ArticleAmerican journal of infection control2019
Perceived impact of state-mandated reporting on infection prevention and control departments.
Article in American journal of infection control, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceptions of Health Care-Associated Infection Metrics by Infection Control Experts.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Don't just do it-Conducting and publishing improvement science in infection prevention and antibiotic stewardship.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2022Review
- A systematic review and meta-synthesis of policy intervention characteristics that influence the implementation of government-directed policy in the hospital setting: implications for infection prevention and control.Journal of infection prevention · 2020Review
- Culture of Safety: Impact on Improvement in Infection Prevention Process and Outcomes.Current infectious disease reports · 2020Review
- Public Reporting of Nurse Staffing in the United States.Journal of nursing regulation · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrently, most US states have adopted legislation requiring hospitals to submit health care-associated infection (HAI) data. We evaluated the perceived impact of state HAI laws on infection prevention and control (IPC) departments.
methodsA web-based survey of a national sample of all non-veteran hospitals enrolled in the National Healthcare Safety Network was conducted in fall 2011. Variations in IPC department resources and characteristics in states with and without laws were compared by use of χ², Mann-Whitney (Wilcoxon), and Student t tests. Multinomial logistic regression was used to identify increases or decreases, versus no change, in perceived resources, time, influence, and visibility of the IPC department in states with and without HAI laws.
resultsOverall, 1,036 IPC departments provided complete data (30% response rate); 755 (73%) were located in states with laws. Respondents in states with reporting laws were more likely to report less time for routine IPC activities (odds ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-2.31) and less visibility of the IPC department (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-2.58) than respondents in states without laws, after controlling for geographic region, setting, and the presence of a hospital epidemiologist.
conclusionsRespondents in states with laws reported negative effects on their IPC department, beyond what was required by federal mandates. Further research should examine resources necessary to comply with state HAI laws and evaluate unintended consequences of state HAI laws.
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.