Dataset Information

Implementation methods of infection prevention measures in orthopedics and traumatology - a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Prevention of hospital-acquired infections, in the clinical field of orthopedics and traumatology especially surgical site infections, is one of the major concerns of patients and physicians alike. Many studies have been conducted proving effective infection prevention measures. The clinical setting, however, requires strategies to transform this knowledge into practice.

Question/purpose

As part of the HYGArzt-Project ("Proof Of Effectivity And Efficiency Of Implementation Of Infection Prevention (IP) Measures By The Physician Responsible For Infection Prevention Matters In Traumatology/Orthopedics"), the objective of this study was to identify effective implementation strategies for IP (infection prevention) measures in orthopedics and trauma surgery.

Methods

The systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. A review protocol was drafted prior to the literature search (not registered). Literature search was performed in MEDLINE, SCOPUS and COCHRANE between January 01, 1950 and June 01, 2019. We searched for all papers dealing with infection and infection control measures in orthopedics and traumatology, which were then scanned for implementation contents. All study designs were considered eligible. Exclusion criteria were language other than English or German and insufficient reporting of implementation methods. Analyzed outcome parameters were study design, patient cohort, infection prevention measure, implementation methods, involved personnel, reported outcome of the studies and study period.

Results

The literature search resulted in 8414 citations. 13 records were eligible for analysis (all published between 2001 and 2019). Studies were primarily prospective cohort studies featuring various designs and including single IP measures to multi-measure IP bundles. Described methods of implementation were heterogeneous. Main outcome parameters were increase of adherence (iA) to infection prevention (IP) measures or decrease in surgical site infection rate (dSSI%). Positive results were reported in 11 out of 13 studies. Successful implementation methods were building of a multidisciplinary team (considered in 8 out of 11 successful studies [concerning dSSI% in 5 studies, concerning iA in five studies]), standardization of guidelines (considered in 10/11 successful studies [concerning dSSI% in 5 studies, concerning iA in seven studies]), printed or electronic information material (for patient and/or staff; considered in 9/11 successful studies [concerning dSSI% 4/4, concerning iA 5/5]), audits and regular meetings, personal training and other interactive measures as well as regular feedback (considered in 7/11 successful studies each). Personnel most frequently involved were physicians (of those, most frequently surgeons) and nursing professions.

Conclusion

Although evidence was scarce and quality-inconsistent, we found that adhering to a set of implementation methods focusing on interdisciplinary and interactive /interpersonal work might be an advisable strategy when planning IP improvement interventions in orthopedics and traumatology.

