ArticleInfection prevention in practice2021
Point prevalence survey is useful for introducing effective surveillance of healthcare-associated infections.
Article in Infection prevention in practice, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of Administrative Data and Timing of Point Prevalence Surveys for Antibiotic Monitoring.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Microbiology of Healthcare-Associated Infections: Results of a Fourth National Point Prevalence Survey in Serbia.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Finland, the surveillance of healthcare-associated infections (HAI) became obligatory by the renewed Communicable Diseases Act on the 1
aimTo introduce HAI surveillance protocol (HALT-2 by ECDC) in primary care hospitals in the largest hospital district in Finland, and to measure the burden of HAIs and antimicrobial use patterns for improvement.
methodsTwo identical point prevalence surveys (PPS) were organized in autumn 2015 and in spring 2017. The infection control persons (ICP) in the hospitals were inducted to the HAI definitions and the study protocol to collect the data with questionnaires on the study days. The data were checked and analyzed by the areal infection control unit. The hospitals were provided feedback of the results and HAI prevention methods.
findingsIn 2015, 2218 patients from 22 hospitals and in 2017, 2343 patients from 25 hospitals were studied. The prevalence of HAI was 11% in both surveys (ranges per hospital 4-24% and 4-31%, respectively). Of all HAIs, 37% originated from referring hospitals. Respiratory tract, urinary tract and skin were the most frequent sites of infection. One fourth of all patients received at least one systemic antimicrobial. The process showed that recognition of HAIs may be difficult for non-experienced ICPs.
conclusionsThe HALT-2 protocol proved useful in introducing HAI surveillance and prevention in primary care hospitals with active patient transfer from other hospitals and relatively high prevalence of HAI and antimicrobial use. For annually repeated surveys, slightly shorter electronic questionnaires are essential.
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.