Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35232449›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

Recommendations related to occupational infection prevention and control training to protect healthcare workers from infectious diseases: a scoping review of infection prevention and control guidelines.

Mohammed O Qureshi, Abrar A Chughtai, Holly Seale

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mohammed O QureshiSchool of Population Health, University of New South Wales, Level 2, Samuels building, Sydney, Australia. mohammedowais.qureshi@unsw.edu.au.
Abrar A ChughtaiSchool of Population Health, University of New South Wales, Level 2, Samuels building, Sydney, Australia.
Holly SealeSchool of Population Health, University of New South Wales, Level 2, Samuels building, Sydney, Australia.
UNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvents such as the COVID-19 pandemic remind us of the heightened risk that healthcare workers (HCWs) have from acquiring infectious diseases at work. Reducing the risk requires a multimodal approach, ensuring that staff have the opportunity to undertake occupational infection prevention and control (OIPC) training. While studies have been done within countries to look at availability and delivery of OIPC training opportunities for HCWs, there has been less focus given to whether their infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines adhere to recommended best practices.

objectivesTo examine national IPC guidelines for the inclusion of key recommendations on OIPC training for HCWs to protect them from infectious diseases at work and to report on areas of inconsistencies and gaps.

methodsWe applied a scoping review method and reviewed guidelines published in the last twenty years (2000-2020) including the IPC guidelines of World Health Organization and the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These two guidelines were used as a baseline to compare the inclusion of key elements related to OIPC training with IPC guidelines of four high-income countries /regions i.e., Gulf Cooperation Council, Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and four low-, and middle-income countries (LMIC) i.e. India, Indonesia, Pakistan and, Philippines.

resultsExcept for the Filipino IPC guideline, all the other guidelines were developed in the last five years. Only two guidelines discussed the need for delivery of OIPC training at undergraduate and/or post graduate level and at workplace induction. Only two acknowledged that training should be based on adult learning principles. None of the LMIC guidelines included recommendations about evaluating training programs. Lastly the mode of delivery and curriculum differed across the guidelines.

conclusionsDeveloping a culture of learning in healthcare organizations by incorporating and evaluating OIPC training at different stages of HCWs career path, along with incorporating adult learning principles into national IPC guidelines may help standardize guidance for the development of OIPC training programs. Sustainability of this discourse could be achieved by first updating the national IPC guidelines. Further work is needed to ensure that all relevant healthcare organisations are delivering a package of OIPC training that includes the identified best practice elements.

Indexed as

Communicable DiseasesInfection ControlAdultCOVID-19Health PersonnelHumansPandemicsPractice Guidelines as TopicSARS-CoV-2Healthcare workersInfection controlInfectious disease transmissionOccupational healthPractice guidelinesTraining programs

Identifiers

PMID35232449
PMCPMC8885771
OpenAlexW4214911224

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.