone) and visual (led) feedback. Ethical approval for this study was granted by the institutional review board at University Medicine Greifswald. This report has been prepared in accordance with the statement ‘strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology’ (STROBE).²⁵

Instruments

This study focused on two central aspects regarding ethical considerations when implementing new tracking technologies in healthcare settings. First, we assessed the acceptance of technology utilising the ‘unified theory of acceptance and use of technology’ (UTAUT).^26,27 The UTAUT was initially developed based on a comprehensive review of eight existing theories: ‘Theory of Reasoned Action’, ‘Technology Acceptance Model’, ‘Motivational Model’, ‘Theory of Planned Behaviour’, ‘Combined Technology Acceptance Model and Theory of Planned Behaviour’, ‘Model of PC Utilisation’, ‘Innovation Diffusion Theory’ and ‘Social Cognitive Theory’.²⁶ Second, we assessed potential ethical problems utilising the ‘Model for the Ethical Evaluation of Socio-Technical Arrangements’.²⁸ The MEESTAR supported the assessment of potential ethical challenges regarding the hand hygiene tracking technology implemented. It can be used for a wide range of technologies and is designed to identify ethically problematic effects in a structured way and is, therefore, well-suited to achieve the goal of this study. The MEESTAR is intended to assist the evaluation of technical innovations that are under development.²⁹ It can be applied during pilot implementation in an iterative process to identify potential problems, obstacles and potential for improvement that are to be addressed in the next step.

Technology Acceptance Questionnaire in accordance with the UTAUT theory

Technology acceptance was assessed with a standardised questionnaire developed by Spagnolli et al.,³⁰ which was forward and backward translated as described by Acquardo et al.³¹ in German by two independent English native speakers and adapted in a culturally sensible way for the German population by an independent work group. The translated questionnaire³⁰ was based mainly on the UTAUT theory.²⁶ The questionnaire contains 23 items on 11 dimensions: attitude, anxiety, facilitating conditions, perceived usefulness, effort expectancy, behavioural intention, psychological attachment, perceived privacy, perceived enjoyment, perceived comfort, transparency. These dimensions were assessed on a five-point Likert-type scale. An overall sum score for the specific technology was calculated based on the raw scores of each dimension. All values have been transformed, leading to a possible score range between 23 (lowest possible acceptance) and 138 (highest possible acceptance). Furthermore, acceptance with technologies for improving hygiene in general and the overall experience with such wearables in general were assessed using a one-item visual analogue scale ranging between 0 (least acceptance or, respectively, least experience) and 100 (maximum acceptance or, respectively, maximum experience). These two visual analogue scales were assessed to analyse a potential link between experience in general, acceptance in general and the overall sum score of the 11 UTAUT dimensions for the acceptance of the specific technology. In addition, one goal was to describe potential differences in acceptance between already implemented technologies for improving hygiene in general and the acceptance of the newly developed specific wearable technology.

Ethical assessment according to the MEESTAR model

MEESTAR does not refer to a specific ethical-theoretical framework concerning the ethics/philosophy of technology. The instrument does not aim for a normative evaluation of the technical innovation but rather to identify possible normative pitfalls by as many relevant stakeholders as possible. A normative evaluation is not intended by the model and cannot be achieved with its application.²⁸

The MEESTAR model offers a framework drawing on seven ethical dimensions (care, autonomy, safety, justice, privacy, participation, self-conception) on three levels (social, organisational, individual) to facilitate structured analysis.³² The dimension ‘participation’ was excluded for the purpose of the economy of the questionnaire as it was not applicable for our sample. The dimension of self-conception ‘refers to the philosophical-anthropological understanding of the human being and the idea that individuals have of themselves’²⁸ (p. 251, own translation). The author assumes that the use of technology changes the self-conception of all individuals who are directly and indirectly involved and affected by it.²⁸ A questionnaire – based on the dimensions of MEESTAR – was developed instead of the face-to-face focus group interviews scheduled initially due to the COVID-19 pandemic being a threat for healthcare worldwide.³³ This decision was made considering the hygiene requirements and the increased workload and limited time resources of the HCPs. Utilising this approach, it was possible to evaluate ethical aspects of technology in infection prevention and control at a time when these technologies are needed most.³⁴

This questionnaire assessed the ethical dimensions on a seven-point Likert-type scale. The latter was used to provide a sufficiently wide range of possible answers. Only medians, interquartile ranges (IQRs) and frequencies are presented in this sub-analysis. Therefore, the individual items of the questionnaire are only described in terms of content. In addition, a visual analogue scale ranging between 0 (ethically problematic) and 100 (ethically unproblematic) was presented.

