Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24341357›Full record

ArticleBMC ophthalmology2013

Survey of policy for MRSA screening in English cataract surgical units and changes to practice after updated National guidelines.

Lavnish Joshi, Stephanie K West, Luke Herbert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lavnish JoshiDepartment of Clinical Ophthalmology, Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, 11-43 Bath Street, London EC1V 9EL, UK. l.joshi@ucl.ac.uk.
Stephanie K West
Luke Herbert

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNational guidelines on MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) screening policy in England have changed on a number of occasions, but there is limited data on its influence at a local level. The aim of this study was to determine if changes in National policy influenced preoperative screening of cataract patients for MRSA.

methodsA structured telephone survey was conducted on all 133 ophthalmology units in England in 2004 and again in 2007 for the initial responders, after a change in national policy.

resultsA total of 74 units (56%) responded in 2004 and 71 units (96% of initial respondents) in 2007. In 2004, 57% of units screened for MRSA. They screened groups at high risk of carriage, including patients with previous MRSA (93%) and patients from Nursing homes (21%). Swab sites included the nose (100%), eyes (31%) and perineum (62%). In 2007, there was no significant change in the number of units that screened for MRSA (57% vs 66%; p = 0.118; McNemar test). However, more units screened for MRSA in patients from nursing/residential homes (21% vs 51%; p = 0.004, McNemar test), and in patients who had recent admission to hospital (12% vs 36%; p = 0.003). In the second survey, 3 units (6%) now screened patients who were close relatives of MRSA carriers.

conclusionThis survey has highlighted inconsistences in MRSA screening practice of day-case cataract surgery patients across England after 2 major national policy changes. A change in DoH policy only led to more units screening patients for MRSA from high risk groups.

Indexed as

CataractCross InfectionEnglandGuideline AdherenceHealth Care SurveysHealth PolicyHumansInfection ControlMass ScreeningMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusPractice Guidelines as TopicStaphylococcal InfectionsSurgery Department, HospitalSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID24341357
PMCPMC3909305

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.