What is needed to sustain improvements in hospital practices post-COVID-19? a qualitative study of interprofessional dissonance in hospital infection prevention and control.
Bio preparedness
COVID-19
Doctor-nurse game
Healthcare-worker infections
Infection prevention and control
Professional ethics
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Apr 2022
14 Apr 2022
Historique:
received:
27
07
2021
accepted:
16
03
2022
entrez:
15
4
2022
pubmed:
16
4
2022
medline:
19
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Hospital infection prevention and control (IPC) depends on consistent practice to achieve its purpose. Standard precautions are embedded in modern healthcare policies, but not uniformly observed by all clinicians. Well-documented differences in attitudes to IPC, between doctors and nurses, contribute to suboptimal IPC practices and persistence of preventable healthcare-associated infections. The COVID-19 pandemic has seriously affected healthcare professionals' work-practices, lives and health and increased awareness and observance of IPC. Successful transition of health services to a 'post-COVID-19' future, will depend on sustainable integration of lessons learnt into routine practice. The aim of this pre-COVID-19 qualitative study was to investigate factors influencing doctors' IPC attitudes and practices, whether they differ from those of nurses and, if so, how this affects interprofessional relationships. We hypothesised that better understanding would guide new strategies to achieve more effective IPC. We interviewed 26 senior clinicians (16 doctors and 10 nurses) from a range of specialties, at a large Australian tertiary hospital. Interview transcripts were reviewed iteratively, and themes identified inductively, using reflexive thematic analysis. Participants from both professions painted clichéd portraits of 'typical' doctors and nurses and recounted unflattering anecdotes of their IPC behaviours. Doctors were described as self-directed and often unaware or disdainful of IPC rules; while nurses were portrayed as slavishly following rules, ostensibly to protect patients, irrespective of risk or evidence. Many participants believed that doctors object to being reminded of IPC requirements by nurses, despite many senior doctors having limited knowledge of correct IPC practice. Overall, participants' comments suggested that the 'doctor-nurse game'-described in the 1960s, to exemplify the complex power disparity between professions-is still in play, despite changes in both professions, in the interim. The results suggest that interprofessional differences and inconsistencies constrain IPC practice improvement. IPC inconsistencies and failures can be catastrophic, but the common threat of COVID-19 has promoted focus and unity. Appropriate implementation of IPC policies should be context-specific and respect the needs and expertise of all stakeholders. We propose an ethical framework to guide interprofessional collaboration in establishing a path towards sustained improvements in IPC and bio-preparedness.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Hospital infection prevention and control (IPC) depends on consistent practice to achieve its purpose. Standard precautions are embedded in modern healthcare policies, but not uniformly observed by all clinicians. Well-documented differences in attitudes to IPC, between doctors and nurses, contribute to suboptimal IPC practices and persistence of preventable healthcare-associated infections. The COVID-19 pandemic has seriously affected healthcare professionals' work-practices, lives and health and increased awareness and observance of IPC. Successful transition of health services to a 'post-COVID-19' future, will depend on sustainable integration of lessons learnt into routine practice.
METHODS
METHODS
The aim of this pre-COVID-19 qualitative study was to investigate factors influencing doctors' IPC attitudes and practices, whether they differ from those of nurses and, if so, how this affects interprofessional relationships. We hypothesised that better understanding would guide new strategies to achieve more effective IPC. We interviewed 26 senior clinicians (16 doctors and 10 nurses) from a range of specialties, at a large Australian tertiary hospital. Interview transcripts were reviewed iteratively, and themes identified inductively, using reflexive thematic analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Participants from both professions painted clichéd portraits of 'typical' doctors and nurses and recounted unflattering anecdotes of their IPC behaviours. Doctors were described as self-directed and often unaware or disdainful of IPC rules; while nurses were portrayed as slavishly following rules, ostensibly to protect patients, irrespective of risk or evidence. Many participants believed that doctors object to being reminded of IPC requirements by nurses, despite many senior doctors having limited knowledge of correct IPC practice. Overall, participants' comments suggested that the 'doctor-nurse game'-described in the 1960s, to exemplify the complex power disparity between professions-is still in play, despite changes in both professions, in the interim.