预防成人感染耐多药生物:"让医疗保健更安全 "IV 的最新系统综述。

IF 5.6 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Sean McCarthy, Aneesa Motala, Paul G Shekelle
{"title":"预防成人感染耐多药生物:\"让医疗保健更安全 \"IV 的最新系统综述。","authors":"Sean McCarthy, Aneesa Motala, Paul G Shekelle","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017545","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Healthcare-associated infections due to multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) remain a high priority patient safety topic, despite broad acceptance as standard-of-care safety practices to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infection, catheter-associated urinary tract infection and ventilator-associated pneumonia. Prior editions of Making Healthcare Safer have mixed certainty evidence for various other patient safety practices.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>As part of Making Healthcare Safer IV, we performed an updated systematic review on the certainty of evidence for the following safety practices at reducing in-facility MDRO infections in adult patients: universal gloving, contact precautions, cohorting, environmental decontamination, patient decolonisation and the adverse effects of isolation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Library 2011-May 2023 for systematic reviews and original research studies, both randomised and observational. Settings were limited to high-income countries. Screening and eligibility were done in duplicate, while data extraction was done by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. The synthesis of results is narrative. Certainty of evidence was based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three systematic reviews and three original research studies provided moderate certainty evidence that patient decolonisation reduced MDRO infections, although restricted to certain populations and organisms. One systematic review provided low certainty evidence that universal gloving was beneficial, again limited to certain populations. One systematic review and two original research studies provided low certainty evidence of benefit for environmental decontamination. One systematic review and one new original study provided low certainty evidence of benefit for cohorting in outbreak settings, and very low certainty evidence of benefit in endemic settings. Six original research studies provide mixed evidence for benefit of contact precautions. There is very low certainty evidence of a signal of increased non-infectious adverse events under patients in contact isolation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In general, the reviewed patient safety practices reduced MDRO infections, but certainty of evidence was low.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42023444973.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prevention in adults of transmission of infection with multidrug-resistant organisms: an updated systematic review from Making Healthcare Safer IV.\",\"authors\":\"Sean McCarthy, Aneesa Motala, Paul G Shekelle\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017545\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Healthcare-associated infections due to multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) remain a high priority patient safety topic, despite broad acceptance as standard-of-care safety practices to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infection, catheter-associated urinary tract infection and ventilator-associated pneumonia. Prior editions of Making Healthcare Safer have mixed certainty evidence for various other patient safety practices.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>As part of Making Healthcare Safer IV, we performed an updated systematic review on the certainty of evidence for the following safety practices at reducing in-facility MDRO infections in adult patients: universal gloving, contact precautions, cohorting, environmental decontamination, patient decolonisation and the adverse effects of isolation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Library 2011-May 2023 for systematic reviews and original research studies, both randomised and observational. Settings were limited to high-income countries. Screening and eligibility were done in duplicate, while data extraction was done by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. The synthesis of results is narrative. Certainty of evidence was based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three systematic reviews and three original research studies provided moderate certainty evidence that patient decolonisation reduced MDRO infections, although restricted to certain populations and organisms. One systematic review provided low certainty evidence that universal gloving was beneficial, again limited to certain populations. One systematic review and two original research studies provided low certainty evidence of benefit for environmental decontamination. One systematic review and one new original study provided low certainty evidence of benefit for cohorting in outbreak settings, and very low certainty evidence of benefit in endemic settings. Six original research studies provide mixed evidence for benefit of contact precautions. There is very low certainty evidence of a signal of increased non-infectious adverse events under patients in contact isolation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In general, the reviewed patient safety practices reduced MDRO infections, but certainty of evidence was low.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42023444973.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9077,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Quality & Safety\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-26\",\"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-2024-017545\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2024-017545","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

摘要

背景:尽管预防中心静脉相关血流感染、导管相关尿路感染和呼吸机相关肺炎的标准护理安全措施已被广泛接受,但耐多药生物体(MDRO)引起的医疗相关感染仍是一个高度优先的患者安全问题。之前的《让医疗保健更安全》一书对其他各种患者安全措施的确定性证据进行了混合:作为 "让医疗更安全IV "的一部分,我们对以下减少成人患者院内MDRO感染的安全措施的证据确定性进行了更新的系统性回顾:通用手套、接触预防、分组、环境净化、患者去菌和隔离的不良影响:我们检索了 PubMed 和 Cochrane 图书馆 2011 年至 2023 年 5 月的系统综述和原始研究,包括随机研究和观察研究。研究地点仅限于高收入国家。筛选和资格审查一式两份,数据提取由一位审稿人完成,并由第二位审稿人检查。结果综述为叙述性。证据的确定性基于 GRADE(建议评估、发展和评价分级)框架:结果:三篇系统综述和三项原创性研究提供了中度确定性证据,表明患者去殖民化可减少 MDRO 感染,但仅限于特定人群和生物体。一篇系统综述提供了低度确定性证据,证明普遍手套化是有益的,但也仅限于某些人群。一篇系统综述和两篇原创研究提供了环境净化有益的低确定性证据。一篇系统综述和一项新的原创性研究提供了低确定性证据,证明在疫情爆发环境中进行队列有益,而在地方病流行环境中进行队列有益的确定性证据则非常低。六项原创性研究提供了接触预防有益的混合证据。有极低的确定性证据表明,接触隔离患者的非感染性不良事件增加:总的来说,经审查的患者安全措施减少了MDRO感染,但证据的确定性很低:CRD42023444973。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Prevention in adults of transmission of infection with multidrug-resistant organisms: an updated systematic review from Making Healthcare Safer IV.

Background: Healthcare-associated infections due to multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) remain a high priority patient safety topic, despite broad acceptance as standard-of-care safety practices to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infection, catheter-associated urinary tract infection and ventilator-associated pneumonia. Prior editions of Making Healthcare Safer have mixed certainty evidence for various other patient safety practices.

Objectives: As part of Making Healthcare Safer IV, we performed an updated systematic review on the certainty of evidence for the following safety practices at reducing in-facility MDRO infections in adult patients: universal gloving, contact precautions, cohorting, environmental decontamination, patient decolonisation and the adverse effects of isolation.

Methods: We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Library 2011-May 2023 for systematic reviews and original research studies, both randomised and observational. Settings were limited to high-income countries. Screening and eligibility were done in duplicate, while data extraction was done by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. The synthesis of results is narrative. Certainty of evidence was based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework.

Results: Three systematic reviews and three original research studies provided moderate certainty evidence that patient decolonisation reduced MDRO infections, although restricted to certain populations and organisms. One systematic review provided low certainty evidence that universal gloving was beneficial, again limited to certain populations. One systematic review and two original research studies provided low certainty evidence of benefit for environmental decontamination. One systematic review and one new original study provided low certainty evidence of benefit for cohorting in outbreak settings, and very low certainty evidence of benefit in endemic settings. Six original research studies provide mixed evidence for benefit of contact precautions. There is very low certainty evidence of a signal of increased non-infectious adverse events under patients in contact isolation.

Conclusion: In general, the reviewed patient safety practices reduced MDRO infections, but certainty of evidence was low.

Prospero registration number: CRD42023444973.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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