Implementation methods of infection prevention measures in orthopedics and traumatology - a systematic review.
Implementation
Infection prevention
Perioperative management
Surgical site infection
Journal
European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society
ISSN: 1863-9941
Titre abrégé: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101313350
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2021
Aug 2021
Historique:
received:
17
02
2020
accepted:
21
08
2020
pubmed:
12
9
2020
medline:
16
10
2021
entrez:
11
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Prevention of hospital-acquired infections, in the clinical field of orthopedics and traumatology especially surgical site infections, is one of the major concerns of patients and physicians alike. Many studies have been conducted proving effective infection prevention measures. The clinical setting, however, requires strategies to transform this knowledge into practice. As part of the HYGArzt-Project ("Proof Of Effectivity And Efficiency Of Implementation Of Infection Prevention (IP) Measures By The Physician Responsible For Infection Prevention Matters In Traumatology/Orthopedics"), the objective of this study was to identify effective implementation strategies for IP (infection prevention) measures in orthopedics and trauma surgery. The systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. A review protocol was drafted prior to the literature search (not registered). Literature search was performed in MEDLINE, SCOPUS and COCHRANE between January 01, 1950 and June 01, 2019. We searched for all papers dealing with infection and infection control measures in orthopedics and traumatology, which were then scanned for implementation contents. All study designs were considered eligible. Exclusion criteria were language other than English or German and insufficient reporting of implementation methods. Analyzed outcome parameters were study design, patient cohort, infection prevention measure, implementation methods, involved personnel, reported outcome of the studies and study period. The literature search resulted in 8414 citations. 13 records were eligible for analysis (all published between 2001 and 2019). Studies were primarily prospective cohort studies featuring various designs and including single IP measures to multi-measure IP bundles. Described methods of implementation were heterogeneous. Main outcome parameters were increase of adherence (iA) to infection prevention (IP) measures or decrease in surgical site infection rate (dSSI%). Positive results were reported in 11 out of 13 studies. Successful implementation methods were building of a multidisciplinary team (considered in 8 out of 11 successful studies [concerning dSSI% in 5 studies, concerning iA in five studies]), standardization of guidelines (considered in 10/11 successful studies [concerning dSSI% in 5 studies, concerning iA in seven studies]), printed or electronic information material (for patient and/or staff; considered in 9/11 successful studies [concerning dSSI% 4/4, concerning iA 5/5]), audits and regular meetings, personal training and other interactive measures as well as regular feedback (considered in 7/11 successful studies each). Personnel most frequently involved were physicians (of those, most frequently surgeons) and nursing professions. Although evidence was scarce and quality-inconsistent, we found that adhering to a set of implementation methods focusing on interdisciplinary and interactive /interpersonal work might be an advisable strategy when planning IP improvement interventions in orthopedics and traumatology.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Prevention of hospital-acquired infections, in the clinical field of orthopedics and traumatology especially surgical site infections, is one of the major concerns of patients and physicians alike. Many studies have been conducted proving effective infection prevention measures. The clinical setting, however, requires strategies to transform this knowledge into practice.
QUESTION/PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
As part of the HYGArzt-Project ("Proof Of Effectivity And Efficiency Of Implementation Of Infection Prevention (IP) Measures By The Physician Responsible For Infection Prevention Matters In Traumatology/Orthopedics"), the objective of this study was to identify effective implementation strategies for IP (infection prevention) measures in orthopedics and trauma surgery.
