Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33516268›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2021

Emergency ward ultrasound: clinical audit on disinfection practices during routine and sterile examinations.

A Andolfo, R Maatoug, N Peiffer-Smadja, C Fayolle, K Blanckaert

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 53% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Ventilator -associated Pneumonia and Lung Ultrasound: Finally, What is between the Ears Matters.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2021
    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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

A AndolfoService d'accueil des urgences/Structure mobile d'urgence et de reanimation, Centre Hospitalier de Dunkerque, 59140, Dunkirk, France. axlandolfo@gmail.com.
R MaatougAP-HP, Service de Psychiatrie Adulte de la Pitié-Salpêtrière, Institut du Cerveau, ICM, Sorbonne Université, 75013, Paris, France.
N Peiffer-SmadjaFrench Institute for Medical Research (Inserm), Infection Antimicrobials Modelling Evolution (IAME), UMR 1137, University Paris Diderot, Paris, France.
C FayolleService de Réanimation et Unité de Soins Continus, Centre Hospitalier de Dunkerque, 59140, Dunkirk, France.
K BlanckaertCentre d'appui et de prevention des infections associees aux soins (CPIAS) Pays de la Loire, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nantes, 44093, Nantes, France.
Centre Hospitalier de Vitré · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nantes · FRInstitut du Cerveau · FRNational Institute for Health Research · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextIn the emergency ward, where the use of ultrasound is common (including for sterile procedures), ward equipment is constantly exposed to high risks of microbiological contamination. There are no clear guidelines for disinfection control practices in emergency departments, and it is not known how emergency ward doctors follow good hygiene practices.

methodA multi-centre audit was conducted in 16 emergency services from Northern France regional hospitals, in form of a questionnaire. It was proposed to all emergency ward physicians. We excluded questionnaires when physicians mentioned that they did not use ultrasound on a daily basis. The questionnaire was designed using existing hygiene and ultrasound disinfection practices guidelines from varying French medical societies. It included three different clinical scenarios: (a) ultrasound on healthy skin, (b) on injured skin, and (c) ultrasound-guided punctures. All questions were closed-ended, with only one answer corresponding to the guidelines. We then calculated compliance rates for each question, each clinical situation, and an overall compliance rate for all the questions.

results104 questionnaires were collected, and 19 were excluded. For the 85 analysed questionnaires, the compliance rates were 60.4% 95% CI [56.4-64.7] for ultrasound on healthy skin, 70.9% 95% CI [66.3-76.1] on injured skin and 69.4% 95% CI [65.1-73.6] for ultrasound-guided punctures. The overall compliance rate for the compliance questions was 66.1% 95% CI [62.8-69.1]. Analysis of the questionnaires revealed severe asepsis errors, misuse of gel, ignorance of infection control practices to be applied in the context of ultrasound-guided puncture and exposure of the probe to body fluids.

conclusionThis study details areas for quality improvement in the disinfection of emergency ultrasound scanner use. Consequently, we propose a standardized protocol based upon the recommendations used for the questionnaire drafting, with a visual focus on the low compliance points that have been revealed in this audit. This protocol has been distributed to all the medical emergency services audited and included in the emergency resident's ultrasound learning program.

Indexed as

Clinical AuditCross InfectionDisinfectionEmergency Service, HospitalEquipment ContaminationFranceGuideline AdherenceHumansHygieneSurveys and QuestionnairesUltrasonographyClinical auditCross-transmissionDisinfectionReusable medical devicesUltrasound probes

Identifiers

PMID33516268
PMCPMC7847554
OpenAlexW3126634093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.