ArticleInfection2024
Evaluation of the practice of reprocessing ORs in German hospitals from an infection prevention and control perspective.
Article in Infection, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to analyze the cleaning and disinfection of operating rooms (ORs) status quo focusing on hygiene plans in German hospitals.
methodsIn 2016, a structured online survey was sent to infection prevention and control (IPC) specialists at the cost calculation hospitals of the Institute for the Hospital Remuneration System (InEK) and all university hospitals in Germany (n = 365).
resultsWith a response rate of 27.4%, 78% stated that written hygiene plans were available. After cleaning and disinfecting an OR with a "septic" patient, 55% waited until surfaces were dry before reusing in accordance with national recommendations, 27% waited > 30 min. Additionally, 28% of hospitals had ORs only for "septic" patients. In 56% "septic" patients were only operated on at the end of the program. Postoperative monitoring of patients with bacteria with special IPC requirements took place in the post anesthesia care unit (PACU) (29%), operating room (OR) (52%), intensive care unit (ICU) (53%), and in the intermediate care unit (IMC) (19%). DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsDespite written hygiene plans in place the partly long duration of OR nonuse time following IPC measures, the consistent continued use of stratification for "septic" patients and the postoperative follow-up care of patients with colonizing/infecting bacteria with special IPC requirements in the OR and high care areas represent relevant potential for improvement.
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.