↓ Skip to main content

Variability in contact precautions to control the nosocomial spread of multi-drug resistant organisms in the endemic setting: a multinational cross-sectional survey

Overview of attention for article published in Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Variability in contact precautions to control the nosocomial spread of multi-drug resistant organisms in the endemic setting: a multinational cross-sectional survey
Published in
Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13756-018-0366-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Danielle Vuichard Gysin, Barry Cookson, Henri Saenz, Markus Dettenkofer, Andreas F. Widmer

Abstract

Definitions and practices regarding use of contact precautions and isolation to prevent the spread of gram-positive and gram-negative multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) are not uniform. We conducted an on-site survey during the European Congress on Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 2014 to assess specific details on contact precaution and implementation barriers. Attendants from 32 European (EU) and 24 non-EU countries participated (n = 213). In EU-respondents adherence to contact precautions and isolation was high for Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, and MDR A. baumannii (84.7, 85.7, and 80%, respectively) whereas only 68% of EU-respondents considered any contact precaution measures for extended-spectrum-beta-lactamase (ESBL) producing non-E. coli. Between 30 and 45% of all EU and non-EU respondents did not require health-care workers (HCW) to wear gowns and gloves at all times when entering the room of a patient in contact isolation. Between 10 and 20% of respondents did not consider any rooming specifications or isolation for gram-positive MDRO and up to 30% of respondents abstain from such interventions in gram-negative MDRO, especially non-E. coli ESBL. Understaffing and lack of sufficient isolation rooms were the most commonly encountered barriers amongst EU and non-EU respondents. The effectiveness of contact precautions and isolation is difficult to assess due to great variation in components of the specific measures and mixed levels of implementation. The lack of uniform positive effects of contact isolation to prevent transmission may be explained by the variability of interpretation of this term. Indications for contact isolation require a global definition and further sound studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 18%
Student > Master 11 16%
Other 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Researcher 6 9%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 16 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Unspecified 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 19 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 August 2018.
All research outputs
#1,488,493
of 15,922,938 outputs
Outputs from Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control
#225
of 905 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,114
of 277,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,922,938 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 905 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,220 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them