Statistics

All variables were tested for their normal distribution using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. The latter indicated that no variable was normally distributed (all p < .042), except the overall sum score for acceptance based in the 11 dimensions of the questionnaire (p > .200). According to the distribution of the variables, mostly medians and IQRs and nonparametric correlation coefficients are presented. Kendall’s Tau rank correlation procedures were used to test the correlation between the two visual analogue scales and the overall sum score of the questionnaire because of its robustness in the context of outliners and its statistical efficiency.³⁵ The level of significance was set at <0.05 a priori. All analyses were performed with SPSS version 24.

Participants and research context

Hospital management was approached to invite potential study participants. Head nurses of the wards distributed the questionnaires. Data for the Technology Acceptance Questionnaire (TAQ) were collected in three German hospitals located in two different federal states and data for MEESTAR were collected in one German hospital. The participants used the tracking technology actively for at least 1 month prior to the distribution of the questionnaires. A total of 60 persons participated in the study. All 60 participants were assessed with the TAQ, and n = 15 within the sample were assessed with the questionnaire based on MEESTAR. The MEESTAR was developed as a framework for focus group interviews but had to be adapted as a questionnaire for this study due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This resulted in a complex, uneconomic questionnaire. Due to this fact, only 15 participants in one hospital filled out the questionnaire. This resulted in N = 75 questionnaires based on 60 persons.

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the institutional review board at University Medicine Greifswald (BB 156/17). All data were assessed anonymously. The respective works council approved the questionnaire and the conduct of the survey.

Findings

Demographics

Technology acceptance (TAQ)

A total of 60 participants filled in the TAQ questionnaire, which was based on the UTAUT model and the study by Spagnolli et al.³⁰ regarding the acceptance of technology. The participants were an average of 36 years old (mean (M) = 36.1, standard deviation (SD) = 10.0). Most participants were female (n = 39). Most participants were from the nursing profession (n = 50), nine participants were physicians and one participant did not disclose his or her profession. The Mann–Whitney U test indicated that both professional groups were comparable. The test showed no significant differences between the professional groups (nurses vs physicians) regarding (1) the acceptance in general (p > .294), (2) experience in general (p > .051) and (3) the sum score of the questionnaire (p > .330).

MEESTAR

Fifteen participants filled in the questionnaire, which was based on MEESTAR for the ethical evaluation. Nine participants were female, six were male and all were from the nursing profession. Participants were an average of 35 years old (M = 35.2, SD = 10.4).

Main findings: technology acceptance (TAQ)

Table 1 shows the descriptive analysis for each of the 11 dimensions of the questionnaire. All values were transformed, with higher values equalling a positive outcome. The sum score for all dimensions of the questionnaire was M = 82.2, SD = 15.1 (range: 23–138; theoretical mean M_t = 80.5). The visual analogue scale for assessing the acceptance of technologies improving hygiene in general showed good acceptance: median (Mdn) = 80.5, IQR = 28 (range: 0–100). The visual analogue scale for assessing the experience with technologies, in general, showed moderate experience: Mdn = 48.5, IQR = 57 (range: 0–100).

Table 1.

Descriptive analysis of the acceptance of technology.

Dimension (number of items)	Mdn	IQR	Possible score range
Attitude (3)	14	4	3–18
Anxiety (3)	6	3	3–18
Facilitating conditions (2)	4	2	2–12
Perceived usefulness (3)	12	7.5	3–18
Effort expectancy (2)	9	2	2–12
Behavioural intention (1)	4	2.75	1–6
Psychological attachment (2)	8	4	2–12
Perceived privacy (2)	4	1	2–12
Perceived enjoyment (1)	4	3	1–6
Perceived comfort (1)	3	2	1–6
Transparency (3)	11	6	3–18

Mdn: median; IQR: interquartile range.

There was a significantly positive correlation between the two visual analogue scales (acceptance and experience; r = 0.217, p = .025). There was no significant correlation between the sum score of the questionnaire for the specific technology and the two visual analogue scales for assessing the acceptance of technologies improving hygiene in general and experience with these technologies in general.