SUBMITTER: Marche B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8321980 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) affect patients in acute-care hospitals worldwide. No systematic review has been published on adoption and implementation of the infection prevention and control (IPC) key components. The objective of this systematic review was to assess adoption and implementation of the three areas issued by the "National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China" in acute-care hospitals in Mainland China, and to compare the findings with the key and core components on effective IPC, issued by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO).MethodsWe searched PubMed and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure for reports on the areas "structure, organisation and management of IPC", "education and training in IPC", and "surveillance of outcome and process indicators in IPC" in acute-care facilities in Mainland China, published between January 2012 and October 2017. Results were stratified into primary care hospitals and secondary/tertiary care hospitals.ResultsA total of 6580 publications were retrieved, of which 56 were eligible for final analysis. Most of them were survey reports (n?=?27), followed by observational studies (n?=?17), and interventional studies (n?=?12), either on hand hygiene promotion and best practice interventions (n?=?7), or by applying education and training programmes (n?=?5). More elements on IPC were reported by secondary/tertiary care hospitals than by primary care hospitals. Gaps were identified in the lack of detailing on organisation and management of IPC, education and training activities, and targets of surveillance such as central line-associated bloodstream infections, ventilator associated pneumonia, catheter-associated urinary tract infections, and Clostridium difficile infections. Information was available on adoption and implementation of 7 out of the 10 ECDC key components, and 7 out of the 8 WHO core components.ConclusionTo variable degrees, there is evidence on implementation of all NHCPRC areas and of most of the ECDC key components and the WHO core components in acute care hospitals in Mainland China. The results are encouraging, but gaps in effective IPC were identified that may be used to guide future national policy-making in Mainland China.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Implementation science is the study of strategies used to integrate evidence-based practices into real-world settings (Eccles and Mittman, Implement Sci. 1(1):1, 2006). Central to the identification of replicable, feasible, and effective implementation strategies is the ability to assess the impact of contextual constructs and intervention characteristics that may influence implementation, but several measurement issues make this work quite difficult. For instance, it is unclear which constructs have no measures and which measures have any evidence of psychometric properties like reliability and validity. As part of a larger set of studies to advance implementation science measurement (Lewis et al., Implement Sci. 10:102, 2015), we will complete systematic reviews of measures that map onto the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (Damschroder et al., Implement Sci. 4:50, 2009) and the Implementation Outcomes Framework (Proctor et al., Adm Policy Ment Health. 38(2):65-76, 2011), the protocol for which is described in this manuscript. METHODS:Our primary databases will be PubMed and Embase. Our search strings will be comprised of five levels: (1) the outcome or construct term; (2) terms for measure; (3) terms for evidence-based practice; (4) terms for implementation; and (5) terms for mental health. Two trained research specialists will independently review all titles and abstracts followed by full-text review for inclusion. The research specialists will then conduct measure-forward searches using the "cited by" function to identify all published empirical studies using each measure. The measure and associated publications will be compiled in a packet for data extraction. Data relevant to our Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale (PAPERS) will be independently extracted and then rated using a worst score counts methodology reflecting "poor" to "excellent" evidence. DISCUSSION:We will build a centralized, accessible, searchable repository through which researchers, practitioners, and other stakeholders can identify psychometrically and pragmatically strong measures of implementation contexts, processes, and outcomes. By facilitating the employment of psychometrically and pragmatically strong measures identified through this systematic review, the repository would enhance the cumulativeness, reproducibility, and applicability of research findings in the rapidly growing field of implementation science.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite impressive reductions in infectious disease burden within Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), half of the top ten causes of poor health or death in SSA are communicable illnesses. With emerging and re-emerging infections affecting the region, the possibility of healthcare-acquired infections (HAIs) being transmitted to patients and healthcare workers, especially nurses, is a critical concern. Despite infection prevention and control (IPC) evidence-based practices (EBP) to minimize the transmission of HAIs, many healthcare systems in SSA are challenged to implement them. The purpose of this review is to synthesize and critique what is known about implementation strategies to promote IPC for nurses in SSA. METHODS:The databases, PubMed, Ovid/Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and CINHAL, were searched for articles with the following criteria: English language, peer-reviewed, published between 1998 and 2018, implemented in SSA, targeted nurses, and promoted IPC EBPs. Further, 6241 search results were produced and screened for eligibility to identify implementation strategies used to promote IPC for nurses in SSA. A total of 61 articles met the inclusion criteria for the final review. The articles were evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute's (JBI) quality appraisal tools. Results were reported using PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS:Most studies were conducted in South Africa (n?=?18, 30%), within the last 18 years (n?=?41, 67%), and utilized a quasi-experimental design (n?=?22, 36%). Few studies (n?=?14, 23%) had sample populations comprising nurses only. The majority of studies focused on administrative precautions (n?=?36, 59%). The most frequent implementation strategies reported were education (n?=?59, 97%), quality management (n?=?39, 64%), planning (n?=?33, 54%), and restructure (n?=?32, 53%). Penetration and feasibility were the most common outcomes measured for both EBPs and implementation strategies used to implement the EBPs. The most common MAStARI and MMAT scores were 5 (n?=?19, 31%) and 50% (n?=?3, 4.9%) respectively. CONCLUSIONS:As infectious diseases, especially emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases, continue to challenge healthcare systems in SSA, nurses, the keystones to IPC practice, need to have a better understanding of which, in what combination, and in what context implementation strategies should be best utilized to ensure their safety and that of their patients. Based on the results of this review, it is clear that implementation of IPC EBPs in SSA requires additional research from an implementation science-specific perspective to promote IPC protocols for nurses in SSA.

