ArticleBMC nursing2026
Omissions in nurses' infection prevention and control practices and their contributing factors: a CFIR-based sequential explanatory mixed-methods study.
Article in BMC nursing, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOmissions in infection prevention and control (IPC) practices may increase the risk of healthcare-associated infections, yet their underlying determinants remain insufficiently understood. This study aimed to examine the extent of IPC omissions among nurses and identify contributing factors using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).
methodsAn explanatory sequential mixed-methods study was conducted at a tertiary hospital in China from October to December 2023. Quantitatively, 397 nurses completed a survey assessing IPC omissions using the Missed Nursing Care in Infection Prevention and Control (MNCIPC) scale. Qualitatively, semi-structured interviews were performed to further explored the causes and mechanisms of IPC omissions, and the data were analyzed using the CFIR framework.
resultsIPC omissions were common among nurses and varied substantially across practices, with omission rates ranging from 10.8% to 72.8%. A bipolar pattern in hand hygiene emerged: most nurses reported performing hand hygiene after gown removal or body fluid exposure, whereas omissions were frequently reported before patient contact and after touching patient surroundings. Agreement on the proposed contributing factors was low to moderate. The qualitative findings corroborated most of the quantitative factors and further expanded determinants across CFIR domains, including unequal nurse-physician accountability, risk perception bias, evidence-practice gaps, and limited authority of infection control personnel.
conclusionIPC omissions among nurses were common and were shaped by interacting individual, contextual, and implementation-related factors, indicating a system-sensitive subtype of missed care. Improving IPC adherence requires shifting from individual blame to systems-based strategies that strengthen leadership, accountability, adaptive implementation, and context-sensitive training.
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.