ArticleJournal of infection prevention2017
The utility of electronic health record-based hygiene notes for chlorhexidine bathing practice evaluation.
Article in Journal of infection prevention, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Results of the CHlorhexidine Gluconate Bathing implementation intervention to improve evidence-based nursing practices for prevention of central line associated bloodstream infections Study (CHanGing BathS): a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial.Implementation science : IS · 2021Trial
- Real-world experience of how chlorhexidine bathing affects the acquisition and incidence of vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) in a medical intensive care unit with VRE endemicity: a prospective interrupted time-series study.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2021Article
- Chlorhexidine Gluconate Bathing Reduces the Incidence of Bloodstream Infections in Adults Undergoing Inpatient Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation.Transplantation and cellular therapy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnreliable compliance with infection prevention procedures necessitates an analysis of contributing factors.
methodsA retrospective study explored utility of 3236 nursing hygiene notes in the electronic healthcare record system (EHR). This 2012-2013 study identified defects in the chlorhexidine (CHG) bathing practice for a hospital unit.
resultsThe overall compliance with CHG bathing was 22.99%. Patients with length of stay less than 3 days, in most cases, did not have documentation for CHG bathing. Patient refusal to bathe was the most prevalent documented reason (66%) of the unsuccessful initial and repeated offers to bathe. The regular staff were statistically less successful in convincing patients to bathe. The 1455 notes produced by the regular staff (n = 10) demonstrated a significantly higher failure rate (56.08%) to execute this procedure in comparison with 1770 notes documented by the 246 temporary staff (31.19% failure rate) ( DISCUSSION: This analysis yielded three main insights: lack of the CHG documentation in a large number of short admissions; inconsistent use of CHG baths; and presence of workarounds due to patient refusals to bathe. The study concluded that EHR structured and unstructured data can unlock the opportunity for identifying hidden defects and inform decision-makers about the need for change.
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.