Main findings: ethical assessment

Table 2 shows the medians, IQRs and frequencies for all items assessed in this sub-analysis.

Table 2.

Descriptive analysis of the ethical assessment.

Dimensions and variables	N = 15		Data in absolute frequencies (N = 15)
Dimensions and variables	Mdn	IQR	Do not agree at all (1)	Do not agree (2)	Rather not agree (3)	Neutral (4)	Rather agree (5)	Agree (6)	Totally agree (7)
Self-conception
It is important for me to get practical support in using the device	5	2	0	0	3	3	2	7	0
I receive practical support from my superiors	5	2	0	1	1	5	2	6	0
I receive practical support from my colleagues	5	2	0	1	1	4	2	7	0
Autonomy
It is possible for me to respect patient autonomy when using the new device	5	4	1	3	1	0	3	6	1
Care
The device has an impact on the development of the relationship with my patients	2	2	4	6	3	0	1	1	0
Patient autonomy is very important to me	6	1	0	0	0	1	4	8	2
I think that the device has negative consequences for the patient	2	1	3	8	2	0	2	0	0
Safety
I think that the device endangers the safety of the patient	2	1	4	8	2	1	0	0	0
I think that the device endangers the safety of the colleagues involved	2	1	4	8	2	1	0	0	0
I think that the device has a positive effect on hand hygiene	6	1	0	0	1	2	3	7	2
Principle of justice
I would like the device to be transferred to other areas of the hospital	5	2	0	1	2	3	2	5	2
I am influenced by the fear of possible legal consequences in my work in general	3	1	0	2	8	3	1	1	0
I am influenced by the fear of possible legal consequences in my work with this device	2	1	2	6	4	2	1	0	0
The new technology is responsible for a greater lack of time	3	3	1	3	4	1	4	2	0
Privacy
I think that the device restricts the patient’s right to privacy	2	1	3	8	3	1	0	0	0
I think that the device restricts my right to privacy as an employee	2	2	1	7	3	1	3	0	0
I think that the device restricts the team’s right to autonomy	3	2	1	5	4	2	3	0	0

Mdn: median; IQR: interquartile range.

Participants considered it important to receive practical support (self-conception) with the device and resume that they had already received it from colleagues and superiors. Patient autonomy, which is rated to be of utmost importance for nursing staff, is not endangered due to the implementation of the devices according to the study participants. They are not afraid of negative consequences regarding the care relationship, nor of threatening their own or the patient’s health as a consequence of implementing the hand hygiene monitoring device. Participants expected the potential impact on hand hygiene to be positive.

They also see no threat to their privacy nor do they fear legal consequences (justice) due to using the device.

In addition, the questionnaire used a visual analogue scale to assess the participant’s overall ethical evaluation of the tracking technology in question.

The visual analogue scale for assessing the overall ethical evaluation of the participants showed that they perceive the technology as ethically rather unproblematic (Mdn = 83, IQR = 40, range: 0–100).

Discussion

This study provides findings on the acceptance and ethical challenges related to the implementation of a hand hygiene tracking system. According to TAQ, the hand hygiene tracking technology was accepted by nurses and physicians across all hospitals included. There was no difference in the acceptance and experience between nurses and physicians. Descriptive statistics indicate that there was more acceptance for technologies improving hygiene in general, compared to the specific acceptance of the technology presented. The experience with technologies improving hygiene, in general, was moderate. Descriptive statistics show a significantly positive correlation between the general acceptance and experience of technology improving hygiene. In addition, according to MEESTAR, the technology was assessed as ethically unproblematic by the study participants (nurses only). It was important for most study participants to receive practical support with the device.

The acceptance of technologies (TAQ) improving hygiene in general was higher compared to the specific acceptance of the technology presented. This may be interpreted as a fundamental willingness but not specifically with the current technology. Especially the UTAUT categories anxiety, facilitating conditions, perceived privacy and perceived comfort can possibly help to generate a higher acceptance of the specific technology. Descriptive statistics showed that these variables scored within the lower half of their respective scale ranges. It seems that participants had high levels of anxiety regarding the technology when using the device in question. Furthermore, they were not satisfied with their organisational support of the implementation process as the low scores of facilitating conditions demonstrate. Participants rated perceived privacy relatively low. This creates a possibility for improved communication of data transparency and confidentiality, which has the potential to enhance later acceptance of tracking technology in infection prevention and control.⁷ In contrast to these results, the ethical assessment showed rather no privacy concerns. This is possibly a result of the testing context. Participants may associate different aspects of privacy in the context of ‘ethical assessment’ versus the context of ‘assessment of acceptance’. The last scale, perceived comfort with the wearable technology, creates a chance for redesigning the specific technology where the tracking device is not perceived as an obstacle and is potentially more accepted.⁷

Remmers states that ‘the acceptance of new technologies needs to be evaluated according to the extent to which their effects are compatible with the normative demands and integrity interests (self-determination, security) of the persons concerned’³⁶ (own translation). Regarding the compatibility with normative demands, no ethical problems or concerns were identified in this study.

