Jackson S Musuuza1, Ann Schoofs Hundt2, Pascale Carayon2, Karly Christensen3, Caitlyn Ngam3, Nicholas Haun1, Nasia Safdar1. 1. Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health,Madison,Wisconsin. 2. Center for Quality and Productivity Improvement,University of Wisconsin-Madison,Madison,Wisconsin. 3. Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health,Madison,Wisconsin.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Clostridioides difficile (C. difficile) poses a major challenge to the healthcare system. We assessed factors that should be considered when designing subprocesses of a C. difficile infection (CDI) prevention bundle. DESIGN: Phenomenological qualitative study. METHODS: We conducted 3 focus groups of environmental services (EVS) staff, physicians, and nurses to assess their perspectives on a CDI prevention bundle. We used the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model to examine 5 subprocesses of the CDI bundle: diagnostic testing, empiric isolation, contact isolation, hand hygiene, and environmental disinfection. We coded transcripts to the 5 SEIPS elements and ensured scientific rigor. We sought to determine common, unique, and conflicting factors across stakeholder groups and subprocesses of the CDI bundle. RESULTS: Each focus group lasted 1.5 hours on average. Common work-system barriers included inconsistencies in knowledge and practice of CDI management procedures; increased workload; poor setup of aspects of the physical environment (eg, inconvenient location of sinks); and inconsistencies in CDI documentation. Unique barriers and facilitators were related to specific activities performed by the stakeholder group. For instance, algorithmic approaches used by physicians facilitated timely diagnosis of CDI. Conflicting barriers or facilitators were related to opposing objectives; for example, clinicians needed rapid placement of a patient in a room while EVS staff needed time to disinfect the room. CONCLUSIONS: A systems engineering approach can help to holistically identify factors that influence successful implementation of subprocesses of infection prevention bundles.
OBJECTIVE:Clostridioides difficile (C. difficile) poses a major challenge to the healthcare system. We assessed factors that should be considered when designing subprocesses of a C. difficileinfection (CDI) prevention bundle. DESIGN: Phenomenological qualitative study. METHODS: We conducted 3 focus groups of environmental services (EVS) staff, physicians, and nurses to assess their perspectives on a CDI prevention bundle. We used the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model to examine 5 subprocesses of the CDI bundle: diagnostic testing, empiric isolation, contact isolation, hand hygiene, and environmental disinfection. We coded transcripts to the 5 SEIPS elements and ensured scientific rigor. We sought to determine common, unique, and conflicting factors across stakeholder groups and subprocesses of the CDI bundle. RESULTS: Each focus group lasted 1.5 hours on average. Common work-system barriers included inconsistencies in knowledge and practice of CDI management procedures; increased workload; poor setup of aspects of the physical environment (eg, inconvenient location of sinks); and inconsistencies in CDI documentation. Unique barriers and facilitators were related to specific activities performed by the stakeholder group. For instance, algorithmic approaches used by physicians facilitated timely diagnosis of CDI. Conflicting barriers or facilitators were related to opposing objectives; for example, clinicians needed rapid placement of a patient in a room while EVS staff needed time to disinfect the room. CONCLUSIONS: A systems engineering approach can help to holistically identify factors that influence successful implementation of subprocesses of infection prevention bundles.
Authors: Paul G Shekelle; Peter J Pronovost; Robert M Wachter; Stephanie L Taylor; Sydney M Dy; Robbie Foy; Susanne Hempel; Kathryn M McDonald; John Ovretveit; Lisa V Rubenstein; Alyce S Adams; Peter B Angood; David W Bates; Leonard Bickman; Pascale Carayon; Liam Donaldson; Naihua Duan; Donna O Farley; Trisha Greenhalgh; John Haughom; Eileen T Lake; Richard Lilford; Kathleen N Lohr; Gregg S Meyer; Marlene R Miller; Duncan V Neuhauser; Gery Ryan; Sanjay Saint; Kaveh G Shojania; Stephen M Shortell; David P Stevens; Kieran Walshe Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-05-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: L Clifford McDonald; Dale N Gerding; Stuart Johnson; Johan S Bakken; Karen C Carroll; Susan E Coffin; Erik R Dubberke; Kevin W Garey; Carolyn V Gould; Ciaran Kelly; Vivian Loo; Julia Shaklee Sammons; Thomas J Sandora; Mark H Wilcox Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2018-03-19 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Caitlyn Ngam; Ann Schoofs Hundt; Nicholas Haun; Pascale Carayon; Linda Stevens; Nasia Safdar Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2017-09-19 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Sarah Tschudin-Sutter; Jean-Christophe Lucet; Nico T Mutters; Evelina Tacconelli; Jean Ralph Zahar; Stephan Harbarth Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2017-07-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Elise M Martin; Brandy Bryant; Tristan R Grogan; Zachary A Rubin; Dana L Russell; David Elashoff; Daniel Z Uslan Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Ashley E Kates; Mary Jo Knobloch; Ali Konkel; Amanda Young; Andrew Steinberger; John Shutske; Pamela L Ruegg; Ajay K Sethi; Tony Goldberg; Juliana Leite de Campos; Garret Suen; Nasia Safdar Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ashley E Kates; Mary Jo Knobloch; Ali Konkel; Amanda Young; Andrew Steinberger; John Shutske; Pamela L Ruegg; Ajay K Sethi; Tony Goldberg; Juliana Leite de Campos; Garret Suen; Nasia Safdar Journal: medRxiv Date: 2020-11-03