ArticleJournal of infection prevention2017
Audit of the management of patients at high risk of carbapenemase-producing enterobacteriaceae (CPE): Are we ready?
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncidence of carbapenemase-producing enterobacteriaceae (CPE) in the UK is increasing. In 2013, Public Health England (PHE) published a toolkit to control spread of CPE within healthcare settings.
aimTo assess compliance to hospital CPE policy (adapted from PHE) in the identification, isolation and screening of suspected CPE patients.
methodsAdmission booklets of 150 patients were evaluated to see whether the relevant section had been completed to identify high-risk CPE patients. Where necessary, patients were interviewed or their GPs were contacted to assess their CPE risk. Additionally, 28 patients screened for CPE were audited to assess compliance to screening and isolation.
findingsOnly 23 patients out of 147 (15.6%) were risk assessed on admission. Risk status of 27 (18.4%) patients could not be assessed due to lack of data. Fifteen patients out of 28 (54%) screened for CPE were identified and isolated on admission. Ten out of 19 patients (53%) had three screens 48 h apart. DISCUSSION: This audit highlights difficulties in screening based on individual risk factors as the majority of patients were not screened on admission and documentation on isolation and screening was poor. More needs to be done to raise awareness of the requirements for routine assessment, isolation and screening.
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.