ArticleBMJ open2021
Do we need to change catheter-related bloodstream infection surveillance in the Netherlands? A qualitative study among infection prevention professionals.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Healthcare-associated infections in Dutch hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2023Article
- Barriers and Problems in Implementing Health-Associated Infections Surveillance Systems in Iran: A Qualitative Study.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCatheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) are a common healthcare-associated infection and therefore targeted by surveillance programmes in many countries. Concerns, however, have been voiced regarding the reliability and construct validity of CRBSI surveillance and the connection with the current diagnostic procedures. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of infection control practitioners (ICPs) and medical professionals with the current CRBSI surveillance in the Netherlands and their suggestions for improvement.
designQualitative study using focus group discussions (FGDs) with ICPs and medical professionals separately, followed by semistructured interviews to investigate whether the points raised in the FGDs were recognised and confirmed by the interviewees. Analyses were performed using thematic analyses.
settingBasic, teaching and academic hospitals in the Netherlands.
participants24 ICPs and 9 medical professionals.
resultsMain themes derived from experiences with current surveillance were (1) ICPs' doubt regarding the yield of surveillance given the low incidence of CRBSI, the high workload and IT problems; (2) the experienced lack of leadership and responsibility for recording information needed for surveillance and (3) difficulties with applying and interpreting the CRBSI definition. Suggestions were made to simplify the surveillance protocol, expand the follow-up and surveillance to homecare settings, simplify the definition and customise it for specific patient groups. Participants reported hoping for and counting on automatisation solutions to support future surveillance.
conclusionsThis study reveals several problems with the feasibility and acceptance of the current CRBSI surveillance and proposes several suggestions for improvement. This provides valuable input for future surveillance activities, thereby taking into account automation possibilities.
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.