Patricia W Stone1, Monika Pogorzelska-Maziarz2, Julie Reagan3, Jacqueline A Merrill4, Brad Sperber5, Catherine Cairns6, Matthew Penn7, Tara Ramanathan8, Elizabeth Mothershed9, Elizabeth Skillen10. 1. School of Nursing, Center for Health Policy, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA. 2. Jefferson School of Nursing, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 3. Jiann-Ping Hsu College of Public Health, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia, USA. 4. Center for Health Policy, Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, New York, USA. 5. Center for Health Policy, The Keystone Center, Washington, District of Columbia, USA. 6. Center for Health Policy, Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO), Arlington, Virginia, USA. 7. Office for State, Tribal, Local, and Territorial Support, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA Public Health Law Program, Office for State, Tribal, Local, and Territorial Support, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 8. Public Health Law Program, Office for State, Tribal, Local, and Territorial Support, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 9. Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 10. Office of Associate Director for Policy, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are preventable. Globally, laws aimed at reducing HAIs have been implemented. In the USA, these laws are at the federal and state levels. It is not known whether the state interventions are more effective than the federal incentives alone. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to explore the impact federal and state HAI laws have on state departments of health and hospital stakeholders in the USA and to explore similarities and differences in perceptions across states. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted. In 2012, we conducted semistructured interviews with key stakeholders from states with and without state-level laws to gain multiple perspectives. Interviews were transcribed and open coding was conducted. Data were analysed using content analysis and collected until theoretical saturation was achieved. RESULTS: Ninety interviews were conducted with stakeholders from 12 states (6 states with laws and 6 states without laws). We found an increase in state-level collaboration. The publicly reported data helped hospitals benchmark and focus leaders on HAI prevention. There were concerns about the publicly reported data (eg, lack of validation and timeliness). Resource needs were also identified. No major differences were expressed by interviewees from states with and without laws. CONCLUSIONS: While we could not tease out the impact of specific interventions, increased collaboration between departments of health and their partners is occurring. Harmonisation of HAI definitions and reporting between state and federal laws would minimise reporting burden. Continued monitoring of the progress of HAI prevention is needed. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
BACKGROUND: Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are preventable. Globally, laws aimed at reducing HAIs have been implemented. In the USA, these laws are at the federal and state levels. It is not known whether the state interventions are more effective than the federal incentives alone. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to explore the impact federal and state HAI laws have on state departments of health and hospital stakeholders in the USA and to explore similarities and differences in perceptions across states. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted. In 2012, we conducted semistructured interviews with key stakeholders from states with and without state-level laws to gain multiple perspectives. Interviews were transcribed and open coding was conducted. Data were analysed using content analysis and collected until theoretical saturation was achieved. RESULTS: Ninety interviews were conducted with stakeholders from 12 states (6 states with laws and 6 states without laws). We found an increase in state-level collaboration. The publicly reported data helped hospitals benchmark and focus leaders on HAI prevention. There were concerns about the publicly reported data (eg, lack of validation and timeliness). Resource needs were also identified. No major differences were expressed by interviewees from states with and without laws. CONCLUSIONS: While we could not tease out the impact of specific interventions, increased collaboration between departments of health and their partners is occurring. Harmonisation of HAI definitions and reporting between state and federal laws would minimise reporting burden. Continued monitoring of the progress of HAI prevention is needed. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: Denise M Murphy; Marilyn Hanchett; Russell N Olmsted; Michelle R Farber; Terri B Lee; Janet P Haas; Stephen A Streed Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Thomas Haustein; Petra Gastmeier; Alison Holmes; Jean-Christophe Lucet; Richard P Shannon; Didier Pittet; Stephan Harbarth Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Grace M Lee; Ken Kleinman; Stephen B Soumerai; Alison Tse; David Cole; Scott K Fridkin; Teresa Horan; Richard Platt; Charlene Gay; William Kassler; Donald A Goldmann; John Jernigan; Ashish K Jha Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-10-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Katherine Ellingson; Kelly McCormick; Ronda Sinkowitz-Cochran; Tiffanee Woodard; John Jernigan; Arjun Srinivasan; Kimberly Rask Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Laurie J Conway; Victoria H Raveis; Monika Pogorzelska-Maziarz; May Uchida; Patricia W Stone; Elaine L Larson Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2013-07-20 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Shelley S Magill; Jonathan R Edwards; Wendy Bamberg; Zintars G Beldavs; Ghinwa Dumyati; Marion A Kainer; Ruth Lynfield; Meghan Maloney; Laura McAllister-Hollod; Joelle Nadle; Susan M Ray; Deborah L Thompson; Lucy E Wilson; Scott K Fridkin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-03-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Monika Pogorzelska-Maziarz; Pamela B de Cordova; Carolyn T A Herzig; Andrew Dick; Julie Reagan; Patricia W Stone Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2018-10-12 Impact factor: 2.918