1. Introduction
Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) represent one of the greatest challenges to patient safety and quality in healthcare services and are a serious public health problem. These infections, which are often acquired during hospitalisation, are associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality, as well as placing an economic burden on health systems worldwide. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), millions of hospitalised people are affected by HAIs every year, resulting in clinical complications, longer hospital stays, and an increase in the workload of healthcare professionals. In developed countries, it is estimated that between 5% and 10% of hospitalised patients acquire at least one HCAI, while in developing countries this rate can exceed 10% [
1].
Preventing these infections is an essential pillar of patient safety and requires the implementation of measures based on scientific evidence. Strategies such as hand hygiene, proper use of barriers, rigorous disinfection of hospital surfaces, and specific protocols for handling invasive medical devices are widely recommended by health regulatory agencies [
2]. However, adherence to these practices still shows significant variations between hospital units and countries, influenced by factors such as infrastructure, the hands of health professionals [
3], workload, and organisational culture [
4].
HAIs have been a global concern since the 19th century, with Florence Nightingale, Ignaz Semmelweis, and Joseph Lister pioneering the implementation of preventative measures [
5]. Today, their relevance continues to grow due to their direct impact on population and health systems, resulting in millions of deaths every year and high costs [
6]. Health professionals play a crucial role in preventing these infections, requiring a coordinated and effective response from health systems [
7]. The approach to mitigate the risk of infection must be integrated and multidisciplinary, and it should include new technologies as a means of strengthening the control of hospital infections [
8,
9].
The implementation of case bundles, a set of standardised measures, has shown a significant reduction in HAIs [
10]. Hand hygiene remains one of the fundamental pillars in the prevention of HCAI [
11], with studies indicating reductions of up to 40 per cent in hospital-acquired infections in institutions that have implemented strict protocols [
12]. In addition, environmental disinfection, particularly with technologies such as ultraviolet light, has been associated with a reduction of up to 30 per cent in infection rates [
13].
Given the relevance of the risk of infection and the need for effective strategies to prevent it, it is essential to carry out a systematic review that consolidates the available evidence on the effectiveness of nursing interventions in reducing the risk of infection in hospitalised adults. Nursing plays a central role in implementing these preventive measures, as nurses are primarily responsible for the direct care of adult inpatients and for applying infection control protocols. Ongoing training for these professionals is essential to ensure adherence to best practices, with studies showing that regular training programmes significantly reduce hospital infection rates [
14].
Antimicrobial resistance is a global challenge that requires effective strategies, where nurses play an essential role in its prevention. The One Health [
15] initiative highlights the importance of education, monitoring antimicrobial use, and implementing stewardship programmes. However, the scarcity of specific training and the variability in adherence to evidence-based practices limit the effectiveness of interventions. Strengthening the role of nurses in preventing antimicrobial resistance is essential to improve patients’ safety and clinical outcomes [
16].
This systematic review aims to systematise the most effective nursing interventions for preventing the risk of infection in adult inpatients, analysing their variability in different clinical settings and types of hospitalised population. It also seeks to compare prevention practices and policies across different cultural and geographical settings, identifying successful evidence-based strategies. The findings of this review could contribute to the standardisation of effective guidelines, promoting significant improvements in patient safety and the quality of care provided. Understanding the variability of interventions and identifying those with the greatest impact will allow for the formulation of more tailored and effective recommendations, benefiting both patients and healthcare professionals
However, despite the availability of evidence-based interventions to prevent healthcare-associated infections (HAIs), their effectiveness in real-world settings is often compromised by inconsistent adherence among healthcare professionals, particularly nurses. Studies have shown that even well-established practices such as hand hygiene or the use of care bundles are not uniformly implemented across institutions. Variability in adherence can be influenced by multiple factors, including workload, organizational culture, perceived usefulness of the interventions, and lack of continuous training. Therefore, understanding and addressing the barriers to nurses’ adherence is essential for maximizing the impact of infection prevention strategies and ensuring patient safety [
4].
2. Materials and Methods
This proposed systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Guidelines for Systematic Reviews of Effectiveness [
17] and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews, Review Guidelines, and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [
18]. This protocol is registered and publicly available in the PROSPERO database (CRD42024582820). This study does not require ethical approval, as the systematic review methodology involves reviewing and collecting data from publicly available materials.
2.1. Review Questions
The review question was developed to reflect the general and specific objectives of this systematic review, ensuring the comprehensive collection and synthesis of data on effective interventions to prevent the risk of infection:
‘What are the most effective nursing interventions to prevent the risk of infection in adult inpatients and how do these interventions vary between different clinical settings, populations, and geographical regions?’
2.2. Identifying Relevant Studies
This review was conducted using the PICOS strategy (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study Design). The initial selection criteria are defined in accordance with this approach.
2.2.1. Participants
Studies involving adults (≥18 years) hospitalised in healthcare services are included, regardless of the length of stay and the pathology that led to their hospitalisation. Studies involving paediatric populations, neonates, or people admitted to intensive care units are excluded.
2.2.2. Interventions
The interventions analysed include nursing interventions to prevent HCAI, such as hand hygiene, proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE), management of patients in hospital isolation, bundles for the prevention of infections associated with invasive medical devices, health education and continuing training for professionals, patients and the community, monitoring and auditing of practices, disinfection of medical devices, environmental hygiene and waste management, promotion of safe care, education on antimicrobial resistance, and the use of innovative technologies. Studies that are not conducted by nurses, that are not directly related to the control and risk of hospital-acquired infections, or that focus exclusively on the prescription of antimicrobials without involving nursing practices are excluded.
