Cold, Hard Cash as a Handwashing Incentive

Whenever you write a book, it’s interesting to see which parts of it people respond to en masse. With SuperFreakonomics, the global-warming chapter has certainly gotten its fair share of attention, and Levitt noted a lot of feedback about the perils of drunk walking.

But there’s a third strong contender: hand hygiene, or the lack thereof, especially in hospitals. Here’s one fascinating reply from Jeffrey R. Starke, a physician in Houston:

I am in charge of infection control at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, the largest children’s hospital in the U.S., and am on the faculty of Baylor College of Medicine. We also had difficulty getting hand hygiene rates where we want them to be. We tried all the usual methods that you mention in the book, and a few others, but had a difficult time getting the rates above 70 percent. (We measure rates by use of a “secret shopper,” an expert in infection control from outside the institution who observes the actual hand hygiene behavior of the workers.)

We decided to use a more direct incentive. Our employees participate in a bonus program called P3. Previously, all the required performance measures were financial. However, we made hand hygiene rates part of the program; employees had to achieve and sustain >96 percent compliance with hand hygiene to get their full bonus. (This is a pooled bonus plan — either everyone gets it or no one gets it.) We did much better, but still not quite good enough until we hit on a second idea: we made the hand-hygiene performance part of the hospital executives’ performance bonus, even though they don’t care for patients. Magically, we have attained and sustained a rate of hand hygiene >98 percent, and won a national award for quality improvement from the Children’s Hospitals Corporation of America. Equally interesting is that the rate of hand hygiene among physicians, who are not hospital employees and do not participate in any performance bonus program, also has a sustained rate >98 percent. I guess this is a positive externality, perhaps pressure from employees on physicians to make everyone look good.

Starke added a note about the general use of statistics in SuperFreak:

It is a real problem in modern society that most folks don’t understand statistics at all, and they are used to scare folks all the time. (Mark Twain was right that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.) My favorite recent example is the H1N1 influenza virus. I lecture quite a bit about this to both medical and lay groups. My standard beginning is the following: “If I told you that 99.9 percent of people who get the H1N1 influenza will suffer no significant complications, would that make you feel better?” (Almost everyone says, “Yes.”) “If I told you that 1 million people in Houston will get the H1N1 influenza, and 1,000 of them will suffer significant complications, would that make you feel better?” (Almost everyone says, “No.”) Of course, both examples are the same number expressed in different ways. These are difficult concepts for most folks to grasp, and so many “experts” take advantage of this.

Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.



View All Comments »
  1. Brian says:

    They’re not the same number. 99.9 percent doesn’t give me a sample size.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  2. Julianne says:

    The H1N1 examples aren’t exactly the same. The percentage is the same, but the scenario is not. They are only comparable if when considering the first example, you think the contagion rate will be high enough to hit 1 million cases in Houston. That contagion rate is guaranteed in the second example–which would in itself be enough to give me pause.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  3. Joe says:

    The point is that both are *accurate* statistics if used in describing the same phenomenon. Including the contagion rate is a strategic decision – if you are trying to downplay the risks of H1N1, you would say “99.9% do not suffer complications”. If you’re trying to do the opposite, you’d mention both the 1,000,000 number, and the 1,000 number.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  4. Bennett says:

    Brian, the percentage is the same in each scenario.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  5. Dr. Manak says:

    Did the hospital execs cheat? That is the play I would expect coming from the standard CEO playbook.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  6. Jeffrey Starke says:

    Dr. Manek, there is no cheating. The measurement of hand hygiene is blinded to all hospital workers and administrators, and is performed independently by persons from outside the institution who are unknown to the employees. The data are fed back to everyone. Our administration is very supportive of this, especially after seeing the results.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  7. William G says:

    I have an idea to encourage hand washing, since financial incentives are on the table:

    When someone successfully washes their hands, a dollar bill is dispensed from the sink, and the person who washed their hands can immediately take it.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  8. di says:

    Right up there with telling you something increases breast cancer rates by 30%. That means from 10% lifetime risk to 13%, if you live to be 90 years old, but saying 30% makes it sound more threatening.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0