ArticleBMC infectious diseases2015
Development of quality indicators and data assessment strategies for the prevention of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI).
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identifying AWaRe indicators for appropriate antibiotic use: a narrative review.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2024Review
- Development and evaluation of a structured guide to assess the preventability of hospital-onset bacteremia and fungemia.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2022Article
- Selecting Performance Indicators and Targets in Health Care: An International Scoping Review and Standardized Process Framework.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2022Article
- Article
- Epidemiologic analysis of central vein catheter infection in burn patients.Iranian journal of microbiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe number of catheter related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) could be reduced and the outcome improved if specific standards in the quality of care were maintained. Therefore, the development of quality assurance (QA) procedures was commissioned to be included in the national mandatory QA programme in Germany.
methodsIndicators representing quality deficiencies and potential for improvement of quality in relation to prevention and management of central venous catheters (CVC) were developed by (1) evidence-based literature searches and the compiling of an indicator register; (2) a multi-professional expert panel including patient representatives who selected indicators from this register by using a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method; (3) defining methods for data assessment, risk adjustment and feedback of indicator results to service providers; and (4) consulting all relevant medical societies and other stakeholders with regard to the QA procedures that had been developed.
resultsThirty-two indicators for CRBSI prevention and management were eventually approved by the expert panel. These indicators represent quality of care at predefined points with regard to indication, insertion and care of CVCs, management of sepsis, general hygiene and training of health care personnel. Fourteen indicators represent processes, together with 7 representing structures and 11 outcomes. For assessing these indicators, data was obtained from four sources: claims data from health insurance funds, routine claims data from hospital electronic information systems, case specific longitudinal documentation from service providers and cross-sectional annual assessment of structures.
conclusionsIt was possible to develop indicators for mandatory QA procedures on CRBSI that take into account the different perspectives of all stakeholders involved. Despite efforts to use routine data for documentation wherever possible, most indicators required extra documentation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.