ArticleJournal of infection prevention2024
Perceptions and digitalisation of outbreak management in UK health services: A cross-sectional survey.
Article in Journal of infection prevention, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Global challenges arise from infectious diseases which represent significant challenges to the provision of healthcare, requiring efficient management procedures to limit transmission. Evaluating current outbreak management processes within UK healthcare services is essential for identifying strengths, weaknesses, and potential improvements. Objectives: This study aimed to assess infection prevention and control (IPC) practitioners' access to outbreak management (OM) data. Secondary objectives involved determining IPC practitioners' perceptions of outbreak management processes and the state of digitalisation of OM in the UK. Methods: National cross-sectional survey data were collected to evaluate current outbreak management approaches. To supplement this, information requests were sent to the 10 largest teaching and research NHS hospital trusts in England. Findings: The survey received 55 responses with 53 considered for analysis. Out of 10 NHS trusts, nine provided completed FOI responses, while one was unable to provide data. Discussion: The study offers unique insights into prevailing outbreak management practices within UK health services. Although positive perceptions surround key outbreak management stages, concerns arise, including varying confidence levels in surveillance processes' robustness, efficacy of management interventions, and communication effectiveness. Conclusions: The study highlights challenges with OM processes in the UK, including issues like poor surveillance and delayed outbreak detection. Positive practitioner perceptions contrast with concerns over data collection, follow-up, and limited digitalisation, relying on basic tools like Excel and Word, hindering retrospective learning.
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.