2.2.3. Comparators
Comparisons are be made between different clinical settings, types of hospitalised populations, infection risk prevention practices, and policies in different cultural and geographical contexts. Studies evaluating care delivery models and their impact on patient outcomes are of interest.
2.2.4. Outcomes
The outcomes analysed include a reduction in the incidence rate of healthcare-associated infections, an increase in the rate of adherence to preventive interventions (hand hygiene, use of sterile barriers, and compliance with protocols), a reduction in mortality and morbidity associated with hospital-acquired infections, a reduction in hospital stay length, a reduction in rate of re-hospitalisation due to complications, a reduction in costs associated with infections treatments, and an improvement inpatient’s satisfaction and perception of the quality of care received.
2.2.5. Study Selection
The types of study considered include randomised clinical trials, quasi-experimental studies, experimental studies, and observational studies (cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional). Studies without adequate control, with poor methodological quality or that present incomplete or unavailable data, or whose full-text version is not accessible, even after contacting the authors, are excluded.
There are no restrictions on the period of publication, allowing the inclusion of all available evidence. However, only studies published in English, Portuguese, and Spanish are included.
2.3. Selecting Studies for Analysis
The search strategy is conducted with the aim of identifying both published and unpublished studies, ensuring a comprehensive review of the available literature on the subject. To this end, a preliminary search is carried out in the PubMed database in order to identify relevant articles, the titles and abstracts of which are analysed to develop a detailed search strategy. This strategy is applied to different databases, adapting the keywords and index terms according to the specificity of each database. The databases that are searched include PubMed, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Methodology Register and Cochrane Clinical Answers (EBSCOhost), ensuring that the main sources of scientific evidence are included (
Appendix A). In addition, the reference lists of selected studies are scrutinised to identify additional articles that may meet the inclusion criteria. Sources of grey literature are also consulted, covering unpublished studies and institutional documents relevant to the topic.
2.4. Study Selection
After the search, all the citations identified are collected and uploaded to the Rayyan Intelligent Systematic Review (Qatar Computing Research Institute, Doha, Qatar), where duplicates are removed. A pilot test is then carried out with 10 studies to ensure clarity and consistency in the application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria during the screening of titles and abstracts. The screening of titles and abstracts is conducted by two independent reviewers, based on the eligibility criteria. Studies considered potentially relevant are retrieved in full and their citation details are imported into the JBI System for the Unified Management, Assessment, and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI; JBI, Adelaide, Australia) [
19]. Two independent reviewers assess the full text of the selected citations based on the inclusion criteria, following the PRISMA guidelines. The reasons for excluding studies that do not fulfil the inclusion criteria are documented and presented in this systematic review. Any disagreements between the reviewers during the selection process are resolved through discussion or with the intervention of a third reviewer. The search results, study selection process, and inclusion criteria are fully documented in this final systematic review and presented in a PRISMA flow chart [
20].
2.5. Assessment of Methodological Quality
Eligible studies are critically assessed for methodological quality in this review. This assessment is carried out by two independent reviewers, using the JBI critical appraisal tools for each study methodology [
17] (for example, the checklist for quasi-experimental studies or randomised clinical trials). The authors of the articles are contacted to request missing data or additional information when necessary. Any disagreements are resolved through discussion or with the intervention of a third reviewer. All studies, regardless of the results of the methodological quality assessment, are included in the data extraction and synthesis process. The results of the critical appraisal are presented in a table accompanied by a narrative analysis.
2.6. Data Extraction
Data extraction from studies included in the review is carried out by two independent reviewers using the standardised JBI data extraction form. The data extracted include specific details about participants, the intervention (time of application, frequency, and duration), the comparison group, and the findings before, during, and after the intervention that are relevant to the review question, as well as the study design (
Appendix B). In the event of disagreement between the reviewers, resolution is reached through discussion or with the consultation of a third reviewer.
2.7. Data Synthesis
Data are summarised, taking into account the availability and nature of the evidence extracted from the selected studies. Whenever possible, quantitative data are analysed using meta-analysis [
21], while qualitative data are presented by means of a narrative synthesis. Various results are evaluated, including the incidence rate of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs), considering their frequency in different hospital contexts and the factors associated with their variation. Healthcare professionals’ adherence to hygiene and infection prevention protocols, such as hand hygiene, the use of barriers, and compliance with standard precautions, is examined to determine their effectiveness in reducing the transmission of infectious agents. In addition, the impact of effective interventions on reducing the risk of infection is analysed, as well as the influence of these measures on reducing the length of hospital stay and readmission rates. The economic analysis includes assessing the reduction in costs associated with treating hospital-acquired infections, comparing different prevention and control strategies. Environmental control is evaluated, considering the effectiveness of waste management measures in reducing the risk of infection. Inpatient satisfaction and perception of the quality of care received are also be analysed in an attempt to identify the impact of interventions on inpatient’s experiences. Statistical analyses are conducted using SPSS Version 29.0.2.0 (20) and Meta-Essentials software for Microsoft Excel Version 16.97.2. In the event that meta-analysis is not feasible due to insufficient data or high heterogeneity, the findings are presented in a narrative synthesis, including tables and figures, to facilitate the interpretation of the results. This way, the results are organized in a clear and objective manner, ensuring a comprehensive and rigorous interpretation of the findings of this systematic review.
2.8. Assessing Certainty in the Findings
The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach is followed to grade the certainty of the evidence, regardless of the synthesis approach used (whether meta-analysis or narrative synthesis). The GRADE framework assesses the strength of evidence from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies. The data from each type of study are analysed separately, allowing informed judgements to be made about the quality of the evidence and the level of confidence in the outcomes for each type of study. The outcomes are presented in a Summary of Findings (SoF) created using GRADEpro GDT (McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada). The SoF presents, where applicable, the following information: absolute risks for the treatment and control groups, estimates of the relative risk, and a classification of the quality of the evidence, based on the risk of bias, directionality, heterogeneity, precision, and risk of publication bias of the review results.
