ArticleBMC health services research2024
Infection prevention practice in home healthcare: a mixed-method study in two Swiss home healthcare organisations.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInfection prevention and control (IPC) research has long neglected the home healthcare sector with its unique challenges. This study aimed to gain an understanding of the barriers to the implementation of infection prevention practices relevant to this setting, the related attitudes, perceived relevance and priorities from the home healthcare worker perspective in Switzerland.
methodsThe mixed-method study involved semi-structured interviews (n = 18) and an anonymous web-based survey (n = 144) among nursing assistants and nurses from two home healthcare organizations in northwest Switzerland. Questions in both sub-studies focused on perceived challenges to infection prevention practices, perceived relevance, and related attitudes and mitigation strategies. Using an exploratory-sequential design, survey questions were designed to quantify and complement the findings from the interview study.
resultsHealthcare workers in these two organisations felt adequately protected, trained and supported by their organisations regarding IPC (survey agreement rates > 90%). General challenges to IPC in the home environment most agreed on were lack of cleanliness, lack of space, and the priorities of the patient to be respected (survey agreement rates 85.4%, 77.1%, and 70.8%, respectively). Practices and perceived challenges in the case of colonisation with multi-drug resistant organisms (MDRO) and potentially infectious diarrheal or respiratory illnesses varied highly regarding information transfer, use of protective equipment, and use and disinfection practices of multi-use equipment. Challenges to hand hygiene, sharps safety, waste management and decontamination of equipment did not feature as a prominent concern.
conclusionsThis study is the first to characterise the implementation of infection prevention practices and the related challenges in home healthcare in Switzerland. Home healthcare workers describe various challenges related to infection prevention practices as largely manageable in their work routine, and generally show satisfaction with the support provided by their organisations regarding IPC precautions. Key findings regarding challenges amenable to interventions include uncertainty and inconsistency regarding the management of MDRO colonisation and acute illnesses, and gaps in information transfer. Those challenges may benefit from both organisational interventions and further research into the level of precautions that are appropriate to the home healthcare setting.
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.