BackgroundThe literature is replete with attempts to design and promote customized guidelines to reduce infections during the care continuum. Paradoxically, these efforts sometimes result in gray areas where many staff members are unaware of what is required of them, which then leads to confusion, frustration, and uncertainty.We coined the phrase “gray areas” in this context to encompass the variety of situations on the care continuum that are not addressed in the accepted guidelines, and where staff members are unsure of how to proceed.The purpose of the present study was to characterize the gray areas that were reported by staff and to identify the practices of Positive Deviance (PD) individuals. We define to PD individuals as people who independently develop creative solutions to solve problems not identified by the majority in their community.MethodsA qualitative constructivist research methodology was used that included personal interviews, observations and video recordings of identified PD practices to enhance infection control. The study was conducted January through March 2018, in two Intensive Care Units (ICU) units at Hadassah Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel. Personal interviews were conducted with 82 staff members from the General ICU (GICU) and Medical ICU (MICU).ResultsThe study confirmed that guidelines cannot cover all the different situations that arise during the care continuum and can paradoxically result in the increased spread of hospital infections. Our study found there are numerous individuals who independently develop and implement solutions for gray areas. The creative and practical solutions of PD individuals can address the barriers and difficulties on the care continuum that were encountered by the staff in their communities. For example, inserting a central venous line is a complex practice in the general guidelines, while the PDs provided clear situation-specific solutions not covered in the guidelines.ConclusionsThe recommendations of the present study are to encourage hospital personnel to create their own solutions for various situations on the care continuum, and to disseminate them within their units to achieve a bottom up change, in lieu of investing in new or specific written guidelines.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13756-018-0418-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background In the new media age, the public searches for information both online and offline. Many studies have examined how the public reads and understands this information but very few investigate how people assess the quality of journalistic articles as opposed to information generated by health professionals. Objective The aim of this study was to examine how public health care workers (HCWs) and the general public seek, read, and understand health information and to investigate the criteria by which they assess the quality of journalistic articles. Methods A Web-based nonprobability sampling questionnaire survey was distributed to Israeli HCWs and members of the public via 3 social media outlets: Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram. A total of 979 respondents participated in the online survey via the Qualtrics XM platform. Results The findings indicate that HCWs find academic articles more reliable than do members of the general public (44.4% and 28.4%, respectively, P <.001). Within each group, we found disparities between the places where people search for information and the sources they consider reliable. HCWs consider academic articles to be the most reliable, yet these are not their main information sources. In addition, HCWs often use social networks to search for information (18.2%, P <.001), despite considering them very unreliable (only 2.2% found them reliable, P <.001). The same paradoxes were found among the general public, where 37.5% ( P <.001) seek information via social networks yet only 8.4% ( P <.001) find them reliable. Out of 6 quality criteria, 4 were important both to HCWs and to the general public. Conclusions In the new media age where information is accessible to all, the quality of articles about health is of critical importance. It is important that the criteria examined in this research become the norm in health writing for all stakeholders who write about health, whether they are professional journalists or citizen journalists writing in the new media.

Background The literature examining healthcare-associated infections (HAI) points to two main problems in conforming to infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines among healthcare professionals (HP). One is the discrepancy between HPs’ behavioral intentions and their implementation in practice. The other refers to how HPs maintain these practices after the intervention stage ends. The method proposed in this study seeks to address both these issues by using the Positive Peviance (PD) approach to focus on the dissemination stage of interventions. The study seeks to offer a method for disseminating 27 PD practices to 135 HPs, among them nurses, nurse assistants and physicians, so as to help them maintain IPC guidelines, offer feedback on the dissemination process and examine the impact of the dissemination stage on changes in their behavior. Methods The theoretical model underlying this qualitative research was the Recognition-Primed dDecision (RPD) model, which we implemented in the field of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Moreover, we used the Discovery & Action Dialogue (DAD) and Think Aloud (TA) techniques to describe the methodological development of simulations for HPs. Feedback from the HP demonstrators underwent content analysis, while descriptive statistics were used to characterize behavioral changes. Results HPs’ information processing regarding infection prevention shifts from peripheral/automatic processing to intuition and analytical/central processing, turning PD practices into positive norms. The HPs personally experienced finding a solution and made repeated corrections until they overcame the barriers. Most of the HPs (69.4%) reported that the practices were fully implemented, together with additional practices. Conclusions Implementation of the dissemination stage indicates that in order for HPs to integrate and assimilate practices that are not in the official guidelines, merely observing simulations is not sufficient. Rather, each staff member must personally carry out the procedures.

No abstract

BACKGROUND In the new media age, the public searches for information both online and offline. Many studies have examined how the public reads and understands this information but very few investigate how people assess the quality of journalistic articles as opposed to information generated by health professionals. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to examine how public health care workers (HCWs) and the general public seek, read, and understand health information and to investigate the criteria by which they assess the quality of journalistic articles. METHODS A Web-based nonprobability sampling questionnaire survey was distributed to Israeli HCWs and members of the public via 3 social media outlets: Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram. A total of 979 respondents participated in the online survey via the Qualtrics XM platform. RESULTS The findings indicate that HCWs find academic articles more reliable than do members of the general public (44.4% and 28.4%, respectively, P<.001). Within each group, we found disparities between the places where people search for information and the sources they consider reliable. HCWs consider academic articles to be the most reliable, yet these are not their main information sources. In addition, HCWs often use social networks to search for information (18.2%, P<.001), despite considering them very unreliable (only 2.2% found them reliable, P<.001). The same paradoxes were found among the general public, where 37.5% (P<.001) seek information via social networks yet only 8.4% (P<.001) find them reliable. Out of 6 quality criteria, 4 were important both to HCWs and to the general public. CONCLUSIONS In the new media age where information is accessible to all, the quality of articles about health is of critical importance. It is important that the criteria examined in this research become the norm in health writing for all stakeholders who write about health, whether they are professional journalists or citizen journalists writing in the new media.