Observational studyAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2026
Application of the infection risk scan in an intensive care unit.
Observational study in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare Associated Infections generate a high cost in healthcare systems. The Infection Risk Scan (IRIS) tool may be a suitable tool to assess the quality of infection prevention measures in Intensive Care Units (ICU). The aims are to identify individual risk factors in patients and quantify the degree of non-compliance with measures to prevent healthcare-associated infections using the IRIS method in an ICU.
methodsIt is an observational and cross-sectional study. The method was piloted in 8 beds and subsequently in 32 beds in a tertiary hospital. Adult patients (> 18 years) admitted to ICU during the study and healthcare staff belonging to the ICU. Risk of infection and adherence to prevention measures were measured. The IRIS consists of two parts called risk profile and improvement chart. In the first, variables related to the patient's history and susceptibility to acquiring a healthcare-associated infection were studied, and in the second, the adequacy of procedures performed on the patient or their environment, considered important indicators for infection control, were assessed.
resultsCritically ill patients had a high use of invasive devices such as central venous catheters, urinary catheters and invasive mechanical ventilation. Adherence to healthcare-associated infection prevention measures could be improved due to high non-compliance with hand hygiene (48% non-compliance in the first measurement and 55.6% in the second measurement), non-compliance with hygiene recommendations among healthcare workers (> 4 workers wore at least a wristband and/or wristwatch in the second measurement) and insufficient cleaning and disinfection of surfaces and equipment in both measurements (some surfaces were completely clean).
conclusionThe IRIS provides comprehensive information on the quality of infection prevention measures and offers an opportunity for focused improvement in infection control based on the results of the improvement chart.
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.