ArticleSafety and health at work2020
Repeat Auditing of Primary Health-care Facilities Against Standards for Occupational Health and Infection Control: A Study of Compliance and Reliability.
Article in Safety and health at work, 2020. 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, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Workplace HIV and TB Programmes for Laboratory Health Workers: A Rapid Review.Safety and health at work · 2026Review
- 'Quality assessment of infection control measures in delivery points in a tribal district of Maharashtra' - An observational study.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2024Article
- Tuberculosis infection status and risk factors among health workers: an updated systematic review.Annals of occupational and environmental medicine · 2021Review
- Current Guidelines for Protecting Health Workers from Occupational Tuberculosis Are Necessary, but Not Sufficient: Towards a Comprehensive Occupational Health Approach.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe elevated risk of occupational infection such as tuberculosis among health workers in many countries raises the question of whether the quality of occupational health and safety (OHS) and infection prevention and control (IPC) can be improved by auditing. The objectives of this study were to measure (1) audited compliance of primary health-care facilities in South Africa with national standards for OHS and IPC, (2) change in compliance at reaudit three years after baseline, and (3) the inter-rater reliability of the audit.
methodsThe study analyzed audits of 60 primary health-care facilities in the Western Cape Province of South Africa. Baseline external audits in the time period 2011-2012 were compared with follow-up internal audits in 2014-2015. Audits at 25 facilities that had both internal and external audits conducted in 2014/2015 were used to measure reliability.
resultsAt baseline, 25% of 60 facilities were "noncompliant" (audit score<50%), 48% "conditionally compliant" (score >50 < 80%), and only 27% "compliant" (score >80%). Overall, there was no significant improvement in compliance three years after baseline. Percentage agreement on specific items between internal and external audits ranged from 28% to 92% and kappa from -0.8 to 0.41 (poor to moderate).
conclusionLow baseline compliance with OHS-IPC measures and lack of improvement over three years reflect the difficulties of quality improvement in these domains. Low inter-rater reliability of the audit instrument undermines the audit process. Evidence-based investment of effort is required if repeat auditing is to contribute to occupational risk reduction for health workers.
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.