ReviewClinical infection in practice2021
Best practice standards for the delivery of NHS infection services in the United Kingdom.
Review in Clinical infection in practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategies for controlling communicable diseases in Afghanistan: a realist review.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Embedding into the ways of working in the NHS: A seamless transition and reflective learning as a clinical observer in general internal medicine.Future healthcare journal · 2025Article
- Where now for infection services in the NHS? What about children?Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2023Article
- Where now for infection services in the NHS? How lessons from the pandemic should drive long-overdue integration of microbiology and infectious diseases.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2022Article
- A 'giant leap' for UK NHS infection services?Clinical infection in practice · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Infection expertise in the NHS has historically been provided predominantly by hospital-based medical microbiologists responsible for provision of diagnostic services and advice to front-line clinicians. While most hospitals had consultant-led microbiology departments, infectious iiseases departments were based in a small number of specialist centres. The demand for infection expertise is growing in the NHS, driven by advances in medical care, increasing awareness of the impact of antibiotic resistant and healthcare associated infections and threats from emerging infectious diseases. At the same time diagnostic services are being reorganised into pathology networks. The Combined Infection Training (CIT) is delivering a consultant workforce with expertise both in laboratory diagnostic practice and delivery of direct patient care. These changes create challenges for delivery of high quality infection expertise equitably across the NHS. They also offer an opportunity to shape infection services to meet clinical and laboratory demands. To date there has not been an attempt to bring together a single set of best practice guidelines for the requirements of an infection service. This document sets out seven standards. These are written to be practical and flexible according to the diverse ways in which infection expertise may be required across the NHS. It has been prepared by the Clinical Services Committee of the British Infection Association drawing on published evidence and guidance where they exist and on the group's extensive experience of delivering infection services in hospitals across the NHS. It was then refined with input from the RCP Joint Specialist committee (JSC) and the RCPath Specialist Advisory Committee (SAC) and through consultation with the RCPath membership. It has been endorsed by the Royal College of Pathologists and the Royal College of Physicians. It will be reviewed annually by the CSC and updated as additional evidence becomes available.
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.