Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26043742›Full record

ArticleBMJ quality & safety2015

Impact of laws aimed at healthcare-associated infection reduction: a qualitative study.

Patricia W Stone, Monika Pogorzelska-Maziarz, Julie Reagan, Jacqueline A Merrill, Brad Sperber, Catherine Cairns, Matthew Penn, Tara Ramanathan, Elizabeth Mothershed, Elizabeth Skillen

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Update on infection control practices in cancer hospitals.CA: a cancer journal for clinicians · 2018
    Review
  8. Article
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

10 authors.

Patricia W StoneSchool of Nursing, Center for Health Policy, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.
Monika Pogorzelska-MaziarzJefferson School of Nursing, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Julie ReaganJiann-Ping Hsu College of Public Health, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia, USA.
Jacqueline A MerrillCenter for Health Policy, Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, New York, USA.
Brad SperberCenter for Health Policy, The Keystone Center, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Catherine CairnsCenter for Health Policy, Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO), Arlington, Virginia, USA.
Matthew PennOffice for State, Tribal, Local, and Territorial Support, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA Public Health Law Program, Office for State, Tribal, Local, and Territorial Support, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Tara RamanathanPublic Health Law Program, Office for State, Tribal, Local, and Territorial Support, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Elizabeth MothershedDivision of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Elizabeth SkillenOffice of Associate Director for Policy, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

Funding

Prevention of Nosocomial Infections and Cost-Effectiveness Refined (P-NICER)R01NR010107 · NINR · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI STONE, PATRICIA W. · 2007 to 2012
$3.2M
NINR NIH HHS R01 NR010107NINR NIH HHS R01NR010107PHS HHS 400648
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are preventable. Globally, laws aimed at reducing HAIs have been implemented. In the USA, these laws are at the federal and state levels. It is not known whether the state interventions are more effective than the federal incentives alone.

objectiveThe aims of this study were to explore the impact federal and state HAI laws have on state departments of health and hospital stakeholders in the USA and to explore similarities and differences in perceptions across states.

methodsA qualitative study was conducted. In 2012, we conducted semistructured interviews with key stakeholders from states with and without state-level laws to gain multiple perspectives. Interviews were transcribed and open coding was conducted. Data were analysed using content analysis and collected until theoretical saturation was achieved.

resultsNinety interviews were conducted with stakeholders from 12 states (6 states with laws and 6 states without laws). We found an increase in state-level collaboration. The publicly reported data helped hospitals benchmark and focus leaders on HAI prevention. There were concerns about the publicly reported data (eg, lack of validation and timeliness). Resource needs were also identified. No major differences were expressed by interviewees from states with and without laws.

conclusionsWhile we could not tease out the impact of specific interventions, increased collaboration between departments of health and their partners is occurring. Harmonisation of HAI definitions and reporting between state and federal laws would minimise reporting burden. Continued monitoring of the progress of HAI prevention is needed.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingCooperative BehaviorCross InfectionHealth PolicyHumansInfection ControlInterviews as TopicQualitative ResearchHealthcare quality improvementHealth policyInfection controlNosocomial infectionsPatient safety

Identifiers

PMID26043742
PMCPMC4575878

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.