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The results suggest that interprofessional differences and inconsistencies constrain IPC practice improvement. IPC inconsistencies and failures can be catastrophic, but the common threat of COVID-19 has promoted focus and unity. Appropriate implementation of IPC policies should be context-specific and respect the needs and expertise of all stakeholders. We propose an ethical framework to guide interprofessional collaboration in establishing a path towards sustained improvements in IPC and bio-preparedness.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35421985
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07801-0
pii: 10.1186/s12913-022-07801-0
pmc: PMC9009283
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
504Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Interprof Care. 2014 Jul;28(4):331-8
pubmed: 24593329
Nurs Times. 2011 Nov 1-7;107(43):12-4
pubmed: 23251967
Am J Infect Control. 2002 Nov;30(7):430-3
pubmed: 12410221
J Community Health. 2020 Aug;45(4):675-683
pubmed: 32440724
Paediatr Respir Rev. 2004 Dec;5(4):289-95
pubmed: 15531252
Med Hist. 2002 Jul;46(3):325-50
pubmed: 12194424
J Postgrad Med. 2004 Oct-Dec;50(4):278-80
pubmed: 15623971
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Jun 1;4(6):e2114325
pubmed: 34156456
BMJ Open. 2021 Jan 20;11(1):e046199
pubmed: 33472794
Am J Infect Control. 2005 Mar;33(2):88-96
pubmed: 15761408
Ann Intern Med. 2005 May 3;142(9):756-64
pubmed: 15867408
BMJ Open. 2020 Jan 22;10(1):e033367
pubmed: 31974088
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2020 May;41(5):493-498
pubmed: 32131908
New Solut. 2021 Feb;30(4):267-281
pubmed: 33174768
J Hosp Infect. 2009 Dec;73(4):392-6
pubmed: 19699008
Public Health. 2017 Feb;143:103-108
pubmed: 28159021
Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2020 Aug;14(4):538-540
pubmed: 32223774
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2021 Jan 6;10(1):7
pubmed: 33407833
Respirology. 2003 Nov;8 Suppl:S41-5
pubmed: 15018133
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Apr 2;19(1):212
pubmed: 30940153
BMJ. 2020 Jun 10;369:m2195
pubmed: 32522737
BMJ. 2018 Oct 25;363:k4270
pubmed: 32043471
BMJ Open. 2020 Nov 5;10(11):e040503
pubmed: 33154060
Int J Infect Dis. 2021 Jan;102:239-241
pubmed: 33130210
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1967 Jun;16(6):699-703
pubmed: 6027368
Public Health Res Pract. 2016 Dec 14;26(5):
pubmed: 27997940
J Interprof Care. 2007 Dec;21(6):591-603
pubmed: 18038292
N Engl J Med. 1990 Feb 22;322(8):546-9
pubmed: 2300124
Qual Saf Health Care. 2006 Jun;15(3):165-70
pubmed: 16751464
J Hosp Infect. 2003 May;54(1):68-73
pubmed: 12767850
Med J Aust. 2021 Feb;214(3):101-104.e1
pubmed: 33190286
Am J Epidemiol. 1980 May;111(5):472-85
pubmed: 6246798
Clin Infect Dis. 2008 Oct 1;47(7):937-44
pubmed: 18767987
Nurs Hist Rev. 1997;5:161-97
pubmed: 8979734
J Hosp Infect. 2010 Sep;76(1):87-9
pubmed: 20638748
Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2014 Oct;18:56-60
pubmed: 25254623
Sociol Health Illn. 2016 Feb;38(2):325-39
pubmed: 26537184
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2019 Jul 15;8:114
pubmed: 31338161
BMJ. 2000 Apr 15;320(7241):1085
pubmed: 10764392
Crit Care Med. 2009 Apr;37(4):1210-6
pubmed: 19242326
Infect Prev Pract. 2021 Jun;3(2):100137
pubmed: 34316577
Am J Infect Control. 2007 Dec;35(10 Suppl 2):S65-164
pubmed: 18068815
Am J Infect Control. 2020 Apr;48(4):410-415
pubmed: 31610895
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014 Sep;35 Suppl 2:S21-31
pubmed: 25376067
JAMA. 2020 Dec 1;324(21):2155-2156
pubmed: 33185657
J Interprof Care. 2002 Aug;16(3):199-210
pubmed: 12201984
Am J Infect Control. 2015 Jun;43(6):612-6
pubmed: 25840714
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2001 Jul;14(3):528-46
pubmed: 11432812
Crit Care. 2003 Aug;7(4):269-71
pubmed: 12930546
JRSM Open. 2015 Dec 02;7(1):2054270415616548
pubmed: 26770817
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018 Nov;39(11):1277-1295
pubmed: 30234463
J Infect Public Health. 2020 Mar;13(3):418-422
pubmed: 31056437
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010 Mar;31(3):283-94
pubmed: 20088678
J Hosp Infect. 2009 Sep;73(1):1-14
pubmed: 19647338
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2015 Jun 08;4:22
pubmed: 26056563
Lancet Respir Med. 2015 Jul;3(7):509-10
pubmed: 26050550
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2010 Jan;15 Suppl 1:11-6
pubmed: 20075122