ArticleJournal of infection prevention2018
Infection prevention and control: Who is the judge, you or the guidelines?
Article in Journal of infection prevention, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- A seesaw of equilibrium, midwives' experiences of infection prevention and control guideline adherence: A qualitative descriptive study.Journal of infection prevention · 2024Article
- Nursing staff compliance and adherence to standard precautions during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study.Nursing & health sciences · 2023Article
- Enablers of, and barriers to, optimal glove and mask use for routine care in the emergency department: an ethnographic study of Australian clinicians.Australasian emergency care · 2020Article
- Factors Influencing Adherence to Standard Precautions Scale: A psychometric validation.Nursing & health sciences · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to explore the attitudes and behaviours of registered nurses and their colleagues around the adoption of standard precautions in order to determine strategies to promote adherence.
designA qualitative exploratory descriptive design used interviews and focus group to collect data.
settingRegistered nurses and registered midwifes from a tertiary metropolitan hospital took part in the study.
participantsA voluntary sample of 29 adults was recruited from the Australian nursing (n = 25) and midwifery (n = 4) workforce. There were six men (mean age = 36.83 years; SD = 8.93) and 23 women (mean age = 41.36 years; SD = 10.25). Participants were recruited through advertisement on notice boards and emails from unit managers.
resultsThematic analysis revealed five themes but the focus here is on staff judgements which are against the guidelines. Participants indicated that where in their judgement the patient posed no risk and they judged themselves skilled in the procedure, they were justified in deviating from the guidelines. Some staff judgements appeared to be self-protecting, while others were irrational and inconsistent.
conclusionsDespite use of standard precautions being mandated, staff often deviated from them based on their own assessment of the situation or the patient. Any deviance from the guidelines is of concern but especially so when staff take it upon themselves to apply their own criteria or judgements. These results also suggest there may be some organisational inadequacies with regards to training and supervision of staff.
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.