Electronic monitoring versus manual paper-based monitoring for hand hygiene compliance: a comprehensive health economic assessment analysis.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Monitoring hand hygiene compliance (HHC) of healthcare providers (HCPs) in healthcare facilities is critical for hand hygiene (HH) promotion. However, less is known about the cost and effectiveness of different HHC monitoring tools. In this study, we aimed to compare various health economic indicators corresponding to electronic system-based monitoring (ESM) and manual paper-based monitoring (MPM) for HHC to provide evidence-based advice for HHC monitoring measures targeted selecting. METHODS: A before and after study in 40 clinical departments with 4,524 healthcare providers was conducted from December 2022 to January 2023 (MPM implementation phase) and March 2023 to May 2023 (ESM implementation phase). The cost-effectiveness, cost-efficiency, the extent of the Hawthorne effect, and indirect cost-benefit of the two monitoring methods were compared. RESULTS: The total cost spent on ESM for the 40 departments (17,702.92 CNY) was 4,123.76 CNY lower than that of MPM (21,826.68 CNY). The HHC of MPM (80.16%) was higher than that of ESM (69.82%) (p < 0.01). In high- and medium-risk departments, the cost-effectiveness ratio of ESM (7,977.90 CNY and 13,794.60 CNY, respectively) was lower than that of MPM (9,039.61 CNY and 14,549.05 CNY, respectively). In low-risk departments, the cost-effectiveness ratio of ESM (3,910.77 CNY) was higher than that of MPM (3,899.06 CNY). Compared with ESM, the incremental cost of MPM in all departments was 4,123.76 CNY, the incremental effectiveness was 10.34%, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 39,881.62 CNY. Between the two monitoring methods, the efficiency of ESM (48.11%) in all departments was higher than that of MPM (14.20%) (p < 0.01). The cost-efficiency ratio of MPM in all departments (155,775.56 CNY) was higher than that of ESM (36,796.76 CNY). The extent of Hawthorne effect of MPM of HHC in all departments (43.99%) was higher than that of ESM (35.69%) (p < 0.01). When ESM was used as the HHC monitoring approach, the HAI rates (1.39%) in all departments were higher than that when MPM was used (1.34%) (p = 0.562). When the payment willingness was less than 40,000 CNY, the ESM method was the better option for cost-effectiveness; When the input exceeded this threshold, the MPM method was the better option for cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: ESM exhibited notable advantages over MPM in terms of cost-effectiveness, cost-efficiency, cost-benefit, and the Hawthorne effect.