METHODS
METHODS
The systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. A review protocol was drafted prior to the literature search (not registered). Literature search was performed in MEDLINE, SCOPUS and COCHRANE between January 01, 1950 and June 01, 2019. We searched for all papers dealing with infection and infection control measures in orthopedics and traumatology, which were then scanned for implementation contents. All study designs were considered eligible. Exclusion criteria were language other than English or German and insufficient reporting of implementation methods. Analyzed outcome parameters were study design, patient cohort, infection prevention measure, implementation methods, involved personnel, reported outcome of the studies and study period.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The literature search resulted in 8414 citations. 13 records were eligible for analysis (all published between 2001 and 2019). Studies were primarily prospective cohort studies featuring various designs and including single IP measures to multi-measure IP bundles. Described methods of implementation were heterogeneous. Main outcome parameters were increase of adherence (iA) to infection prevention (IP) measures or decrease in surgical site infection rate (dSSI%). Positive results were reported in 11 out of 13 studies. Successful implementation methods were building of a multidisciplinary team (considered in 8 out of 11 successful studies [concerning dSSI% in 5 studies, concerning iA in five studies]), standardization of guidelines (considered in 10/11 successful studies [concerning dSSI% in 5 studies, concerning iA in seven studies]), printed or electronic information material (for patient and/or staff; considered in 9/11 successful studies [concerning dSSI% 4/4, concerning iA 5/5]), audits and regular meetings, personal training and other interactive measures as well as regular feedback (considered in 7/11 successful studies each). Personnel most frequently involved were physicians (of those, most frequently surgeons) and nursing professions.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Although evidence was scarce and quality-inconsistent, we found that adhering to a set of implementation methods focusing on interdisciplinary and interactive /interpersonal work might be an advisable strategy when planning IP improvement interventions in orthopedics and traumatology.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32914198
doi: 10.1007/s00068-020-01477-z
pii: 10.1007/s00068-020-01477-z
pmc: PMC8321980
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1003-1013Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Orthop Nurs. 2015 Jul-Aug;34(4):188-94; quiz 195-6
pubmed: 26213870
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Dec;475(12):2905-2913
pubmed: 28236080
Isr Med Assoc J. 2014 Jan;16(1):20-5
pubmed: 24575500
J Prev Med Hyg. 2013 Jun;54(2):75-9
pubmed: 24396985
J Hosp Infect. 2002 Jul;51(3):179-84
pubmed: 12144796
J Bone Jt Infect. 2018 Feb 5;3(1):15-19
pubmed: 29545991
Arch Surg. 2007 Apr;142(4):355-61
pubmed: 17438170
Clin Infect Dis. 2006 Aug 1;43(3):322-30
pubmed: 16804848
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2011 Jun;12(3):163-8
pubmed: 21767148
J Pediatr Orthop. 2015 Jul-Aug;35(5 Suppl 1):S51-4
pubmed: 26049307
Br J Sports Med. 2014 Apr;48(8):731-6
pubmed: 24659611
BMJ Qual Saf. 2015 Jan;24(1):38-47
pubmed: 25376449
N Z Med J. 2015 May 15;128(1414):51-9
pubmed: 26117391
J Qual Clin Pract. 2001 Dec;21(4):149-53
pubmed: 11856413
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
BMJ. 2010 Mar 23;340:c332
pubmed: 20332509
Orthop Nurs. 2017 Jan/Feb;36(1):49-59
pubmed: 28107301
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2012 Nov;41(11):E147-51
pubmed: 23431519
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2008 Jul;90(5):412-6
pubmed: 18634740
PLoS One. 2014 Aug 22;9(8):e102226
pubmed: 25148306
ANZ J Surg. 2003 Sep;73(9):712-6
pubmed: 12956787
J Arthroplasty. 2010 Sep;25(6 Suppl):103-7
pubmed: 20570103
J Arthroplasty. 2016 Jul;31(7):1574-7
pubmed: 26897491
Int Wound J. 2015 Jun;12(3):357-62
pubmed: 24612792
J Hosp Infect. 2007 Jun;66(2):101-8
pubmed: 17320242
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jul 08;(3):CD000072
pubmed: 19588316
ScientificWorldJournal. 2012;2012:196515
pubmed: 22619626
Ann Ig. 2015 Nov-Dec;27(6):808-13
pubmed: 26835795
Braz J Infect Dis. 2005 Aug;9(4):283-7
pubmed: 16270119
Surg Technol Int. 2015 May;26:351-4
pubmed: 26055031
BMJ. 1998 Aug 15;317(7156):465-8
pubmed: 9703533
Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 07;4:50
pubmed: 19664226
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012 Mar;67(3):749-55
pubmed: 22127586
BMJ. 2008 Jun 28;336(7659):1491-4
pubmed: 18577559
Implement Sci. 2017 Apr 17;12(1):51
pubmed: 28412954
J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2014 Sep;14(3):259-65
pubmed: 24971606
J Arthroplasty. 2012 Sep;27(8 Suppl):61-5.e1
pubmed: 22554729
Am J Infect Control. 2018 Feb;46(2):207-216
pubmed: 29413157
Int Orthop. 2017 Dec;41(12):2457-2469
pubmed: 28831576
Injury. 2014 Dec;45 Suppl 6:S2-8
pubmed: 25457340
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2006 May;88(3):289-91
pubmed: 16720001
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Feb;90(2):226-32
pubmed: 18245579
Unfallchirurg. 2017 Jun;120(6):472-485
pubmed: 28573554
BMJ Glob Health. 2017 Jul 20;2(2):e000266
pubmed: 29081997
J Arthroplasty. 2018 Oct;33(10):3238-3245
pubmed: 29914821
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 13;(6):CD000259
pubmed: 22696318
JAMA Surg. 2017 Aug 1;152(8):784-791
pubmed: 28467526