ArticleInfection prevention in practice2019
A unique approach to the development of infection prevention and control resources for front-line health care workers.
Article in Infection prevention in practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite successful efforts to reduce Meticillin Resistant
aimTo work with commissioners and providers of healthcare to collaboratively develop resources to support whole health economies to reduce GNBSI using a combination of behavioural insights and quality improvement methods.
methodsWe took a unique approach to develop these tools and resources using a combination of behavioural insights, quality improvement and front-line collaboration to ensure the tools and resources were designed around the needs of those who would use them. The approach taken was a stepwise iterative process in two distinct phases: a development phase and a testing phase. Both phases used a combination of behavioural insights, human factors, quality improvement and co-production methods to engage stakeholders in co-designing resources that would support them in their work to reduce GNBSI.
findingsDuring the development phase, feedback from workshops and stakeholder reviews indicated that tools needed to be reduced, simplified, and communicated clearly. Stakeholders wanted tools that could be used by a cross-system group and indicated that leadership was key to ensuring resources were adopted to drive improvements. The final tools were published on the NHS Improvement GNBSI hub. This electronic platform had 30,000 visits between May 2017 and October 2018.
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.