ArticleJournal of infection prevention2015
A case study of healthcare professional views on the meaning of data produced by hand hygiene auditing.
Article in Journal of infection prevention, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Hand hygiene among healthcare workers: A qualitative meta summary using the GRADE-CERQual process.Journal of infection prevention · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMeasurement of hand hygiene (HH), crucial for patient safety, has acknowledged flaws stemming from methods available. Even direct observation, the World Health Organization gold standard, may lead to behaviour changes which can affect outcome validity. However, it remains important to understand current levels of HH to allow targeted interventions to be developed. This has resulted in wider adoption of auditing processes.
aimThis study addressed how healthcare professionals perceive data generated by HH auditing processes.
methodsQualitative study involving participatory observation and semi-structured interviews with 30 healthcare professionals recruited from a large National Health Service (NHS) two-hospital site in England.
findingsHealthcare professionals perceived two main problems with HH measurement, both associated with feedback: (1) lack of clarity with regard to feedback; and (2) lack of association between training and measurement. In addition, concerns about data accuracy led the majority of participants (22/30) to conclude audit feedback is often 'meaningless'.
conclusionHealthcare professionals require meaningful data on compliance with HH to engender change, as part of a multimodal strategy. Currently healthcare professionals perceive that data lack meaning, and are not seen as drivers to improve HH performance. Potential opportunities to change practice and improve HH are being missed.
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.