Nurses' Knowledge and Behavior in Hospitals Regarding the Prevention of Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections: A Systematic Review.

IF 2 Q2 NURSING
SAGE Open Nursing Pub Date : 2025-05-30 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/23779608251347119
Nesreen Alqaissi
{"title":"Nurses' Knowledge and Behavior in Hospitals Regarding the Prevention of Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Nesreen Alqaissi","doi":"10.1177/23779608251347119","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) are a significant source of hospital-acquired infections, particularly in intensive care units where central venous catheters are frequently used. These infections can lead to increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. While various clinical guidelines exist for prevention, the actual knowledge and adherence of nurses to these guidelines vary widely, with limited synthesis available at the systematic review level.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to synthesize current evidence on the knowledge, behaviors, and adherence of intensive care unit nurses regarding CLABSI prevention practices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Peer-reviewed empirical studies published between 2018 and 2024 were searched in PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Studies were included if they assessed ICU nurses' knowledge and practices related to CLABSI prevention. After screening 3,585 articles, nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were appraised using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine full-text studies published between 2018 and 2024 were analyzed. The studies used cross-sectional surveys, cohort designs, and questionnaire validation methods. Most nurses demonstrated moderate knowledge levels, but adherence to prevention guidelines was low, with full compliance reported by only 5% of participants. Key themes included training gaps, institutional variability, and increased infection risk from improper catheter use. Several studies suggested that targeted education and the use of diagnostic tools such as procalcitonin may support improved outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review highlights a persistent gap between knowledge and adherence to CLABSI prevention practices among ICU nurses. Strengthening education, institutional support, and diagnostic strategies is essential to reduce infection rates and improve patient safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":43312,"journal":{"name":"SAGE Open Nursing","volume":"11 ","pages":"23779608251347119"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12126675/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SAGE Open Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23779608251347119","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) are a significant source of hospital-acquired infections, particularly in intensive care units where central venous catheters are frequently used. These infections can lead to increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. While various clinical guidelines exist for prevention, the actual knowledge and adherence of nurses to these guidelines vary widely, with limited synthesis available at the systematic review level.

Aim: This study aimed to synthesize current evidence on the knowledge, behaviors, and adherence of intensive care unit nurses regarding CLABSI prevention practices.

Methods: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Peer-reviewed empirical studies published between 2018 and 2024 were searched in PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Studies were included if they assessed ICU nurses' knowledge and practices related to CLABSI prevention. After screening 3,585 articles, nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were appraised using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool.

Results: Nine full-text studies published between 2018 and 2024 were analyzed. The studies used cross-sectional surveys, cohort designs, and questionnaire validation methods. Most nurses demonstrated moderate knowledge levels, but adherence to prevention guidelines was low, with full compliance reported by only 5% of participants. Key themes included training gaps, institutional variability, and increased infection risk from improper catheter use. Several studies suggested that targeted education and the use of diagnostic tools such as procalcitonin may support improved outcomes.

Conclusion: This review highlights a persistent gap between knowledge and adherence to CLABSI prevention practices among ICU nurses. Strengthening education, institutional support, and diagnostic strategies is essential to reduce infection rates and improve patient safety.

医院护士预防中枢线相关血流感染的知识和行为:系统综述。
中心静脉相关血流感染(CLABSI)是医院获得性感染的一个重要来源,特别是在经常使用中心静脉导管的重症监护病房。这些感染可导致发病率、死亡率和医疗费用的增加。虽然存在各种预防临床指南,但护士对这些指南的实际知识和遵守程度差异很大,在系统评价水平上的综合资料有限。目的:本研究旨在综合目前重症监护室护士关于CLABSI预防实践的知识、行为和依从性的证据。方法:本系统评价按照系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南进行。在PubMed、Scopus和谷歌Scholar中检索了2018年至2024年间发表的同行评议的实证研究。如果研究评估了ICU护士与CLABSI预防相关的知识和实践,则纳入研究。在筛选了3585篇文章后,有9篇研究符合纳入标准,并使用系统评价中的偏倚风险(ROBIS)工具进行了评价。结果:对2018年至2024年间发表的9篇全文研究进行了分析。这些研究采用了横断面调查、队列设计和问卷验证方法。大多数护士表现出中等程度的知识水平,但对预防指南的依从性很低,只有5%的参与者报告完全遵守。主要主题包括培训差距、机构差异以及不当使用导管导致的感染风险增加。一些研究表明,有针对性的教育和使用降钙素原等诊断工具可能有助于改善结果。结论:本综述强调了ICU护士对CLABSI预防实践的知识和依从性之间的持续差距。加强教育、机构支持和诊断战略对于降低感染率和改善患者安全至关重要。
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
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
5.00%
发文量
106
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信