ArticleInfection prevention in practice2020
Does size matter? The impact of a small but targeted cleaning training intervention within a paediatric ward.
Article in Infection prevention in practice, 2020. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cleaning is a critical tool for infection prevention and control, and is a key intervention for preventing healthcare associated infections (HCAIs) and controlling intermediate transmission routes between patient and environment. This study sought to identify potential areas of weakness in clinical surface cleaning, and assess the effectiveness of a staff group specific training intervention. Observations: One-hundred hours of audit observations in a paediatric cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) assessed surface cleaning technique of healthcare staff within bedspaces. Cleaning was assessed with a 5-component bundle, with each cleaning opportunity scored out of five. Training Intervention: Fifty hours of audit observations before and after a training intervention tested the efficacy of a staff group specific education intervention. The intervention was developed and implemented for 69% of nurses and 100% of cleaners. Results: One hundred and eighteen cleaning opportunities were observed before training, and scored an average of 2.4. One hundred and twenty-one cleaning opportunities were observed after training and scored an average 3.0. On average, before training, each cleaning opportunity by nurses and cleaners fulfilled 2.4 and 2.5, respectively, of the 5 bundle components. Following training, this improved to 3.3 and 2.9 respectively. There was a statistically significant improvement in bundle scores for nurses (P=.004) and cleaners (P=.0003). Conclusions: Surface wipe methods were inconsistent between all staff groups. The education based intervention resulted in a small improvement in most of the cleaning components. This study has identified how a small but targeted cleaning training intervention can have a significant (P= <.0001) impact on cleaning bundle compliance for both nurses and cleaners.
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.