3. Results
This review began in January 2025 and the official literature search was completed by the end of March 2025. The results are presented in three main formats: summary tables, visual figures, and a narrative synthesis. A PRISMA flow chart for the study selection process is presented in advance. A conceptual map was developed to illustrate the relationships between the main themes identified in the review, providing an overview of the results. The dissemination strategy involves publishing the results of this review in an open-access, peer-reviewed health journal and presenting the results at prestigious scientific conferences. The results will be disseminated to an academic audience by June 2025. In addition to the academic audience, the dissemination strategy will also target frontline healthcare professionals, infection prevention and control teams, healthcare managers, and policymakers. To ensure accessibility and encourage the translation of evidence into practice, we intend to develop technical briefs, executive summaries, and visual materials such as infographics which will be made available through institutional channels and professional networks. This broader dissemination approach aims to maximise the practical impact of the review’s findings across multiple levels of healthcare delivery.
4. Limitations and Strengths
This systematic review presents several strengths. Firstly, it is grounded in a rigorous methodological framework provided by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) for reviews of effectiveness, ensuring transparency, reproducibility, and a robust appraisal of the included studies. The review protocol is registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42024582820) and its reporting follows the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, increasing methodological integrity. The search strategy is comprehensive and includes major databases, grey literature, and reference lists, with no time restrictions, capturing the widest possible range of relevant evidence. Nevertheless, some limitations must be acknowledged. One potential limitation concerns the inclusion of only studies published in English, Portuguese, and Spanish. This linguistic restriction might lead to the exclusion of potentially relevant studies published in other languages, introducing a risk of language bias. In addition, the inclusion of different study designs (RCTs and quasi-experimental and observational studies) may lead to heterogeneity, limiting the possibility of conducting a meta-analysis. In such cases, a narrative synthesis will be used, which, despite being rigorous, lacks the statistical power of meta-analytical techniques. Another significant limitation relates to the variability in definitions, outcome measurements, and intervention protocols across studies. Infection prevention practices can differ considerably across healthcare systems and geographical regions, affecting the comparability and generalizability of results. Differences in healthcare infrastructure, staff–patient ratios, and infection control policies may influence the implementation and effectiveness of interventions. Moreover, potential publication bias remains a concern, as studies with positive outcomes are more likely to be published. Although grey literature is consulted, it is not always accessible or well-indexed, which could hinder a full representation of existing evidence. Finally, the effectiveness of interventions may be affected by contextual factors such as organizational culture or staffing constraints, which are not always detailed in the primary studies. To mitigate these limitations, rigorous methodological quality appraisal using JBI tools and the GRADE approach is employed. The findings are interpreted cautiously and limitations are explicitly addressed in the final analysis.
5. Conclusions and Implications for Practice
It is hoped that this systematic review will make a relevant contribution to nursing science and practice by identifying and synthesising the most effective nursing interventions for preventing healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) in hospitalised adults. The objective outlined in this protocol guides the methodological structure of the review, taking into account the variability of clinical contexts and populations. The expected results should support the standardisation of clinical practices based on the best available evidence, facilitating the development of guidelines adapted to different healthcare realities; guide the decision-making of nurses, managers, and trainers, allowing them to prioritise infection control strategies with the greatest clinical and economic impact; strengthen the fight against antimicrobial resistance by highlighting preventive interventions that reduce the unnecessary use of antibiotics and, consequently, selective pressure; and identify gaps and opportunities for innovation, namely the incorporation of digital tools, automatic learning methods for infection surveillance, and educational programmes aimed at patients and their families. When possible, subgroup analyses could highlight variations in the effectiveness of interventions in different populations or hospital contexts, contributing to more precise and contextualised clinical recommendations.
In this sense, the findings of this review could have significant practical and political implications when translated into clear recommendations supported by performance indicators. The identification of cost-effective measures could inform policy decisions related to funding, continuing professional education and hospital accreditation processes. To ensure the effective dissemination and transfer of knowledge, the results will be communicated through scientific publications, technical summaries, and educational materials aimed at academic and clinical audiences, promoting their implementation at various levels of nursing practice and health policy formulation.
Finally, this research could reveal gaps in current practices, identify innovative strategies, and foster new lines of research, including the integration of digital technologies in infection prevention and the role of patient health education in reducing HAIs. In addition, it could stimulate economic evaluation studies on preventive technologies and implementation strategies. In summary, by offering a comprehensive and critical analysis of the existing evidence, this systematic review has the potential to enhance patient safety, strengthen infection prevention programmes, and promote a more responsible use of healthcare resources.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, L.F.P.T.B., M.d.A.D. and M.d.C.M.P.M.; methodology, L.F.P.T.B., M.d.A.D. and M.d.C.M.P.M.; software, L.F.P.T.B.; validation, L.F.P.T.B., M.d.A.D., H.M.P.C., E.S.F.M. and M.d.C.M.P.M.; formal analysis, L.F.P.T.B.; investigation, L.F.P.T.B., M.d.A.D., H.M.P.C., E.S.F.M. and M.d.C.M.P.M.; resources, L.F.P.T.B.; data curation, L.F.P.T.B.; writing—original draft preparation, L.F.P.T.B., M.d.A.D., H.M.P.C., E.S.F.M. and M.d.C.M.P.M.; writing—review and editing, E.S.F.M., L.F.P.T.B., M.d.A.D., H.M.P.C., E.S.F.M. and M.d.C.M.P.M.; visualization, M.d.A.D. and M.d.A.D.; supervision, M.d.A.D. and M.d.C.M.P.M.; project administration, M.d.A.D. and M.d.C.M.P.M.; funding acquisition, L.F.P.T.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This work is funded by national funds through the Foundation for Science and Technology, under the project UIDP/04923.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
No new data were created or analysed in this study. The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Public Involvement Statement
There was no public involvement in any aspect of this research.
