Blog
About

4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Implementation research for the prevention of antimicrobial resistance and healthcare-associated infections; 2017 Geneva infection prevention and control (IPC)-think tank (part 1)

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Around 5–15% of all hospital patients worldwide suffer from healthcare-associated infections (HAIs), and years of excessive antimicrobial use in human and animal medicine have created emerging antimicrobial resistance (AMR). A considerable amount of evidence-based measures have been published to address these challenges, but the largest challenge seems to be their implementation.

          Methods

          In June 2017, a total of 42 experts convened at the Geneva IPC-Think Tank to discuss four domains in implementation science: 1) teaching implementation skills; 2) fostering implementation of IPC and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) by policy making; 3) national/international actions to foster implementation skills; and 4) translational research bridging social sciences and clinical research in infection prevention and control (IPC) and AMR.

          Results

          Although neglected in the past, implementation skills have become a priority in IPC and AMS. They should now be part of any curriculum in health care, and IPC career paths should be created. Guidelines and policies should be aligned with each other and evidence-based, each document providing a section on implementing elements of IPC and AMS in patient care. International organisations should be advocates for IPC and AMS, framing them as patient safety issues and emphasizing the importance of implementation skills. Healthcare authorities at the national level should adopt a similar approach and provide legal frameworks, guidelines, and resources to allow better implementation of patient safety measures in IPC and AMS. Rather than repeating effectiveness studies in every setting, we should invest in methods to improve the implementation of evidence-based measures in different healthcare contexts. For this, we need to encourage and financially support collaborations between social sciences and clinical IPC research.

          Conclusions

          Experts of the 2017 Geneva Think Tank on IPC and AMS, CDC, and WHO agreed that sustained efforts on implementation of IPC and AMS strategies are required at international, country, and hospital management levels, to provide an adequate multimodal framework that addresses (not exclusively) leadership, resources, education and training for implementing IPC and AMS. Future strategies can build on this agreement to make strategies on IPC and AMS more effective.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science

          Background Many interventions found to be effective in health services research studies fail to translate into meaningful patient care outcomes across multiple contexts. Health services researchers recognize the need to evaluate not only summative outcomes but also formative outcomes to assess the extent to which implementation is effective in a specific setting, prolongs sustainability, and promotes dissemination into other settings. Many implementation theories have been published to help promote effective implementation. However, they overlap considerably in the constructs included in individual theories, and a comparison of theories reveals that each is missing important constructs included in other theories. In addition, terminology and definitions are not consistent across theories. We describe the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR) that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works where and why across multiple contexts. Methods We used a snowball sampling approach to identify published theories that were evaluated to identify constructs based on strength of conceptual or empirical support for influence on implementation, consistency in definitions, alignment with our own findings, and potential for measurement. We combined constructs across published theories that had different labels but were redundant or overlapping in definition, and we parsed apart constructs that conflated underlying concepts. Results The CFIR is composed of five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), 12 constructs were identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect). We present explicit definitions for each construct. Conclusion The CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. It can be used to guide formative evaluations and build the implementation knowledge base across multiple studies and settings.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations.

            This article summarizes an extensive literature review addressing the question, How can we spread and sustain innovations in health service delivery and organization? It considers both content (defining and measuring the diffusion of innovation in organizations) and process (reviewing the literature in a systematic and reproducible way). This article discusses (1) a parsimonious and evidence-based model for considering the diffusion of innovations in health service organizations, (2) clear knowledge gaps where further research should be focused, and (3) a robust and transferable methodology for systematically reviewing health service policy and management. Both the model and the method should be tested more widely in a range of contexts.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Burden of endemic health-care-associated infection in developing countries: systematic review and meta-analysis.

              Health-care-associated infection is the most frequent result of unsafe patient care worldwide, but few data are available from the developing world. We aimed to assess the epidemiology of endemic health-care-associated infection in developing countries. We searched electronic databases and reference lists of relevant papers for articles published 1995-2008. Studies containing full or partial data from developing countries related to infection prevalence or incidence-including overall health-care-associated infection and major infection sites, and their microbiological cause-were selected. We classified studies as low-quality or high-quality according to predefined criteria. Data were pooled for analysis. Of 271 selected articles, 220 were included in the final analysis. Limited data were retrieved from some regions and many countries were not represented. 118 (54%) studies were low quality. In general, infection frequencies reported in high-quality studies were greater than those from low-quality studies. Prevalence of health-care-associated infection (pooled prevalence in high-quality studies, 15·5 per 100 patients [95% CI 12·6-18·9]) was much higher than proportions reported from Europe and the USA. Pooled overall health-care-associated infection density in adult intensive-care units was 47·9 per 1000 patient-days (95% CI 36·7-59·1), at least three times as high as densities reported from the USA. Surgical-site infection was the leading infection in hospitals (pooled cumulative incidence 5·6 per 100 surgical procedures), strikingly higher than proportions recorded in developed countries. Gram-negative bacilli represented the most common nosocomial isolates. Apart from meticillin resistance, noted in 158 of 290 (54%) Staphylococcus aureus isolates (in eight studies), very few articles reported antimicrobial resistance. The burden of health-care-associated infection in developing countries is high. Our findings indicate a need to improve surveillance and infection-control practices. World Health Organization. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +41 22 372 3364 , Walter.Zingg@hcuge.ch
                storrju@who.int
                bip5@cdc.gov
                raheelah.ahmad@imperial.ac.uk
                ccp3@leicester.ac.uk
                e.castro-sanchez@imperial.ac.uk
                tomczyks@rki.de
                kilpatrickc@who.int
                allegranzib@who.int
                dbc0@cdc.gov
                Didier.Pittet@hcuge.ch
                Journal
                Antimicrob Resist Infect Control
                Antimicrob Resist Infect Control
                Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control
                BioMed Central (London )
                2047-2994
                28 May 2019
                28 May 2019
                2019
                : 8
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0721 9812, GRID grid.150338.c, Infection Control Programme and WHO Collaborating Center, , University of Geneva Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, ; 4 Rue Gabrielle Perret-Gentil, 1211, 14 Geneva, Switzerland
                [2 ]ISNI 0000000121633745, GRID grid.3575.4, Infection Prevention and Control Global Unit, , World Health Organization, ; Geneva, Switzerland
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2163 0069, GRID grid.416738.f, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ; Atlanta, GA USA
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2113 8111, GRID grid.7445.2, National Institute for Health Research in Healthcare Associated Infection and Antimicrobial Resistance, , Imperial College London, ; London, UK
                [5 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8411, GRID grid.9918.9, Department of Health Sciences, , University of Leicester, ; Leicester, UK
                Article
                527
                10.1186/s13756-019-0527-1
                6540528
                © The Author(s). 2019

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Comments

                Comment on this article