Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33461891›Full record

ArticleInfection, disease & health2021

Education and training in infection prevention and control: Exploring support for national standards.

Ruth Barratt, Gwendolyn L Gilbert

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Infection, disease & health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Key lessons from the COVID-19 public health response in Australia.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2023
    Review
  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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ruth BarrattCentre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Westmead, NSW, Australia; Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia; The University of Sydney, Westmead Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: ruth.barratt@sydney.edu.au.
Gwendolyn L GilbertCentre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Westmead, NSW, Australia; Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia; The University of Sydney, Westmead Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: lyn.gilbert@sydney.edu.au.
The University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEffective infection prevention and control (IPC) programmes comprise a hierarchy of preventive measures, one of which is appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE). A poor understanding of the role of PPE and sub-optimal use may fail to prevent or even increase pathogen transmission during routine care or an infectious disease outbreak. Variability in delivery and content of IPC and PPE education and training across organisations can lead to confusion, unsafe practice, and lack of confidence among clinicians. In a national survey we explored the perspectives of Australian and New Zealand IPC professionals on the value and feasibility of a national IPC training and monitoring programme to improve and standardise PPE practice and raise the profile of IPC.

methodsA population-based online survey that examined hospital PPE training programmes was distributed to members of three major Australasian organisations representing IPC professionals. Quantitative results of the survey have been reported previously. This paper is a qualitative analysis of responses to two open-ended questions about a national approach to training in IPC and the use of PPE.

resultsMost respondents agreed that standardising IPC and PPE training could achieve more consistent practice nationally, supported through the provision of educational resources. Including competency in the use of PPE in mandatory IPC standards would assist in improving the practice and raising the profile of IPC more generally.

conclusionThe results of this study suggest that that there is support for national programmes and standards for use of PPE in Australia and New Zealand.

Indexed as

COVID-19AustraliaHospitalsHumansInfection ControlPersonal Protective EquipmentInfection prevention and controlPersonal protective equipmentStandardsTraining

Identifiers

PMID33461891
PMCPMC7816900
OpenAlexW3120640464

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.