Project description:BackgroundPublic policy has tremendous impacts on population health. While policy development has been extensively studied, policy implementation research is newer and relies largely on qualitative methods. Quantitative measures are needed to disentangle differential impacts of policy implementation determinants (i.e., barriers and facilitators) and outcomes to ensure intended benefits are realized. Implementation outcomes include acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, compliance/fidelity, feasibility, penetration, sustainability, and costs. This systematic review identified quantitative measures that are used to assess health policy implementation determinants and outcomes and evaluated the quality of these measures.MethodsThree frameworks guided the review: Implementation Outcomes Framework (Proctor et al.), Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (Damschroder et al.), and Policy Implementation Determinants Framework (Bullock et al.). Six databases were searched: Medline, CINAHL Plus, PsycInfo, PAIS, ERIC, and Worldwide Political. Searches were limited to English language, peer-reviewed journal articles published January 1995 to April 2019. Search terms addressed four levels: health, public policy, implementation, and measurement. Empirical studies of public policies addressing physical or behavioral health with quantitative self-report or archival measures of policy implementation with at least two items assessing implementation outcomes or determinants were included. Consensus scoring of the Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale assessed the quality of measures.ResultsDatabase searches yielded 8417 non-duplicate studies, with 870 (10.3%) undergoing full-text screening, yielding 66 studies. From the included studies, 70 unique measures were identified to quantitatively assess implementation outcomes and/or determinants. Acceptability, feasibility, appropriateness, and compliance were the most commonly measured implementation outcomes. Common determinants in the identified measures were organizational culture, implementation climate, and readiness for implementation, each aspects of the internal setting. Pragmatic quality ranged from adequate to good, with most measures freely available, brief, and at high school reading level. Few psychometric properties were reported.ConclusionsWell-tested quantitative measures of implementation internal settings were under-utilized in policy studies. Further development and testing of external context measures are warranted. This review is intended to stimulate measure development and high-quality assessment of health policy implementation outcomes and determinants to help practitioners and researchers spread evidence-informed policies to improve population health.RegistrationNot registered.

Project description:ObjectivesTo systematically document the implementation, components, comparators, adherence, and effectiveness of published fall prevention approaches in U.S. acute care hospitals.DesignSystematic review. Studies were identified through existing reviews, searching five electronic databases, screening reference lists, and contacting topic experts for studies published through August 2011.SettingU.S. acute care hospitals.ParticipantsStudies reporting in-hospital falls for intervention groups and concurrent (e.g., controlled trials) or historic comparators (e.g., before-after studies).InterventionFall prevention interventions.MeasurementsIncidence rate ratios (IRR, ratio of fall rate postintervention or treatment group to the fall rate preintervention or control group) and ratings of study details.ResultsFifty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Implementation strategies were sparsely documented (17% not at all) and included staff education, establishing committees, seeking leadership support, and occasionally continuous quality improvement techniques. Most interventions (81%) included multiple components (e.g., risk assessments (often not validated), visual risk alerts, patient education, care rounds, bed-exit alarms, and postfall evaluations). Fifty-four percent did not report on fall prevention measures applied in the comparison group, and 39% neither reported fidelity data nor described adherence strategies such as regular audits and feedback to ensure completion of care processes. Only 45% of concurrent and 15% of historic control studies reported sufficient data to compare fall rates. The pooled postintervention incidence rate ratio (IRR) was 0.77 (95% confidence interval = 0.52-1.12, P = .17; eight studies; I(2) : 94%). Meta-regressions showed no systematic association between implementation intensity, intervention complexity, comparator information, or adherence levels and IRR.ConclusionPromising approaches exist, but better reporting of outcomes, implementation, adherence, intervention components, and comparison group information is necessary to establish evidence on how hospitals can successfully prevent falls.