↓ Skip to main content

Perceived barriers and enablers for preventing the spread of carbapenem producing gram-negative bacteria during patient transfers: a mixed methods study among healthcare providers

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, December 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Perceived barriers and enablers for preventing the spread of carbapenem producing gram-negative bacteria during patient transfers: a mixed methods study among healthcare providers
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, December 2019
DOI 10.1186/s12879-019-4684-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eline van Dulm, Wendy van der Veldt, Katja Jansen-van der Meiden, Gerry van Renselaar, Lian Bovée, Jeanette Ros, Udi Davidovich, Yvonne van Duijnhoven

Abstract

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) increasingly threatens public health. Carbapenem-producing gram-negative bacteria (CPB) pose the biggest threat. The risk for CPB spread is heightened during the transfer of a CPB-positive patient between different healthcare institutions or healthcare providers. We aimed to gain insight into the frequency of CPB-positive patients in the Dutch provinces of Noord-Holland (NH) and Flevoland (FL). Secondly, we aimed to obtain a deeper understanding of the communication between healthcare providers during transfers of CPB-positive patients and explore possible communication-related risk situations for CPB spread. This mixed-methods study consisted of a quantitative and qualitative section. For the quantitative section, 14 laboratories that provide diagnostics in NH and FL voluntarily reported carbapenem-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) positive patients between February 2018 and February 2019. Additionally, two laboratories reported carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter spp. (CRA) and carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRP) positive patients. For the qualitative section, healthcare providers of reported patients were interviewed about information exchange during patient transfers, precautionary measures and knowledge and beliefs concerning CPB. In total, 50 CPE-positive, 10 CRA-positive and 4 CRP-positive patients were reported during the inclusion period. Eighteen index-specific and 2 general interviews were conducted with 20 different care providers of 9 patients. The interviews revealed that, in most cases, information concerning the patient was transferred timely, but often a standardized method for sharing the information within and between institutions was lacking. Factors that enhanced care providers' motivation to adhere to precautionary measures were taking responsibility for the health of other patients, (pregnant) colleagues and for ones own health. Factors that reduced motivation were not acknowledging the relevance of the precautionary measures, a perceived negative impact of the measures on patients' recovery, differences in precautionary measures between healthcare settings and incomprehension for changes in precautionary measures. CPB-positivity occurred more frequently than expected in the Dutch provinces of NH and FL. Standardizing the transference of information concerning CPB-positive patients, implementing transmural agreements, training personnel on CPB knowledge and procedures, launching a national website on CPB and assigning one or several designated employees for CPB within healthcare institutions could improve communication between healthcare providers and thereby decrease the risk of CPB transmission.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 18%
Student > Master 4 12%
Researcher 4 12%
Librarian 2 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 14 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 5 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 17 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 December 2019.
All research outputs
#15,592,673
of 23,182,015 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#4,550
of 7,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#276,235
of 459,423 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#95
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,182,015 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 459,423 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.