ArticleJournal of infection prevention2020
What are acute NHS trusts in England doing to prevent the cross-border spread of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae?
Article in Journal of infection prevention, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCarbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) pose a significant threat to global public health as these organisms have the potential to cause infections which are easily spread and are associated with high mortality rates. AIM/
objectiveThe aim of this study was to establish which screening strategies acute NHS trusts in England have chosen to adopt and whether or not that strategy has prevented or is likely to prevent the cross-border spread of CRE.
methodsAll acute NHS trusts in England were invited to participate in a multicentre quantitative study. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire relating to their local CRE screening protocol. FINDINGS/
resultsOf the 91 participating trusts, 83 (91.2%) adhere to Public Health England (2013) guidance. However, only 22 (24.2%) trusts have adopted the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (2016) recommendations. In total, 31 (34.1%) trusts reported incidences of person-to-person transmission, of which 45.2% were related to foreign travel. Furthermore, 31 (34.1%) trusts reported that patients who have had an admission to a hospital in the UK not known to have a high prevalence of healthcare-associated CRE in the last 12 months had screened positive. DISCUSSION: This study has demonstrated that inter-hospital transmission is as much of a concern as cross-border spread. Mandatory participation in enhanced surveillance could provide PHE with the epidemiological evidence required to support this stance and help to develop new national guidance.
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.