Guidelines and Standards Statement
This manuscript follows the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
Use of Artificial Intelligence
AI or AI-assisted tools were not used in drafting any aspect of this manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
HAIs | healthcare-associated infections |
JBI | Joanna Briggs Institute |
PRISMA | Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses |
PICOS | Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study Design |
RCTs | randomized controlled trials |
PROSPERO | International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews |
PPE | personal protective equipment |
GRADE | Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation |
SoF | Summary of Findings |
SPSS | Statistical Package for the Social Sciences |
FCT | Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia |
CHRC | Comprehensive Health Research Centre |
ciTechCare | Centre for Innovative Care and Health Technology |
Appendix A. Search Strategy
Appendix A.1. Web of Science
Table A1.
Search strategy—Web of Science.
Table A1.
Search strategy—Web of Science.
Search | Query | Records Retrieved |
---|
#1 | TS = ((Adult OR Inpatients OR “Patient Readmission” OR Patients OR Hospitals OR adult* OR inpatient* OR patient* OR hospital*)) | 11,027,720 |
#2 | TS=((“Clinical Protocol” OR “Hand Hygiene” OR “Disinfection, Hand” OR Disinfection OR “Patient Care Bundles” OR “Control, Infection” OR Sterilization OR “Health Education” OR “Standard of Care” OR intervention* OR bundle* OR disinfect* OR control* OR support* OR strateg* OR program* OR protocol* OR monitoring OR auditing OR “prevention healthcare-associated infections” OR “surgical site infection” OR “medical device risk management” OR “device-associated infections” OR “environmental hygiene” OR “bundle to prevent” OR “medical surveillance”)) | 19,059,556 |
#3 | TS=((“Clostridium Infections” OR “Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae” OR “Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus” OR “Pseudomonas aeruginosa” OR “Acinetobacter baumannii” OR “Escherichia coli Infections” OR Candida OR “Clostridium Infections” OR “Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae” OR “Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus” OR “Pseudomonas aeruginosa” OR “Acinetobacter baumannii” OR “Escherichia coli Infections”)) | 255,424 |
#4 | TS=((“Infection Control” OR “Risk Management” OR “Patient Satisfaction” OR “Patient Safety” OR “Cross Infection” OR “Healthcare Associated Infections” OR Mortality OR “Health Care Costs” OR “Quality of Care” OR “Strategic Planning” OR “Cross-Cultural Comparison” OR “Patient Readmission” OR “Length of Stay” OR “Surgical Wound Infection” OR “Catheter-Related Infections” OR “Quality Improvement” OR “hospital infection” OR “control services” OR “infection risk” OR “infection prevention” OR “reduction healthcare-associated infections” OR “perception quality of care” OR “impact nursing interventions”)) | 1,842,403 |
#5 | TS=((“Randomized Controlled Trial” OR “Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic” OR “Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic” OR “Quasi-Experimental Studies” OR “Observational Studies as Topic” OR “Clinical Trial as Topic” OR “Quasi-experimental studies” OR “Observational studies” OR “Comparative studies”)) | 324,526 |
#6 | #1 AND #2 AND #3 AND #4 AND #5 | 244 |
Search conducted: 2 January 2025 |
Appendix A.2. PubMed
Table A2.
Search strategy—PubMed.
Table A2.
Search strategy—PubMed.
Search | Query | Records Retrieved |
---|
#1 | (((((((((((Adult[MeSH Terms]) OR (Inpatients[MeSH Terms])) OR (Patient Readmission[MeSH Terms])) OR (Patients[MeSH Terms])) OR (Hospitals[MeSH Terms])) OR (Adult[Title/Abstract])) OR (Inpatients[Title/Abstract])) OR (Patients[Title/Abstract])) OR (Hospitals[Title/Abstract])) OR (adult*[Title/Abstract])) OR (patient*[Title/Abstract])) OR (hospital*[Title/Abstract]) | 13,943,056 |
