ArticleBMJ open quality2026
Australian and New Zealand nurses' understanding and application of aseptic technique in clinical contexts: a cross-sectional mixed-method study.
Article in BMJ open quality, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAseptic technique remains fundamental in nursing practice and is essential in reducing hospital-acquired infections. Research shows that opportunities for nurses to update their knowledge and skills of aseptic technique are limited, and understanding of core principles can be inconsistent across healthcare and educational settings. Our aim was to capture the current understanding and application of aseptic technique among nurses in Australia and New Zealand.
methodWe undertook a cross-sectional mixed-method survey design. Registered and enrolled nurses working in Australian or New Zealand healthcare or nursing education facilities were eligible to participate and were recruited between December 2024 and February 2025. Participants completed an anonymous online survey, informed by outcomes of a scoping review and adapted from existing surveys. Descriptive analysis was performed, with thematic analysis undertaken for open-ended questions.
resultsIn total 328 responses were received, primarily from Australia (n=275) and New Zealand (n=53). Respondents were predominantly from the public sector (62%), with 65% having more than 10 years of experience. While nearly all recognised the importance of aseptic technique for infection prevention, considerable variation was evident in how principles were described and applied. Terminology such as 'clean', 'sterile' and 'aseptic' was commonly misunderstood, and 48% of participants were unsure if their facility used a framework to guide aseptic technique. Less than half (47.2%) of nurses reported being reassessed on their aseptic technique skills in the past 5 years.
conclusionsThese findings reveal variability in nurses' understanding and practice of aseptic technique, highlighting opportunities for system-level improvement. Establishing standardised, evidence-based definitions and principles, supported by governance, may strengthen education, policy and clinical practice and promote patient safety. Further research is needed to reach a consensus on these definitions and principles.
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.