Identifying, deconstructing, and deimplementing low-value infection control and prevention interventions

McKay, Virginia; Kwon, Jennie H.

doi:10.1017/ice.2023.53

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 14 Making implementation tools and other practical resources widely available can assist IPC programs in their efforts to follow evidence-based guidelines and mitigate IPC program gaps. 15 , 16 However, there is a paucity of studies evaluating the resources needed by infection preventionists and other IPC program leaders in CAHs to mitigate IPC gaps. This study focuses on identifying the resources and tools needed to address IPC gaps in CAHs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resources needed by critical access hospitals to address identified infection prevention and control program gaps

Soma,

Scebold,

Vasa

et al. 2024

ASHE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The study examined resources needed by Infection Preventionists (IP) to address infection prevention and control (IPC) program gaps. Design: A 49-question survey. Setting: Licensed Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs) in Federal Emergency Management Area (FEMA) Region VII. Participants: IP at licensed CAHs. Methods: The survey conducted between December 2020 and January 2021 consisted of questions focusing on four categories including IPC program infrastructure, competency-based training, audit and feedback, and identification of high-risk pathogens/serious communicable diseases (HRP/SCD). An IPC score was calculated for each facility by totaling “Yes” responses (which indicate best practices) to 49 main survey questions. Follow-up questions explored the resources needed by the CAHs to implement or further strengthen best practices and mitigate IPC practice gaps. Welch t-test was used to study differences in IPC practice scores between states. Results: 50 of 259 (19.3%) CAHs participated in the survey with 37 (14.3%) answering all 49 questions. CAHs responding to all questions had a median IPC score of 35. There was no significant difference between IPC practice scores of CAHs in NE and IA. The top three IPC gaps were absence of drug diversion program (77%), lack of audits and feedback for insertion and maintenance of central venous catheters (76%), and missing laboratory risk assessments to identify tests that can be offered safely for patients under investigation for HRP/SCD (76%). Standardized audit tools, educational resources, and staff training materials were cited as much-needed resources. Conclusion: IPC practice gaps exist in CAHs. Various resources are needed for gap mitigation.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resources needed by critical access hospitals to address identified infection prevention and control program gaps

Soma,

Scebold,

Vasa

et al. 2024

ASHE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Healthcare worker protection against mpox contamination: position paper of the French Society for Hospital Hygiene

Decousser,

Romano-Bertrand,

Aho Glele

et al. 2023

Journal of Hospital Infection

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Are Contact Precautions “Essential” for the Prevention of Healthcare-associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus?

Diekema,

Nori,

Stevens

et al. 2023

Clinical Infectious Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recently updated SHEA/IDSA/APIC practice recommendations for MRSA prevention in acute care facilities list contact precautions (CP) for patients known to be infected or colonized with MRSA as an “essential practice”, meaning that it should be adopted in all acute care facilities. We argue that existing evidence on benefits and harms associated with CP do not justify this recommendation. There are no controlled trials that support broad use of CP for MRSA prevention. Data from hospitals that have discontinued CP for MRSA have found no impact on MRSA acquisition or infection. The burden and harms of CP remain concerning, including the environmental impact of increased gown and glove use. We suggest that CP be included among other “additional approaches” to MRSA prevention that can be implemented under specific circumstances (e.g. outbreaks, evidence of ongoing transmission despite application of essential practices).

show abstract

Identifying, deconstructing, and deimplementing low-value infection control and prevention interventions

Cited by 3 publications

References 11 publications

Resources needed by critical access hospitals to address identified infection prevention and control program gaps

Resources needed by critical access hospitals to address identified infection prevention and control program gaps

Healthcare worker protection against mpox contamination: position paper of the French Society for Hospital Hygiene

Are Contact Precautions “Essential” for the Prevention of Healthcare-associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About