WHO research agenda on the role of the institutional safety climate for hand hygiene improvement: a Delphi consensus-building study.

IF 5.6 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Ermira Tartari, Julie Storr, Nita Bellare, Claire Kilpatrick, Maryanne McGuckin, Mitchell J Schwaber, Didier Pittet, Benedetta Allegranzi
{"title":"WHO research agenda on the role of the institutional safety climate for hand hygiene improvement: a Delphi consensus-building study.","authors":"Ermira Tartari, Julie Storr, Nita Bellare, Claire Kilpatrick, Maryanne McGuckin, Mitchell J Schwaber, Didier Pittet, Benedetta Allegranzi","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Creating and sustaining an institutional climate conducive to patient and health worker safety is a critical element of successful multimodal hand hygiene improvement strategies aimed at achieving best practices. Repeated WHO global surveys indicate that the institutional safety climate consistently ranks the lowest among various interventions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To develop an international expert consensus on research agenda priorities related to the role of institutional safety climate within the context of a multimodal hand hygiene improvement strategy, we conducted a structured consensus process involving a purposive sample of international experts. A preliminary list of research priorities was formulated following evidence mapping, and subsequently refined through a modified Delphi consensus process involving two rounds. In round 1, survey respondents were asked to rate the importance of each research priority. In round 2, experts reviewed round 1 ratings to reach a consensus (defined as ≥70% agreement) on the final prioritised items to be included in the research agenda. The research priorities were then reviewed and finalised by members of the WHO Technical Advisory Group on Hand Hygiene Research in Healthcare.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 57 invited participants, 50 completed Delphi round 1 (88%), and 48 completed round 2 (96%). Thirty-six research priority statements were included in round 1 across five thematic categories: (1) safety climate; (2) personal accountability for hand hygiene; (3) leadership; (4) patient participation and empowerment and (5) religion and traditions. In round 1, 75% of the items achieved consensus, with 9 statements carried forward to round 2, leading to a final set of 31 prioritised research statements.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This research agenda can be used by researchers, clinicians, policy-makers and funding bodies to address gaps in hand hygiene improvement within the context of an institutional safety climate, thereby enhancing patient and health worker safety globally.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017162","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Creating and sustaining an institutional climate conducive to patient and health worker safety is a critical element of successful multimodal hand hygiene improvement strategies aimed at achieving best practices. Repeated WHO global surveys indicate that the institutional safety climate consistently ranks the lowest among various interventions.

Methods: To develop an international expert consensus on research agenda priorities related to the role of institutional safety climate within the context of a multimodal hand hygiene improvement strategy, we conducted a structured consensus process involving a purposive sample of international experts. A preliminary list of research priorities was formulated following evidence mapping, and subsequently refined through a modified Delphi consensus process involving two rounds. In round 1, survey respondents were asked to rate the importance of each research priority. In round 2, experts reviewed round 1 ratings to reach a consensus (defined as ≥70% agreement) on the final prioritised items to be included in the research agenda. The research priorities were then reviewed and finalised by members of the WHO Technical Advisory Group on Hand Hygiene Research in Healthcare.

Results: Of the 57 invited participants, 50 completed Delphi round 1 (88%), and 48 completed round 2 (96%). Thirty-six research priority statements were included in round 1 across five thematic categories: (1) safety climate; (2) personal accountability for hand hygiene; (3) leadership; (4) patient participation and empowerment and (5) religion and traditions. In round 1, 75% of the items achieved consensus, with 9 statements carried forward to round 2, leading to a final set of 31 prioritised research statements.

Conclusion: This research agenda can be used by researchers, clinicians, policy-makers and funding bodies to address gaps in hand hygiene improvement within the context of an institutional safety climate, thereby enhancing patient and health worker safety globally.

世卫组织关于机构安全氛围对改善手部卫生的作用的研究议程:德尔菲建立共识研究。
背景:营造并维持有利于患者和医务工作者安全的机构氛围,是旨在实现最佳实践的多模式手卫生改进战略取得成功的关键因素。世卫组织的多次全球调查表明,在各种干预措施中,机构安全氛围的排名始终是最低的:为了在多模式手部卫生改善策略中就机构安全氛围的作用相关的研究议程优先事项达成国际专家共识,我们开展了一个有目的性的国际专家抽样参与的结构化共识过程。根据证据图谱制定了初步的研究重点清单,随后通过修改后的德尔菲共识流程(包括两轮)对其进行了完善。在第一轮中,要求调查对象对每个研究重点的重要性进行评分。在第 2 轮中,专家们对第 1 轮的评分进行审查,就最终列入研究议程的优先项目达成共识(定义为≥70% 的一致意见)。随后,世界卫生组织医疗保健领域手部卫生研究技术顾问组成员对研究优先事项进行了审查和最终确定:在 57 位受邀参与者中,50 位完成了德尔菲第一轮(88%),48 位完成了第二轮(96%)。第一轮共有 36 项研究重点陈述,涉及五个主题类别:(1) 安全氛围;(2) 手部卫生的个人责任;(3) 领导力;(4) 患者参与和授权;(5) 宗教和传统。在第一轮中,75% 的项目达成了共识,9 项陈述进入了第二轮,最终形成了 31 项优先研究陈述:研究人员、临床医生、政策制定者和资助机构可利用本研究议程,在机构安全氛围的背景下解决手部卫生改善方面的差距,从而在全球范围内提高患者和医务工作者的安全。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Quality & Safety
BMJ Quality & Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
104
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Quality & Safety (previously Quality & Safety in Health Care) is an international peer review publication providing research, opinions, debates and reviews for academics, clinicians and healthcare managers focused on the quality and safety of health care and the science of improvement. The journal receives approximately 1000 manuscripts a year and has an acceptance rate for original research of 12%. Time from submission to first decision averages 22 days and accepted articles are typically published online within 20 days. Its current impact factor is 3.281.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信