ReviewCanada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada2019
Public health investigation of infection prevention and control complaints in Ontario, 2015-2018.
Review in Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada, 2019. 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.
- A commentary on a flawed public health investigation.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2021Article
- An outbreak of hepatitis C virus attributed to the use of multi-dose vials at a colonoscopy clinic, Waterloo Region, Ontario.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2021Article
- Infection prevention and control lapse involving medical equipment reprocessing at a family medicine clinic in Ottawa, Ontario, 2018.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFollowing an update to the provincial
objectivesTo describe the occurrence of IPAC complaints and lapses in Ontario in 2015-2018 and the public health response to these.
methodsOntario public health units were surveyed about the occurrence and key challenges of IPAC complaint investigations through closed- and open-ended questions. The survey was disseminated through the Council of Ontario Medical Officers of Health listserv. Data collection spanned February 4-28, 2019. Descriptive statistical analyses and thematic analysis of free-text responses were performed.
resultsTwenty-one public health units responded for a 60% response rate; fewer responding health units had a population size of less than 100,000. A nearly six-fold increase in IPAC complaints was found, from a total of 79 complaints in 2015 to 451 in 2018. IPAC lapses nearly tripled, with 61 identified in 2015 and 168 in 2018. Whereas variation in the number of IPAC complaints and lapses among public health units was noted, the most common IPAC lapse involved inadequate reprocessing of reusable equipment. Key challenges in investigating IPAC complaints included lack of staff expertise/training, increased workload and costs, interjurisdictional inconsistencies and lack of guidance.
conclusionIPAC complaints and lapses have increased in Ontario since 2015 when the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care changed the IPAC complaint protocol. Public health units identified lack of expertise, increased workload, interjurisdictional inconsistencies and lack of guidance as challenges. Further research to confirm these findings, identify best practices to address these challenges as well as interventions to prevent IPAC lapses would be useful. Prospective surveillance of IPAC complaints, like for reportable diseases, would also be useful.
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.