In contrast to similar studies that investigated the use of tracking systems in other care contexts – for example, in individuals with dementia^37,38 – and identified serious ethical problems for the nurses and a shift in professional roles, the use of a tracking system regarding hand hygiene does not seem to raise any ethical concerns. This may be due to the fact that nurses are not considered as a vulnerable group, respectively, that they do not perceive themselves to be particularly vulnerable in this regard. Nevertheless, it should not be neglected that professional caregivers can also be vulnerable – not least, because of the current working conditions.³⁹ The precarious conditions of their work environment may put them in a position where they might violate their own moral values, including high standards of hygiene as a component of patient safety, due to high workload, for example, hand hygiene as an aspect of care left undone.^40–42 Changing processes to improve hand hygiene must, therefore, not only start at the individual level, but also tackle systemic problems at the meso and macro levels together with nursing professionals to create conditions under which hand hygiene can be implemented appropriately.⁴³

Previous theoretical analysis has shown that the design and characteristics of tracking technologies in nursing have a tendency to disrespect or even suppress autonomy in favour of control.³⁶ Other empirical studies on nurses’ attitudes confirm this theoretical perspective.⁴⁴

Hand hygiene tracking systems can be classified as a persuasive technology and, as such, as a nudging instrument.⁴⁵ Studies have shown that hand hygiene tracking systems are effective in improving the behaviour intended, in this case, adherence to hand hygiene.⁴⁶ This can justify an intervention in the autonomy of the user, as it is a nudging strategy that promotes autonomy in accordance with the professional ethical goals to promote the patients’ beneficence and to avoid harm. They ‘may make it easier for the subject to act in line with her hierarchy of volitions’⁴⁷ (p. 503), which would mean, in this context, performing a thorough ‘individualised’ versus ‘standardized’ hand hygiene in situations where indicated. As a result, the hand hygiene tracking systems ‘help her [the nudgee] to choose according to her own conception of the good in situations where she would have previously done otherwise. In these instances choice architecture increases instances of authentic behaviour, thus promoting personal autonomy’⁴⁷ (p. 503).

The study’s main limitation concerns the fact that the results of the ethical sub-analysis need to be interpreted and discussed regarding the data assessment through a questionnaire instead of focus groups. Due to the nature of a questionnaire, the possible depth in data compared to focus group interviews was not achievable. This resulted in a complex, uneconomic questionnaire leading to a small sample size (n = 15 participants). This possibly led to a lack of comprehensiveness of the ethical assessment. Nevertheless, this approach was inevitable due to safety concerns. Both (1) the need for the ethical evaluation of tracking technology in infection prevention and control and (2) minimising the workload of nurses were essential in the current pandemic. The use of a questionnaire, therefore, seemed acceptable. The descriptive approach was appropriate in this study as a first step; however, further research with experimental designs is needed.

Conclusion

Study results indicate a vast potential for improving the implementation process of hand hygiene technologies. In this study, ethical concerns did not seem to be a relevant barrier for the successful implementation of hand hygiene technologies. The present study shows that, especially in nursing ethics, it is necessary to reach a deeper understanding of the challenges, which can be achieved especially through qualitative data. Otherwise, it remains unclear, how the interviewees interpret core concepts, such as autonomy. However, since the concrete individual perceptions can sometimes deviate considerably from the theoretical assumptions, a thorough knowledge in the specific context is necessary to determine their impact and understand with respect to implementation processes obstacles and facilitators in nursing practice.

Footnotes

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We acknowledge the funding of the Federal Ministry for Education and Research (Joint Project Number V4IIP041; PräBea 16SV7749).

ORCID iDs

Michael Meng

Anna-Henrikje Seidlein

Note

References

Zimlichman

Henderson

Tamir

, et al. Health care-associated infections: a meta-analysis of costs and financial impact on the US health care system. JAMA Intern Med 2013; 173: 2039–2046.

