The Journal of hospital infection · 2025
Research priorities in infection prevention and control in Alberta, Canada: a modified Delphi process.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Leal J, Bush K, Cundict F, Ellison J, Gagnon H, Herrick T, Jagpal S, Meyers G, Pearce C, Scott E, Stuber L, Armstrong L, McFerran B, Thurston B, Conly J, Dixit D, Larios O, Smith S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Infection prevention and control (IPC) measures are critical to reduce the risk of healthcare-associated infections.
AIM: To identify, by consensus, specific IPC research questions where IPC evidence gaps exist, in the setting of Alberta Health Services/Covenant Health, Canada.
METHODS: A multidisciplinary committee informed the consensus process. Individuals with expertise in IPC (Delphi panel) identified an initial set of questions (Delphi Round 1). Questions were grouped into common themes and categories. The committee conducted an interim prioritization to short-list the research questions. Using snowball sampling, local and national IPC partners ranked each research question by the level of importance and added questions missed in previous rounds (Delphi Round 2). The consensus meeting included elements from the James Lind Alliance and the Nominal Group Technique to prioritize the research questions. Participants included: infection control professionals; IPC leadership; physicians in IPC, infectious diseases, and microbiology; epidemiologists; analysts; government officials; quality and safety, and antimicrobial stewardship representatives; researchers; patients/family advisors.
FINDINGS: There were 159 initial questions, with 63 categorized as research questions. Following interim prioritization and the second Delphi round, 21 questions were presented at the consensus meeting. The top ten research questions fell into five themes: behavioural science strategies with healthcare workers, impact of the patient environment, IPC guideline evaluation, intervention effectiveness, and surveillance and monitoring.
CONCLUSION: This consensus exercise identified IPC research questions that were important to healthcare workers, healthcare leaders, researchers, and patients. This work may generate a pan-Canadian dialogue to develop a national research agenda for IPC.
AIM: To identify, by consensus, specific IPC research questions where IPC evidence gaps exist, in the setting of Alberta Health Services/Covenant Health, Canada.
METHODS: A multidisciplinary committee informed the consensus process. Individuals with expertise in IPC (Delphi panel) identified an initial set of questions (Delphi Round 1). Questions were grouped into common themes and categories. The committee conducted an interim prioritization to short-list the research questions. Using snowball sampling, local and national IPC partners ranked each research question by the level of importance and added questions missed in previous rounds (Delphi Round 2). The consensus meeting included elements from the James Lind Alliance and the Nominal Group Technique to prioritize the research questions. Participants included: infection control professionals; IPC leadership; physicians in IPC, infectious diseases, and microbiology; epidemiologists; analysts; government officials; quality and safety, and antimicrobial stewardship representatives; researchers; patients/family advisors.
FINDINGS: There were 159 initial questions, with 63 categorized as research questions. Following interim prioritization and the second Delphi round, 21 questions were presented at the consensus meeting. The top ten research questions fell into five themes: behavioural science strategies with healthcare workers, impact of the patient environment, IPC guideline evaluation, intervention effectiveness, and surveillance and monitoring.
CONCLUSION: This consensus exercise identified IPC research questions that were important to healthcare workers, healthcare leaders, researchers, and patients. This work may generate a pan-Canadian dialogue to develop a national research agenda for IPC.