View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
printed by
www.postersession.com
PATIENT’S ROLE IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF INFECTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL GUIDELINES: A SCOPING REVIEW
Heloise Agreli, Michael Murphy, Síle Creedon, Aileen Burton, Cliodhna Ní Bhuachalla, Deirdre O'Brien, Dinah Gould, Eileen Savage, Fiona Barry, Jonathan Drennan, Maura Smiddy, Sarah Condell, Sinéad Horgan, Siobhan Murphy,
Teresa Wills, Josephine Hegarty
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK, IRELAND
From an identified 2078 papers, 14 papers wereincluded in this review. Our findings provideinsights into the need for a fundamental change toIPC, from being solely the healthcareprofessional’s responsibility to one that involves acollaborative relationship between healthcareprofessionals and patients. Themes and respectivesubthemes were identified in the literature (Figure2).
A scoping review1 was undertaken to identify recentpublications (from 2013 to 2018) on patient involvementin the implementation of IPC guidelines.
The findings of this review endorse the need for targeted strategies to overcome the lack of role clarity for patients in the implementation of IPC guidelines.
To explore the role of patients and their involvement in the implementation of IPC guidelines.
BACKGROUND
OBJECTIVE
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
CONCLUSION
The failure to implement and adhere to guidelines is oneimportant issue faced in tackling infection prevention andcontrol (IPC). Patient involvement in IPC, by partneringwith healthcare professionals in the implementation of IPCguidelines, has been regarded as a strategy that canincrease patient safety. Such professional-patientpartnership for IPC requires clarity of roles. However, fewstudies have explored patient’s role and mappedsystematically the existing strategies to encourage patientinvolvement in the implementation of IPC guidelines.
Records identified through database screening(n=2078)
Title and abstract screening(n=1545)
Full text screening(n=24)
Studies included from database searching
(n=2)
Studies included in this scoping review(n=14)
Duplicated removed(n=533)
Exclusions by title and abstract screening
(n=1521)
Records excluded after full text screening
(n=22) Studies included from bidirectional
citations searching (n=9)
and grey literature (n=3)
IdentificationScreening
Eligibility
Included
Figure 1. Prisma flow diagram
• Vulnerability v. responsibility
• Real partners v. pseudo partners
Patient role in IPC
• Active strategies• Passive strategies
Levels of patient
involvement
• Power imbalance• Lack of an organizational
culture of shared responsibility
Barriers in the professional-
patient relationship
In general, patients are regarded as vulnerable butalso responsible for preventing and transmittinginfections; partners with professionals in theimplementation of IPC guidelines but alsooutsiders of the “professional” process ofpreventing and controlling infections.
Figure 2. Themes and subthemes.
REFERENCE
1. Peters M, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Soares C, Khalil H, Parker D. The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers' manual 2015: methodology for JBI scoping reviews. 2015.
Email: heloise.agreli@ucc.ie, j.hegarty@ucc.ie
Funding for this study was supported by the Department of Health and the HealthResearch Board. Applied Partnership Awards, APA-‐2017-‐002.
Recommended