Lesley Price1, Jacqui Reilly1, Jon Godwin1, Shona Cairns2, Susan Hopkins3, Barry Cookson4, William Malcolm2, Gareth Hughes3, Outi Lyytikäinen5, Bruno Coignard6, Sonja Hansen7. 1. Institute for Applied Health Research, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK. 2. Health Protection Scotland, National Services Scotland, Glasgow, UK. 3. Public Health England, Newcastle, UK. 4. University College London, UK. 5. National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland. 6. Institut de Veille Sanitaire, Saint-Maurice cedex, France. 7. Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Statistical measurements alone are insufficient to ensure robust data for point prevalence surveys (PPS) of healthcare-associated infections (HAI). Data quality is determined by the type of data, data collection methods and available resources. Data collectors' views regarding the acceptability of data collection process for validation studies are also important to consider. AIM: To explore data collectors' views on the acceptability of data collection processes used for a European validation PPS of HAI and antimicrobial use (AMU). METHODS: An anonymous online survey was conducted with 67 data collectors from 10 European countries involved in the study. FINDINGS: Twenty-five (64.1%) participants viewed AMU data collection as easy/quite easy whereas only five (12.8%) thought HAI data collection was easy/quite easy. Six (17%) participants indicated that incentives and 21 (56.8%) that disincentives were possibly/definitely present for reporting cases of HAI. Engagement of staff was not thought to have adversely affected data collection as only one (2.6%) and five (15.4%) participants thought involvement of hospital PPS teams and administration was low/very low, respectively. DISCUSSION: Participants believed the approaches used were appropriate but that more training was required prior to data collection, some case definitions should be reviewed and the number of variables reduced.
BACKGROUND: Statistical measurements alone are insufficient to ensure robust data for point prevalence surveys (PPS) of healthcare-associated infections (HAI). Data quality is determined by the type of data, data collection methods and available resources. Data collectors' views regarding the acceptability of data collection process for validation studies are also important to consider. AIM: To explore data collectors' views on the acceptability of data collection processes used for a European validation PPS of HAI and antimicrobial use (AMU). METHODS: An anonymous online survey was conducted with 67 data collectors from 10 European countries involved in the study. FINDINGS: Twenty-five (64.1%) participants viewed AMU data collection as easy/quite easy whereas only five (12.8%) thought HAI data collection was easy/quite easy. Six (17%) participants indicated that incentives and 21 (56.8%) that disincentives were possibly/definitely present for reporting cases of HAI. Engagement of staff was not thought to have adversely affected data collection as only one (2.6%) and five (15.4%) participants thought involvement of hospital PPS teams and administration was low/very low, respectively. DISCUSSION: Participants believed the approaches used were appropriate but that more training was required prior to data collection, some case definitions should be reviewed and the number of variables reduced.
Entities:
Keywords:
Healthcare-associated infection (HAI); acceptability; antimicrobial use (AMU); point prevalence survey (PPS)
Authors: I Zuschneid; C Geffers; D Sohr; C Kohlhase; M Schumacher; H Ruden; P Gastmeier Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2007-03-16 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Eileen R Sherman; Kateri H Heydon; Keith H St John; Eva Teszner; Susan L Rettig; Sharon K Alexander; Theoklis Z Zaoutis; Susan E Coffin Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2006-03-29 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: D O Duerink; D Roeshadi; H Wahjono; E S Lestari; U Hadi; J C Wille; R M De Jong; N J D Nagelkerke; P J Van den Broek Journal: J Hosp Infect Date: 2005-11-22 Impact factor: 3.926
Authors: J S Reilly; L Price; J Godwin; S Cairns; S Hopkins; B Cookson; W Malcolm; G Hughes; O Lyytikainen; B Coignard; S Hansen; C Suetens Journal: Euro Surveill Date: 2015-02-26
Authors: P Gastmeier; G Kampf; N Wischnewski; T Hauer; G Schulgen; M Schumacher; F Daschner; H Rüden Journal: J Hosp Infect Date: 1998-01 Impact factor: 3.926
Authors: Andrea Gentili; Marcello Di Pumpo; Daniele Ignazio La Milia; Doriana Vallone; Gino Vangi; Maria Incoronata Corbo; Filippo Berloco; Andrea Cambieri; Gianfranco Damiani; Walter Ricciardi; Patrizia Laurenti Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-22 Impact factor: 3.390