Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38854706›Full record

ArticleInfection prevention in practice2024

Infection prevention control in practice: a survey of healthcare professionals' knowledge and experiences.

Isabella Centeleghe, Philip Norville, Jean-Yves Maillard, Louise Hughes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Infection prevention in practice, 2024. 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.

Isabella CentelegheSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Philip NorvilleGAMA Healthcare, Hemel Hempstead, UK.
Jean-Yves MaillardSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Louise HughesSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Laboratory experiments are crucial in understanding efficacy of disinfectant products, but without compliance and appropriate application, the effectiveness of products is compromised. This study aims to understand current perceptions and knowledge of healthcare professionals (HCPs) to common cleaning and disinfection routines and microbial contamination, including biofilms, in healthcare environments. Methods: An online survey, including open and closed questions, was developed. Non-probability convenience and purposive sampling were used: those currently or previously in a healthcare profession were eligible. Survey responses were taken over 24 months, including the COVID-19 pandemic. Discussion: 137 participants completed the survey; over 50% were nurses. Surface cleaning frequency increased post COVID-19 from 'twice a day' to 'three/more times a day'. Disinfection frequency reduced from 'between every patient' before COVID-19 to 'twice a day' afterwards. A multimethod approach to cleaning and disinfection (70.8%) was predominant when considering the best method to deliver infection control. Most areas of clinical settings were identified as high risk (13/19). Most (87.6%) participants had heard the term 'biofilm', mainly at conference/study days (60%). 39.1% said they were aware of dry surface biofilms (DSB) in the healthcare environment. Conclusions: There remain mixed views on surface cleaning and disinfection within healthcare. Education is important for understanding microbial contamination and tackling problems. More people than expected had heard the term DSB. Infection control practices seemed consistent across responses, however whether this is reality is unknown. This study provides an initial insight into current opinions/knowledge of HCPs and can form basis for further in-depth investigation.

Indexed as

BiofilmsCleaningDisinfectionHealthcare professionals

Identifiers

PMID38854706
PMCPMC11156693

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.