There was no association between study phase and willingness to register details according to the data set proposed by the Ottawa Group (test for trend p = 0.59).
There were significant interactions between study phase and time interval for both horizontal activity (two-way RM ANOVA; P < 0.001; Fig. 6A,C,E,G) and vertical activity (P = 0.028; Fig. 6B,D,F,H).
Of note, workload (as estimated by the number of opportunities for hand hygiene per hour) was not a predictor of compliance in multivariate analysis and did not confound the association between study phase and compliance and was therefore removed from the final model.
Within each hospital site, there was no difference between study phases for any patient outcome (Table 4; and online supplement, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/CCM/B363).lww.com/CCM/B363
Study animals were placed in group housing at the university for 1 day prior to each phase of the study and returned to their home farm in between study phases.
Reasons for exclusion included out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (n = 215), do not attempt CPR order (n = 6), previous study participation (n = 71), and cardiac arrest events in the 3-week transition between study phases (n = 22).
For horizontal activity, there were no differences between study phases during the light phase.
Data for meal pattern were analysed by one-way RM ANOVA to reveal overall effects between study phases.
Lumping the measurements per study phase (Table 5) revealed a significant effect between study phases (P < 0.001), without a difference between interventions.
This may also indicate improvements in the systems of care or other factors that changed between study phases, typical concerns when historical controls are employed.