Low

Tambyah

, et al. The socio-economic impact of multidrug-resistant nosocomial infections: a qualitative study. J Hosp Infect 2019; 102(4): 454–460.

Kostakoğlu

Saylan

Karataş

, et al. Cost analysis and evaluation of nosocomial infections in intensive care units. Turk J Med Sci 2016; 46: 1385–1392.

Zacher

Haller

Willrich

, et al. Application of a new methodology and R package reveals a high burden of healthcare-associated infections (HAI) in Germany compared to the average in the European Union/European Economic Area, 2011 to 2012. Euro Surveill 2019; 24(46): 1900135.

Nasiri

Balouchi

Rezaie-Keikhaie

, et al. Knowledge, attitude, practice, and clinical recommendation toward infection control and prevention standards among nurses: a systematic review. Am J Infect Control 2019; 47(7): 827–833.

Tilson

. Adherence or compliance? Changes in terminology. Ann Pharmacother 2004; 38: 161–162.

Meng

Sorber

Herzog

, et al. Technological innovations in infection control: a rapid review of the acceptance of behavior monitoring systems and their contribution to the improvement of hand hygiene. Am J Infect Control 2019; 47(4): 439–447.

Lambe

Lydon

Madden

, et al. Hand hygiene compliance in the ICU: a systematic review. Crit Care Med 2019; 47: 1251–1257.

WHO. Hand hygiene monitoring and feedback, https://www.who.int/gpsc/5may/monitoring_feedback/en/ (accessed 10 October 2020).

10.

Gould

Moralejo

Drey

, et al. Interventions to improve hand hygiene compliance in patient care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 9: CD005186.

11.

WHO. Hand hygiene: why, how & when? https://www.who.int/gpsc/5may/Hand_Hygiene_Why_How_and_When_Brochure.pdf?ua=1 (2009, accessed 21 January 2021).

12.

Iversen

Kavalaris

Hansen

, et al. Clinical experiences with a new system for automated hand hygiene monitoring: a prospective observational study. Am J Infect Control 2020; 48(5): 527–533.

13.

Benudis

Stone

Sait

, et al. Pitfalls and unexpected benefits of an electronic hand hygiene monitoring system. Am J Infect Control 2019; 47(9): 1102–1106.

14.

Levin

Razon

Schwartz

, et al. Obstacles to the successful introduction of an electronic hand hygiene monitoring system, a cohort observational study. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2019; 8: 43.

15.

Srigley

Gardam

Fernie

, et al. Hand hygiene monitoring technology: a systematic review of efficacy. J Hosp Infect 2015; 89(1): 51–60.

16.

International Council of Nurses. The ICN code of ethics for nurses, https://www.icn.ch/sites/default/files/inline-files/2012_ICN_Codeofethicsfornurses_eng.pdf (2012, accessed 25 November 2020).

17.

Verbeek

. Some misunderstandings about the moral significance of technology. In: Kroes

Verbeek

(eds) The moral status of technical artefacts. Dordrecht: Springer, 2014, pp. 75–88.

18.

O’Keefe-McCarthy

. Technologically-mediated nursing care: the impact on moral agency. Nurs Ethics 2009; 16(6): 786–796.

19.

Korhonen

E-S

Nordman

Eriksson

. Technology and its ethics in nursing and caring journals: an integrative literature review. Nurs Ethics 2015; 22(5): 561–576.

20.

Barnard

Sandelowski

. Technology and humane nursing care: (ir)reconcilable or invented difference. J Adv Nurs 2001; 34(3): 367–375.

21.

Cuchetti

Grace

. Authentic intention: tempering the dehumanizing aspects of technology on behalf of good nursing care. Nurs Philos 2020; 21(1): e12255.

22.

Lupton

. A more-than-human approach to bioethics: the example of digital health. Bioethics 2020; 34(9): 969–976.

23.

Ives

Dunn

Molewijk

, et al. Standards of practice in empirical bioethics research: towards a consensus. BMC Med Ethics 2018; 19: 68.

24.

Pols

. Good relations with technology: empirical ethics and aesthetics in care. Nurs Philos 2017; 18(1): e12154.

25.

von Elm

Altman

Egger

, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 344–349.

26.

Venkatesh

Morris

Davis

, et al. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quart 2003; 27: 425–478.