#2 | (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((Clinical Protocol[MeSH Terms]) OR (Hand Hygiene[MeSH Terms])) OR (Disinfection, Hand[MeSH Terms])) OR (Disinfection[MeSH Terms])) OR (Patient Care Bundles[MeSH Terms])) OR (Control, Infection[MeSH Terms])) OR (Sterilization[MeSH Terms])) OR (Health Education[MeSH Terms])) OR (Hearing[MeSH Terms])) OR (Standard of Care[MeSH Terms])) OR (Clinical Protocol[Title/Abstract])) OR (Hand Hygiene[Title/Abstract])) OR (Disinfection, Hand[Title/Abstract])) OR (Disinfection[Title/Abstract])) OR (Patient Care Bundles[Title/Abstract])) OR (Control, Infection[Title/Abstract])) OR (Sterilization[Title/Abstract])) OR (Health Education[Title/Abstract])) OR (Hearing[Title/Abstract])) OR (Standard of Care[Title/Abstract])) OR (intervention*[Title/Abstract])) OR (bundle*[Title/Abstract])) OR (disinfect*[Title/Abstract])) OR (control*[Title/Abstract])) OR (intervention*[Title/Abstract])) OR (support*[Title/Abstract])) OR (strateg*[Title/Abstract])) OR (program*[Title/Abstract])) OR (protocol*[Title/Abstract])) OR (monitoring[Title/Abstract])) OR (auditing[Title/Abstract])) OR (prevention healthcare-associated infections[Title/Abstract])) OR (surgical site infection[Title/Abstract])) OR (medical device risk management[Title/Abstract])) OR (device-associated infections[Title/Abstract])) OR (environmental hygiene[Title/Abstract])) OR (bundle to prevent[Title/Abstract])) OR (medical surveillance[Title/Abstract]) | 10,718,384 |
#3 | (((((((((((((Clostridium Infections[MeSH Terms]) OR (Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae[MeSH Terms])) OR (Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus[MeSH Terms])) OR (Pseudomonas aeruginosa[MeSH Terms])) OR (Acinetobacter baumannii[MeSH Terms])) OR (Escherichia coli Infections[MeSH Terms])) OR (Candida[MeSH Terms])) OR (Clostridium Infections[Title/Abstract])) OR (Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae[Title/Abstract])) OR (Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus[Title/Abstract])) OR (Pseudomonas aeruginosa[Title/Abstract])) OR (Acinetobacter baumannii[Title/Abstract])) OR (Escherichia coli Infections[Title/Abstract])) OR (Candida[Title/Abstract]) | 282,297 |
#4 | ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((Infection Control[MeSH Terms]) OR (Risk Management[MeSH Terms])) OR (Patient Satisfaction[MeSH Terms])) OR (Patient safety[MeSH Terms])) OR (Cross Infection[MeSH Terms])) OR (Healthcare Associated Infections[MeSH Terms])) OR (Mortality[MeSH Terms])) OR (Health Care Costs[MeSH Terms])) OR (Quality of Care[MeSH Terms])) OR (Strategic Planning[MeSH Terms])) OR (Hearing[MeSH Terms])) OR (Cross-Cultural Comparison[MeSH Terms])) OR (Risk Management[MeSH Terms])) OR (Patient Readmission[MeSH Terms])) OR (Length of Stay[MeSH Terms])) OR (Surgical Wound Infection[MeSH Terms])) OR (Catheter-Related Infections[MeSH Terms])) OR (Quality Improvement[MeSH Terms])) OR (Infection Control[Title/Abstract])) OR (Risk Management[Title/Abstract])) OR (Patient Satisfaction[Title/Abstract])) OR (Patient safety[Title/Abstract])) OR (Cross Infection[Title/Abstract])) OR (Healthcare Associated Infections[Title/Abstract])) OR (Mortality[Title/Abstract])) OR (Health Care Costs[Title/Abstract])) OR (Quality of Care[Title/Abstract])) OR (Strategic Planning[Title/Abstract])) OR (Hearing[Title/Abstract])) OR (Cross-Cultural Comparison[Title/Abstract])) OR (Risk Management[Title/Abstract])) OR (Patient Readmission[Title/Abstract])) OR (Length of Stay[Title/Abstract])) OR (Surgical Wound Infection[Title/Abstract])) OR (Catheter-Related Infections[Title/Abstract])) OR (Quality Improvement[Title/Abstract])) OR (hospital infection[Title/Abstract])) OR (control services[Title/Abstract])) OR (infection risk[Title/Abstract])) OR (infection prevention[Title/Abstract])) OR (reduction healthcare-associated infections[Title/Abstract])) OR (perception quality of care[Title/Abstract])) OR (impact nursing interventions[Title/Abstract]) | 9,579,134 |
#5 | ((((((((((((((Randomized Controlled Trial[MeSH Terms]) OR (Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic[MeSH Terms])) OR (Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic[MeSH Terms])) OR (Quasi-Experimental Studies[MeSH Terms])) OR (Observational Studies as Topic[MeSH Terms])) OR (Clinical Trial as Topic[MeSH Terms])) OR (Randomized Controlled Trial[Title/Abstract])) OR (Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic[Title/Abstract])) OR (Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic[Title/Abstract])) OR (Quasi-Experimental Studies[Title/Abstract])) OR (Observational Studies as Topic[Title/Abstract])) OR (Clinical Trial as Topic[Title/Abstract])) OR (Quasi-experimental studies[Title/Abstract])) OR (Observational studies[Title/Abstract])) OR (Comparative studies[Title/Abstract]) | 60,091 |
#6 | (#1) AND (#2) AND (#3) AND (#4) AND (#5) | 1113 |
Search conducted: 2 January 2025 |
Appendix A.3. Socopus
Table A3.
Search strategy—Socopus.
Table A3.
Search strategy—Socopus.
