ArticlePloS one2024
Perceptions of distinctions between patient and healthcare zones among intensive care unit nurses at a Korean tertiary hospital: A cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntensive care unit (ICU) patients face higher infection risks from invasive procedures, highlighting the critical role of ICU nurses in infection prevention. Clear differentiation between the patient and healthcare zones is essential for effective hand hygiene and disinfection, yet research on this topic is limited.
aimTo assess ICU nurses' perception of the concept of patient and healthcare zones and evaluate their similarity and accuracy in identifying the zones.
methodsA descriptive survey was conducted at a 2,732-bed tertiary hospital in Korea from 28 July to 27 August 2022. Participants were recruited from various ICUs through flyers. 225 questionnaires-with illustrations 27 item locations for three ICU scenarios-were made available at nursing stations for voluntary completion. Participants were asked to classify items into the patient zone or the healthcare zone. Similarity scores reflected participant agreement, while accuracy scores measured the proportion of correct answers. Participants' free-text opinions regarding zone classification were analysed thematically.
findings104 nurses participated voluntarily. Average similarity and accuracy were 84.7% and 82.7%, respectively. The top 8 items, with over 97% similarity and accuracy, were all frequently in contact with ICU patients (e.g., pulse oximeter, Levin tube, central line, urine bag, and patient bed). The bottom 7 items, with less than 80%, included the glucometer, flashlight, trolley, and sink. Participants with higher education levels had significantly higher similarity (p = .044) and accuracy (p = .033), whereas those already familiar with the patient-zone concept had significantly higher accuracy (p = .009). From the free-text analysis, participants considered factors beyond proximity to the patient, such as patient contact, room type, and distance.
conclusionsTo address zone classification challenges, clear criteria for patient and healthcare zones, space redesign, and educational programs are recommended. Further research is necessary to improve greater clarity and consensus regarding patient and healthcare zones to enhance infection control practices.
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.