Interventions for preventing or controlling health care–associated infection among health care workers or patients within primary care facilities: A scoping review - 18/03/24
, Deepti KC, MN a, John Butcher, PhD a, Mark Molesworth, PhD a, Katie Davis, PhD a, Lisa Barr, MSc a, Carlotta DiBari, MSc b, Laure Mortgat, MD b, Miranda Deeves, MPH c, Kavita U. Kothari, MSc d, Julie Storr, MHS c, Benedetta Allegranzi, PhD c, Jacqui Reilly, PhD a, Lesley Price, PhD aRésumé |
Background |
This review aimed to synthesize the evidence on infection prevention and control interventions for the prevention of health care–associated infection among health care workers or patients within primary care facilities.
Methods |
PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched for quantitative studies published between 2011 and 2022. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment using Cochrane and Joanna Briggs tools, were conducted by independent review with additional sensitivity checking performed on study selection.
Results |
Four studies were included. A randomized trial and a cross-sectional survey, respectively, found no statistical difference in laboratory-confirmed influenza in health care workers wearing N95 versus medical masks (P = .18) and a significant inverse association between the implementation of tuberculosis control measures and tuberculosis incidence (P = .02). For the prevention of surgical site infections following minor surgery, randomized trials found nonsterile gloves (8.7%; 95% confidence interval, 4.9%-12.6%) to be noninferior to sterile gloves (9.3%; 95% confidence interval, 7.4%-11.1%) and no significant difference between prophylactic antibiotics compared to placebo (P = .064). All studies had a high risk of bias.
Conclusions |
Evidence for infection prevention and control interventions for the prevention of health care–associated infection in primary care is very limited and insufficient to make practice recommendations. Nevertheless, the findings highlight the need for future research.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Highlights |
• | Evidence on IPC interventions for the prevention of HAI in primary care is very limited. |
• | Interventions were heterogeneous and all studies were assessed as high risk of bias. |
• | There is a need for well-designed studies and improved reporting. |
• | Specific case definitions of HAI in primary care are needed. |
Key Words : Infection prevention and control, Healthcare facilities, HAI, Primary healthcare
Plan
| Funding/support: This review was supported by funding from the WHO (2021/1194919-0). Glasgow Caledonian University was responsible for conducting and sponsoring this review. |
|
| Conflicts of interest: LP, LG and JR report a grant from WHO to do the study. Furthermore, JR is employed as a Director in National Health Services Scotland and a holds a role of a Trustee/ Non-executive director of the Florence Nightingale Foundation (unpaid). JR also reports support from the Infection Prevention Society for attending the annual Infection Prevention conference. LM and CDiB report receiving funding from WHO for the Sciensano team to conduct a literature review on the burden of HAI and AMR in primary care, which was related to the review reported in this manuscript. A shared search strategy was developed for both reviews through collaboration between the Sciensano (LM and CDiB) and Glasgow Caledonian University (LP, LG and JR). The remaining authors (DKC, JB, MM, KD, LB, MD, KUK, JS, BA) do not report any declaration of interest. |
Vol 52 - N° 4
P. 479-487 - avril 2024 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?
