Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31190669›Full record

ArticleInfection control and hospital epidemiology2019

Implementation of a Clostridioides difficile prevention bundle: Understanding common, unique, and conflicting work system barriers and facilitators for subprocess design.

Jackson S Musuuza, Ann Schoofs Hundt, Pascale Carayon, Karly Christensen, Caitlyn Ngam, Nicholas Haun, Nasia Safdar

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Infection control and hospital epidemiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Heterogeneity in practices to reduce the risk of transmission of Clostridioides difficile in healthcare settings: a survey of ESCMID Study Group for Clostridioides difficile (ESGCD) members.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jackson S MusuuzaDepartment of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health,Madison,Wisconsin.
Ann Schoofs HundtCenter for Quality and Productivity Improvement,University of Wisconsin-Madison,Madison,Wisconsin.
Pascale CarayonCenter for Quality and Productivity Improvement,University of Wisconsin-Madison,Madison,Wisconsin.
Karly ChristensenDepartment of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health,Madison,Wisconsin.
Caitlyn NgamDepartment of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health,Madison,Wisconsin.
Nicholas HaunDepartment of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health,Madison,Wisconsin.
Nasia SafdarDepartment of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health,Madison,Wisconsin.
University of Wisconsin–Madison · USWilliam S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital · US

Funding

University of Wisconsin Institute for Clinical and Translational ResearchUL1TR002373 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI ELIZABETH S BURNSIDE, Allan R. Brasier · 2017 to 2026
$75.9M
A systems engineering approach to reducing C. difficile infectionR03HS023791 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI SAFDAR, NASIA · 2015 to 2015
$98k
AHRQ HHS R03 HS023791NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002373
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveClostridioides difficile (C. difficile) poses a major challenge to the healthcare system. We assessed factors that should be considered when designing subprocesses of a C. difficile infection (CDI) prevention bundle.

designPhenomenological qualitative study.

methodsWe conducted 3 focus groups of environmental services (EVS) staff, physicians, and nurses to assess their perspectives on a CDI prevention bundle. We used the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model to examine 5 subprocesses of the CDI bundle: diagnostic testing, empiric isolation, contact isolation, hand hygiene, and environmental disinfection. We coded transcripts to the 5 SEIPS elements and ensured scientific rigor. We sought to determine common, unique, and conflicting factors across stakeholder groups and subprocesses of the CDI bundle.

resultsEach focus group lasted 1.5 hours on average. Common work-system barriers included inconsistencies in knowledge and practice of CDI management procedures; increased workload; poor setup of aspects of the physical environment (eg, inconvenient location of sinks); and inconsistencies in CDI documentation. Unique barriers and facilitators were related to specific activities performed by the stakeholder group. For instance, algorithmic approaches used by physicians facilitated timely diagnosis of CDI. Conflicting barriers or facilitators were related to opposing objectives; for example, clinicians needed rapid placement of a patient in a room while EVS staff needed time to disinfect the room.

conclusionsA systems engineering approach can help to holistically identify factors that influence successful implementation of subprocesses of infection prevention bundles.

Indexed as

Clostridioides difficileClostridium InfectionsCommunicable Disease ControlFemaleFocus GroupsHousekeeping, HospitalHumansMaleMedical Staff, HospitalMidwestern United StatesModels, OrganizationalQualitative ResearchSafety Management

Identifiers

PMID31190669
PMCPMC7212912
OpenAlexW2952596874

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.