Search | Query | Records Retrieved |
---|
#1 | (TITLE-ABS-KEY (inpatients) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (adult*) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (readmission) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (patient*) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (hospital*)) | 17,482,435 |
#2 | (TITLE-ABS-KEY (clinical AND protocol) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (hand AND hygiene) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (hand AND disinfection) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (disinfection) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (patient AND care AND bundles) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (patient AND care AND bundles) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (patient AND care AND bundles) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (infection AND control) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (sterilization) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (health AND education) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (hearing) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (standard AND of AND care) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (intervention*) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (bundle*) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (disinfect*) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (control*) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (intervention*) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (support*) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (strateg*) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (program*) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (protocol*) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (monitoring) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (auditing) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (prevention AND healthcare-associated AND infections) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (surgical AND site AND infection) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (medical AND device AND risk AND management) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (device-associated AND infections) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (environmental AND hygiene) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (bundle AND to AND prevent) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (medical AND surveillance)) | 4,102,735 |
#3 | (TITLE-ABS-KEY (clostridium AND infections) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (carbapenem-resistant AND enterobacteriaceae) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (methicillin-resistant AND staphylococcus AND aureus) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (pseudomonas AND aeruginosa) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (acinetobacter AND baumannii) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (escherichia AND coli AND infections) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (candida)) | 510,688 |
#4 | (TITLE-ABS-KEY (infection AND control) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (risk AND management) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (patient AND satisfaction) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (patient AND safety) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (cross AND infection) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (healthcare AND associated AND infections) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (mortality) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (health AND care AND costs) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (quality AND of AND care) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (strategic AND planning) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (hearing) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (cross-cultural AND comparison) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (risk AND management) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (patient AND readmission) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (length AND of AND stay) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (surgical AND wound AND infection) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (catheter-related AND infections) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (quality AND improvement) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (hospital AND infection) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (control AND services) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (infection AND risk) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (infection AND prevention) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (reduction AND healthcare-associated AND infections) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (perception AND quality AND of AND care) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (impact AND nursing AND interventions)) | 6,939,688 |
#5 | (TITLE-ABS-KEY (randomized AND controlled AND trial) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (randomized AND controlled AND trials AND as AND topic) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (non-randomized AND controlled AND trials AND as AND topic) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (quasi-experimental AND studies) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (observational AND studies AND as AND topic) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (clinical AND trial AND as AND topic) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (quasi-experimental AND studies) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (observational AND studies) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (comparative AND studies)) | 3,970,642 |
#6 | (TITLE-ABS-KEY (adult OR inpatients OR “patient readmission” OR patients OR hospitals OR adult* OR patient* OR hospital*) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“clinical protocol” OR “hand hygiene” OR “disinfection, hand” OR disinfection OR “patient care bundles” OR “infection control” OR sterilization OR “health education” OR “standard of care” OR intervention* OR bundle* OR disinfect* OR control* OR support* OR strateg* OR program* OR protocol* OR monitoring OR auditing OR “prevention healthcare-associated infections” OR “surgical site infection” OR “medical device risk management” OR “device-associated infections” OR “environmental hygiene” OR “bundle to prevent” OR “medical surveillance”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“clostridium infections” OR “carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae” OR “methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus” OR “pseudomonas aeruginosa” OR “acinetobacter baumannii” OR “escherichia coli infections” OR candida) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“infection control” OR “risk management” OR “patient satisfaction” OR “patient safety” OR “cross infection” OR “healthcare associated infections” OR mortality OR “health care costs” OR “quality of care” OR “strategic planning” OR “cross-cultural comparison” OR “patient readmission” OR “length of stay” OR “surgical wound infection” OR “catheter-related infections” OR “quality improvement” OR “hospital infection” OR “control services” OR “infection risk” OR “infection prevention” OR “reduction healthcare-associated infections” OR “perception quality of care” OR “impact nursing interventions”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“randomized controlled trial” OR “randomized controlled trials as topic” OR “non-randomized controlled trials as topic” OR “quasi-experimental studies” OR “observational studies as topic” OR “clinical trial as topic” OR “quasi-experimental studies” OR “observational studies” OR “comparative studies”)) | 7396 |