27.

Venkatesh

Thong

. Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: a synthesis and the road ahead. J Assoc Inf Syst 2016; 17: 328–376.

28.

Weber

K. MEESTAR

: Ein Modell zur ethischen Evaluierung sozio-technischer Arrangements in der Pflege- und Gesundheitsversorgung [MEESTAR: A Model for the Ethical Evaluation of Socio-Technical Arrangements in Nursing and Healthcare]. In: Weber

Frommeld

Manzeschke

, et al. (eds) Technisierung des Alltags – Beitrag für ein gutes Leben? [Technification of everyday life – contribution to a good life?]. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2015, pp. 247–262.

29.

Schley

Balzer

Using MEESTAR for early evaluation of ethical, legal and social implications of a socio-technical support system for mechanically ventilated patients. Lessons learned from the ACTIVATE project. In: Haltaufderheide

Hovemann

Vollmann

(eds) Aging between participation and simulation. Berlin; Boston, MA: De Gruyter, 2020, pp. 105–122.

30.

Spagnolli

Guardigli

Orso

, et al. Measuring user acceptance of wearable symbiotic devices: validation study across application scenarios. In: Jacucci

Gamberini

Freeman

(eds) Symbiotic interaction, symbiotic 2015 lecture notes in computer science, vol. 8820. Cham: Springer, 2014, pp. 87–98.

31.

Acquadro

Conway

Hareendran

, et al. Literature review of methods to translate health-related quality of life questionnaires for use in multinational clinical trials. Value Health 2008; 11(3): 509–521.

32.

Weber

. Extended model for ethical evaluation. In: Karafillidis

Weidner

(eds) Developing support technologies integrating multiple perspectives to create assistance that people really want. Cham: Springer, 2018, pp. 257–263.

33.

WHO. COVID-19 weekly epidemiological update. Data as received by WHO from national authorities, as of 25 October 2020, 10 am CEST, https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/weekly-epidemiological-update---27-october-2020 (2020, accessed 25 October 2020).

34.

Meng

Sorber

Kugler

The potential of behaviour monitoring systems and their support in hospitals during pandemics. Implications for research based on a rapid review. Hyg Med 2020; 45: 1–6.

35.

Croux

Dehon

. Influence functions of the Spearman and Kendall correlation measures. Stat Meth Appl 2010; 19: 497–515.

36.

Remmers

Pflege und Technik. Stand der Diskussion und zentrale ethische Fragen [Care and technology. Status quo of discussion and key ethical issues]. Ethik Med 2019; 31: 407–430.

37.

Hülsken-Giesler

Peters

Müller

. [Tracking systems in people with dementia in long-term care – an integrative review]. Pflege 2019; 32(6): 353–363.

38.

Landau

Werner

. Ethical aspects of using GPS for tracking people with dementia: recommendations for practice. Int Psychogeriatr 2012; 24(3): 358–366.

39.

Schrems

. Vulnerabilität in der Pflege [Vulnerability in Nursing Care]. Weinheim; Basel: Beltz Juventa, 2020.

40.

Zhang

Kong

Lamb

, et al. High nursing workload is a main associated factor of poor hand hygiene adherence in Beijing, China: an observational study. Int J Nurs Pract 2019; 25(2): e12720.

41.

Kearns

. ‘Ought implies can’ & missed care. Nurs Philos 2020; 21: e12272.

42.

Vryonides

Papastavrou

Charalambous

, et al. The ethical dimension of nursing care rationing: a thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. Nurs Ethics 2015; 22(8): 881–900.

43.

Scott

. Nursing, advocacy and public policy. Nurs Ethics. Epub ahead of print 24 November 2020. DOI: 10.1177/0969733020961823.

44.

Tarantini

Brouqui

Wilson

, et al. Healthcare workers’ attitudes towards hand-hygiene monitoring technology. J Hosp Infect 2019; 102(4): 413–418.

45.

Schmidt

Engelen

. The ethics of nudging: an overview. Philos Compass 2020; 15: e12658.

46.

Iversen

A-M

Stangerup

From-Hansen

, et al. Light-guided nudging and data-driven performance feedback improve hand hygiene compliance among nurses and doctors. Am J Infect Control. Epub ahead of print 10 November 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2020.11.007.

47.

Mills

. The heteronomy of choice architecture. Rev Phil Psych 2015; 6: 495–509.