Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34988421›Full record

ArticleInfection prevention in practice2021

Drains and the periphery of the water system - what do you do when the guidance is outdated?

M Weinbren, T Inkster, F Lafferty

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Review
  2. Water management practices and antibiotic-resistantJournal of water and health · 2025
    Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

M WeinbrenDepartment of Microbiology, King's Mill Hospital, Sutton-in-Ashfield, UK.
T InksterDepartment of Microbiology, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK.
F LaffertyNational Services Scotland, Glasgow, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The periphery of the water system (defined as the last 2 m of pipework from an outlet and ensuing devices including drainage), is the juncture of multiple inherent risks: the necessity to use materials with higher risk of biofilm formation, difficulty in maintaining safe water temperatures, a human interface with drainage systems, poor design, poor layout and use by staff. Add to this risk a large new healthcare facility capital build programme in England, outdated guidance and bacteria emanating from drainage systems containing highly mobile genetic elements (threatening the end of the antibiotic era), and the scene is set for the perfect storm. There is an urgent need for the re-evaluation of the periphery of the water system and drainage systems. Consequently, in this article we examine the requirement and placement of hand wash stations (HWSs), design of showers, kitchens and the dirty utility with respect to water services. Lastly, we discuss the provision of safe water to high-risk patient groups. The purpose of this article is to stimulate debate and provide infection control and design teams with support in deviating from the outdated existing guidance and to challenge conventional thinking until new advice is forthcoming.

Identifiers

PMID34988421
PMCPMC8696270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.