Search conducted: 2 January 2025 |
Appendix A.4. CINAHL
Table A4.
Search strategy—CINAHL.
Table A4.
Search strategy—CINAHL.
Search | Query | Records Retrieved |
---|
#1 | (MH “Adult”) OR (MH “Inpatients”) OR (MH “Patient Readmission”) OR (MH “Patients”) OR (MH “Hospitals”) OR (TI “Adult” OR AB “Adult”) OR (TI “Inpatients” OR AB “Inpatients”) OR (TI “Patients” OR AB “Patients”) OR (TI “Hospitals” OR AB “Hospitals”) OR (TI “adult*” OR AB “adult*”) OR (TI “patient*” OR AB “patient*”) OR (TI “hospital*” OR AB “hospital*”) | 3,382,884 |
#2 | (MH “Clinical Protocol”) OR (MH “Hand Hygiene”) OR (MH “Disinfection, Hand”) OR (MH “Disinfection”) OR (MH “Patient Care Bundles”) OR (MH “Control, Infection”) OR (MH “Sterilization”) OR (MH “Health Education”) OR (MH “Standard of Care”) OR (TI “Clinical Protocol” OR AB “Clinical Protocol”) OR (TI “Hand Hygiene” OR AB “Hand Hygiene”) OR (TI “Disinfection, Hand” OR AB “Disinfection, Hand”) OR (TI “Disinfection” OR AB “Disinfection”) OR (TI “Patient Care Bundles” OR AB “Patient Care Bundles”) OR (TI “Control, Infection” OR AB “Control, Infection”) OR (TI “Sterilization” OR AB “Sterilization”) OR (TI “Health Education” OR AB “Health Education”) OR (TI “Standard of Care” OR AB “Standard of Care”) OR (TI “intervention*” OR AB “intervention*”) OR (TI “bundle*” OR AB “bundle*”) OR (TI “disinfect*” OR AB “disinfect*”) OR (TI “control*” OR AB “control*”) OR (TI “support*” OR AB “support*”) OR (TI “strateg*” OR AB “strateg*”) OR (TI “program*” OR AB “program*”) OR (TI “protocol*” OR AB “protocol*”) OR (TI “monitoring” OR AB “monitoring”) OR (TI “auditing” OR AB “auditing”) OR (TI “prevention healthcare-associated infections” OR AB “prevention healthcare-associated infections”) OR (TI “surgical site infection” OR AB “surgical site infection”) OR (TI “medical device risk management” OR AB “medical device risk management”) OR (TI “device-associated infections” OR AB “device-associated infections”) OR (TI “environmental hygiene” OR AB “environmental hygiene”) OR (TI “bundle to prevent” OR AB “bundle to prevent”) OR (TI “medical surveillance” OR AB “medical surveillance”) | 2,318,639 |
#3 | (MH “Clostridium Infections”) OR (MH “Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae”) OR (MH “Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus”) OR (MH “Pseudomonas aeruginosa”) OR (MH “Acinetobacter baumannii”) OR (MH “Escherichia coli Infections”) OR (MH “Candida”) OR (TI “Clostridium Infections” OR AB “Clostridium Infections”) OR (TI “Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae” OR AB “Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae”) OR (TI “Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus” OR AB “Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus”) OR (TI “Pseudomonas aeruginosa” OR AB “Pseudomonas aeruginosa”) OR (TI “Acinetobacter baumannii” OR AB “Acinetobacter baumannii”) OR (TI “Escherichia coli Infections” OR AB “Escherichia coli Infections”) OR (TI “Candida” OR AB “Candida”) | 30,266 |
#4 | (MH “Infection Control”) OR (MH “Risk Management”) OR (MH “Patient Satisfaction”) OR (MH “Patient Safety”) OR (MH “Cross Infection”) OR (MH “Healthcare Associated Infections”) OR (MH “Mortality”) OR (MH “Health Care Costs”) OR (MH “Quality of Care”) OR (MH “Strategic Planning”) OR (MH “Cross-Cultural Comparison”) OR (MH “Patient Readmission”) OR (MH “Length of Stay”) OR (MH “Surgical Wound Infection”) OR (MH “Catheter-Related Infections”) OR (MH “Quality Improvement”) OR (TI “Infection Control” OR AB “Infection Control”) OR (TI “Risk Management” OR AB “Risk Management”) OR (TI “Patient Satisfaction” OR AB “Patient Satisfaction”) OR (TI “Patient Safety” OR AB “Patient Safety”) OR (TI “Cross Infection” OR AB “Cross Infection”) OR (TI “Healthcare Associated Infections” OR AB “Healthcare Associated Infections”) OR (TI “Mortality” OR AB “Mortality”) OR (TI “Health Care Costs” OR AB “Health Care Costs”) OR (TI “Quality of Care” OR AB “Quality of Care”) OR (TI “Strategic Planning” OR AB “Strategic Planning”) OR (TI “Cross-Cultural Comparison” OR AB “Cross-Cultural Comparison”) OR (TI “Patient Readmission” OR AB “Patient Readmission”) OR (TI “Length of Stay” OR AB “Length of Stay”) OR (TI “Surgical Wound Infection” OR AB “Surgical Wound Infection”) OR (TI “Catheter-Related Infections” OR AB “Catheter-Related Infections”) OR (TI “Quality Improvement” OR AB “Quality Improvement”) OR (TI “hospital infection” OR AB “hospital infection”) OR (TI “control services” OR AB “control services”) OR (TI “infection risk” OR AB “infection risk”) OR (TI “infection prevention” OR AB “infection prevention”) OR (TI “reduction healthcare-associated infections” OR AB “reduction healthcare-associated infections”) OR (TI “perception quality of care” OR AB “perception quality of care”) OR (TI “impact nursing interventions” OR AB “impact nursing interventions”) | 711,858 |
#5 | (MH “Randomized Controlled Trial”) OR (MH “Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic”) OR (MH “Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic”) OR (MH “Quasi-Experimental Studies”) OR (MH “Observational Studies as Topic”) OR (MH “Clinical Trial as Topic”) OR (TI “Randomized Controlled Trial” OR AB “Randomized Controlled Trial”) OR (TI “Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic” OR AB “Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic”) OR (TI “Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic” OR AB “Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic”) OR (TI “Quasi-Experimental Studies” OR AB “Quasi-Experimental Studies”) OR (TI “Observational Studies as Topic” OR AB “Observational Studies as Topic”) OR (TI “Clinical Trial as Topic” OR AB “Clinical Trial as Topic”) OR (TI “Quasi-experimental studies” OR AB “Quasi-experimental studies”) OR (TI “Observational studies” OR AB “Observational studies”) OR (TI “Comparative studies” OR AB “Comparative studies”) | 10,194 |
#6 | (#1) AND (#2) AND (#3) AND (#4) AND (#5) | 108 |
Search conducted: 2 January 2025 |
Appendix A.5. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Methodology Register, and Cochrane Clinical Answers
Table A5.
Search strategy—Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Methodology Register, and Cochrane Clinical Answers.
Table A5.
Search strategy—Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Methodology Register, and Cochrane Clinical Answers.
