Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28507731›Full record

ReviewAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2017

Patient engagement with surgical site infection prevention: an expert panel perspective.

E Tartari, V Weterings, P Gastmeier, J Rodríguez Baño, A Widmer, J Kluytmans, A Voss

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors.

E Tartari *Infection Control Program and WHO Collaborating Centre on Patient Safety, Geneva University Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland.
V Weterings *Laboratory for Microbiology and Infection Control, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands.
P GastmeierInstitute of Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Charite ´ University Medicine in Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
J Rodríguez BañoUnidad de Gestión Clínica de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena/Instituto de Biomedicina de Sevilla (IBiS)/CSIC/Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain.
A WidmerUniversity Hospital and University of Basel, Division of infectious diseases & hospital epidemiology, Basel, Switzerland.
J KluytmansLaboratory for Microbiology and Infection Control, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands.
A VossDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite remarkable developments in the use of surgical techniques, ergonomic advancements in the operating room, and implementation of bundles, surgical site infections (SSIs) remain a substantial burden, associated with increased morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. National and international recommendations to prevent SSIs have been published, including recent guidelines by the World Health Organization, but implementation into clinical practice remains an unresolved issue. SSI improvement programs require an integrative approach with measures taken during the pre-, intra- and postoperative care from the numerous stakeholders involved. The current SSI prevention strategies have focused mainly on the role of healthcare workers (HCWs) and procedure related risk factors. The importance and influence of patient participation is becoming an increasingly important concept and advocated as a means to improve patient safety. Novel interventions supporting an active participative role within SSI prevention programs have not been assessed. Empowering patients with information they require to engage in the process of SSI prevention could play a major role for the implementation of recommendations. Based on available scientific evidence, a panel of experts evaluated options for patient involvement in order to provide pragmatic recommendations for pre-, intra- and postoperative activities for the prevention of SSIs. Recommendations were based on existing guidelines and expert opinion. As a result, 9 recommendations for the surgical patient are presented here, including a practice brief in the form of a patient information leaflet. HCWs can use this information to educate patients and allow patient engagement.

Indexed as

DecolonizationDiabetes mellitusEmpowered patientHair removalHand hygieneInfection controlMRSAPatient educationPatient involvementPatient participationScreeningSmokingStaphylococcus aureusSurgerySurgical site care bundleSurgical site infectionSurgical wound infectionWound care

Identifiers

PMID28507731
PMCPMC5427557

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.