Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Feb;41(2):100-6.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2012.10.007.

Perceived strength of evidence supporting practices to prevent health care-associated infection: results from a national survey of infection prevention personnel

Affiliations

Perceived strength of evidence supporting practices to prevent health care-associated infection: results from a national survey of infection prevention personnel

Sanjay Saint et al. Am J Infect Control. 2013 Feb.

Abstract

Background: Limited data exist describing the perceived strength of evidence behind practices to prevent common health care-associated infections (HAIs). We conducted a national survey of infection prevention personnel to assess perception of the evidence for various preventive practices. We were also curious whether lead infection preventionist certification in infection prevention and control (CIC) correlated with perceptions of the evidence.

Methods: In 2009, we mailed surveys to 703 infection prevention personnel using a national random sample of US hospitals and all Veterans Affairs hospitals; the response rate was 68%. The survey asked the respondent to grade the strength of evidence behind prevention practices. We considered "strong" evidence as being 4 and 5 on a Likert scale. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed associations between CIC status and the perceived strength of the evidence.

Results: The following practices were perceived by 90% or more of respondents as having strong evidence: alcohol-based hand rub, aseptic urinary catheter insertion, chlorhexidine for antisepsis prior to central venous catheter insertion, maximum sterile barriers during central venous catheter insertion, avoiding the femoral site for central venous catheter insertion, and semirecumbent positioning of the ventilated patient. CIC status was significantly associated with the perception of the evidence for several practices.

Conclusion: Successful implementation of evidence-based practices should consider how key individuals in the translational process assess the strength of that evidence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Perception of Strength of Evidence for General Infection Prevention Practices
Figure 2
Figure 2
Perception of Strength of Evidence for CAUTI Prevention Practices
Figure 3
Figure 3
Perception of Strength of Evidence for CLABSI Prevention Practices
Figure 4
Figure 4
Perception of Strength of Evidence for VAP Prevention Practices

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. O’Grady NP, Alexander M, Burns LA, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Am J Infect Control. 2011;39(4 Suppl 1):S1–34. - PubMed
    1. Gould CV, Umscheid CA, Agarwal RK, Kuntz G, Pegues DA. Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guideline for prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections 2009. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31(4):319–326. - PubMed
    1. Casey AL, Mermel LA, Nightingale P, Elliott TS. Antimicrobial central venous catheters in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2008;8(12):763–776. - PubMed
    1. Lo E, Nicolle L, Classen D, et al. Strategies to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections in acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008;29(Suppl 1):S41–50. - PubMed
    1. Hooton TM, Bradley SF, Cardenas DD, et al. Diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of catheter-associated urinary tract infection in adults: 2009 International Clinical Practice Guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50(5):625–663. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms