Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36644523›Full record

ArticleJournal of infection prevention2023

Designing an optimal infection prevention service: Part 2.

Jude Robinson, Lesley Price, Jon Otter, Emma Burnett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of infection prevention, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Jude RobinsonInfection Prevention and control, NHS England and Improvement, Midlands, UK.
Lesley PriceSchool of Health and life sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Jon OtterInfection Prevention and control, Guy's and St Thomas NHS, London, UK.
Emma BurnettFatima College of Health Sciences, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7481-1987

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The importance of infection prevention and control (IPC) services to prevent threats from healthcare-associated infections and improve the quality of healthcare delivery is undeniable. However, IPC services across the UK and Ireland have substantial variability in terms of team structures and delivery models. Aim: The aim of this study was to define an optimal IPC service in different contexts and settings within the United Kingdom and Ireland. Methods: This mixed methods study adopted discussion huddles with IPC teams to explore various components of IPC programmes and services. A Nominal Group technique was then undertaken to achieve a group consensus of what an optimal infection prevention service should look like. Results: Five discussion huddles were conducted which included 53 participants in total. Key themes arising were IPC Service Priorities, IPC Service Enablers for Success, and Necessary Skills and Expertise Required for Delivering an Effective IPC Service. For the nominal technique, 45 responses were identified which were determining the key priorities for an effective IPC service and 69 responses for establishing key enablers for success. Discussion: These findings supported the development of a conceptual model for designing an optimal infection prevention service, which can be used to develop IPC services at an international, national, regional and local level. A focus is required around implementation of these highlighted enablers, so are effectively embedded into infection prevention and control services, and wider healthcare settings.

Indexed as

healthcare-associated infectionsInfection preventioninfection prevention programmeinfection prevention serviceinfection prevention workforcemixed methods research

Identifiers

PMID36644523
PMCPMC9834426

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.