Literature DB >> 24602781

Educational interventions for preventing vascular catheter bloodstream infections in critical care: evidence map, systematic review and economic evaluation.

Geoff K Frampton1, Petra Harris1, Keith Cooper1, Tracey Cooper2, Jennifer Cleland3, Jeremy Jones1, Jonathan Shepherd1, Andrew Clegg1, Nicholas Graves4, Karen Welch1, Brian H Cuthbertson5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Bloodstream infections resulting from intravascular catheters (catheter-BSI) in critical care increase patients' length of stay, morbidity and mortality, and the management of these infections and their complications has been estimated to cost the NHS annually £19.1-36.2M. Catheter-BSI are thought to be largely preventable using educational interventions, but guidance as to which types of intervention might be most clinically effective is lacking.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of educational interventions for preventing catheter-BSI in critical care units in England. DATA SOURCES: Sixteen electronic bibliographic databases - including MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), EMBASE and The Cochrane Library databases - were searched from database inception to February 2011, with searches updated in March 2012. Bibliographies of systematic reviews and related papers were screened and experts contacted to identify any additional references. REVIEW
METHODS: References were screened independently by two reviewers using a priori selection criteria. A descriptive map was created to summarise the characteristics of relevant studies. Further selection criteria developed in consultation with the project Advisory Group were used to prioritise a subset of studies relevant to NHS practice and policy for systematic review. A decision-analytic economic model was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of educational interventions for preventing catheter-BSI.
RESULTS: Seventy-four studies were included in the descriptive map, of which 24 were prioritised for systematic review. Studies have predominantly been conducted in the USA, using single-cohort before-and-after study designs. Diverse types of educational intervention appear effective at reducing the incidence density of catheter-BSI (risk ratios statistically significantly < 1.0), but single lectures were not effective. The economic model showed that implementing an educational intervention in critical care units in England would be cost-effective and potentially cost-saving, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios under worst-case sensitivity analyses of < £5000/quality-adjusted life-year. LIMITATIONS: Low-quality primary studies cannot definitively prove that the planned interventions were responsible for observed changes in catheter-BSI incidence. Poor reporting gave unclear estimates of risk of bias. Some model parameters were sourced from other locations owing to a lack of UK data.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that it would be cost-effective and may be cost-saving for the NHS to implement educational interventions in critical care units. However, more robust primary studies are needed to exclude the possible influence of secular trends on observed reductions in catheter-BSI. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study is registered with PROSPERO as CRD42012001840. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24602781      PMCID: PMC4781186          DOI: 10.3310/hta18150

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Technol Assess        ISSN: 1366-5278            Impact factor:   4.014


  9 in total

1.  epic3: national evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in NHS hospitals in England.

Authors:  H P Loveday; J A Wilson; R J Pratt; M Golsorkhi; A Tingle; A Bak; J Browne; J Prieto; M Wilcox
Journal:  J Hosp Infect       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 3.926

Review 2.  Evidence-based measures to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infections: a systematic review.

Authors:  Daniele Cristina Perin; Alacoque Lorenzini Erdmann; Giovana Dorneles Callegaro Higashi; Grace Teresinha Marcon Dal Sasso
Journal:  Rev Lat Am Enfermagem       Date:  2016-09-01

Review 3.  Infection risks associated with peripheral vascular catheters.

Authors:  Li Zhang; Siyu Cao; Nicole Marsh; Gillian Ray-Barruel; Julie Flynn; Emily Larsen; Claire M Rickard
Journal:  J Infect Prev       Date:  2016-07-06

Review 4.  Promoting professional behaviour change in healthcare: what interventions work, and why? A theory-led overview of systematic reviews.

Authors:  Mark J Johnson; Carl R May
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-09-30       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 5.  Disinfection of Needleless Connector Hubs: Clinical Evidence Systematic Review.

Authors:  Nancy L Moureau; Julie Flynn
Journal:  Nurs Res Pract       Date:  2015-05-14

Review 6.  What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products.

Authors:  Isomi M Miake-Lye; Susanne Hempel; Roberta Shanman; Paul G Shekelle
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2016-02-10

Review 7.  Digital tools for the recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a systematic map.

Authors:  Geoff K Frampton; Jonathan Shepherd; Karen Pickett; Gareth Griffiths; Jeremy C Wyatt
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2020-06-05       Impact factor: 2.279

8.  A comparison of two methods of treatment for central catheter tunnel phlegmon in home parenteral nutrition patients.

Authors:  Michał Ławiński; Karol Forysiński; Agnieszka Bzikowska; Justyna Z Kostro; Aleksandra Gradowska; Marek Pertkiewicz
Journal:  Prz Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-02-08

Review 9.  Peer review of health research funding proposals: A systematic map and systematic review of innovations for effectiveness and efficiency.

Authors:  Jonathan Shepherd; Geoff K Frampton; Karen Pickett; Jeremy C Wyatt
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-05-11       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.