Search | Query | Records Retrieved |
---|
#1 | (MH “Adult”) OR (MH “Inpatients”) OR (MH “Patient Readmission”) OR (MH “Patients”) OR (MH “Hospitals”) OR (TI “Adult” OR AB “Adult”) OR (TI “Inpatients” OR AB “Inpatients”) OR (TI “Patients” OR AB “Patients”) OR (TI “Hospitals” OR AB “Hospitals”) OR (TI “adult*” OR AB “adult*”) OR (TI “patient*” OR AB “patient*”) OR (TI “hospital*” OR AB “hospital*”) | 1,645,299 |
#2 | (MH “Clinical Protocol”) OR (MH “Hand Hygiene”) OR (MH “Disinfection, Hand”) OR (MH “Disinfection”) OR (MH “Patient Care Bundles”) OR (MH “Control, Infection”) OR (MH “Sterilization”) OR (MH “Health Education”) OR (MH “Standard of Care”) OR (TI “Clinical Protocol” OR AB “Clinical Protocol”) OR (TI “Hand Hygiene” OR AB “Hand Hygiene”) OR (TI “Disinfection, Hand” OR AB “Disinfection, Hand”) OR (TI “Disinfection” OR AB “Disinfection”) OR (TI “Patient Care Bundles” OR AB “Patient Care Bundles”) OR (TI “Control, Infection” OR AB “Control, Infection”) OR (TI “Sterilization” OR AB “Sterilization”) OR (TI “Health Education” OR AB “Health Education”) OR (TI “Standard of Care” OR AB “Standard of Care”) OR (TI “intervention*” OR AB “intervention*”) OR (TI “bundle*” OR AB “bundle*”) OR (TI “disinfect*” OR AB “disinfect*”) OR (TI “control*” OR AB “control*”) OR (TI “support*” OR AB “support*”) OR (TI “strateg*” OR AB “strateg*”) OR (TI “program*” OR AB “program*”) OR (TI “protocol*” OR AB “protocol*”) OR (TI “monitoring” OR AB “monitoring”) OR (TI “auditing” OR AB “auditing”) OR (TI “prevention healthcare-associated infections” OR AB “prevention healthcare-associated infections”) OR (TI “surgical site infection” OR AB “surgical site infection”) OR (TI “medical device risk management” OR AB “medical device risk management”) OR (TI “device-associated infections” OR AB “device-associated infections”) OR (TI “environmental hygiene” OR AB “environmental hygiene”) OR (TI “bundle to prevent” OR AB “bundle to prevent”) OR (TI “medical surveillance” OR AB “medical surveillance”) | 1,554,470 |
#3 | (MH “Clostridium Infections”) OR (MH “Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae”) OR (MH “Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus”) OR (MH “Pseudomonas aeruginosa”) OR (MH “Acinetobacter baumannii”) OR (MH “Escherichia coli Infections”) OR (MH “Candida”) OR (TI “Clostridium Infections” OR AB “Clostridium Infections”) OR (TI “Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae” OR AB “Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae”) OR (TI “Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus” OR AB “Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus”) OR (TI “Pseudomonas aeruginosa” OR AB “Pseudomonas aeruginosa”) OR (TI “Acinetobacter baumannii” OR AB “Acinetobacter baumannii”) OR (TI “Escherichia coli Infections” OR AB “Escherichia coli Infections”) OR (TI “Candida” OR AB “Candida”) | 5595 |
#4 | (MH “Infection Control”) OR (MH “Risk Management”) OR (MH “Patient Satisfaction”) OR (MH “Patient Safety”) OR (MH “Cross Infection”) OR (MH “Healthcare Associated Infections”) OR (MH “Mortality”) OR (MH “Health Care Costs”) OR (MH “Quality of Care”) OR (MH “Strategic Planning”) OR (MH “Cross-Cultural Comparison”) OR (MH “Patient Readmission”) OR (MH “Length of Stay”) OR (MH “Surgical Wound Infection”) OR (MH “Catheter-Related Infections”) OR (MH “Quality Improvement”) OR (TI “Infection Control” OR AB “Infection Control”) OR (TI “Risk Management” OR AB “Risk Management”) OR (TI “Patient Satisfaction” OR AB “Patient Satisfaction”) OR (TI “Patient Safety” OR AB “Patient Safety”) OR (TI “Cross Infection” OR AB “Cross Infection”) OR (TI “Healthcare Associated Infections” OR AB “Healthcare Associated Infections”) OR (TI “Mortality” OR AB “Mortality”) OR (TI “Health Care Costs” OR AB “Health Care Costs”) OR (TI “Quality of Care” OR AB “Quality of Care”) OR (TI “Strategic Planning” OR AB “Strategic Planning”) OR (TI “Cross-Cultural Comparison” OR AB “Cross-Cultural Comparison”) OR (TI “Patient Readmission” OR AB “Patient Readmission”) OR (TI “Length of Stay” OR AB “Length of Stay”) OR (TI “Surgical Wound Infection” OR AB “Surgical Wound Infection”) OR (TI “Catheter-Related Infections” OR AB “Catheter-Related Infections”) OR (TI “Quality Improvement” OR AB “Quality Improvement”) OR (TI “hospital infection” OR AB “hospital infection”) OR (TI “control services” OR AB “control services”) OR (TI “infection risk” OR AB “infection risk”) OR (TI “infection prevention” OR AB “infection prevention”) OR (TI “reduction healthcare-associated infections” OR AB “reduction healthcare-associated infections”) OR (TI “perception quality of care” OR AB “perception quality of care”) OR (TI “impact nursing interventions” OR AB “impact nursing interventions”) | 156,137 |
#5 | (MH “Randomized Controlled Trial”) OR (MH “Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic”) OR (MH “Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic”) OR (MH “Quasi-Experimental Studies”) OR (MH “Observational Studies as Topic”) OR (MH “Clinical Trial as Topic”) OR (TI “Randomized Controlled Trial” OR AB “Randomized Controlled Trial”) OR (TI “Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic” OR AB “Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic”) OR (TI “Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic” OR AB “Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic”) OR (TI “Quasi-Experimental Studies” OR AB “Quasi-Experimental Studies”) OR (TI “Observational Studies as Topic” OR AB “Observational Studies as Topic”) OR (TI “Clinical Trial as Topic” OR AB “Clinical Trial as Topic”) OR (TI “Quasi-experimental studies” OR AB “Quasi-experimental studies”) OR (TI “Observational studies” OR AB “Observational studies”) OR (TI “Comparative studies” OR AB “Comparative studies”) | 244,711 |
#6 | (#1) AND (#2) AND (#3) AND (#4) AND (#5) | 134 |
Search conducted: 2 January 2025 |
Appendix B
Draft data extraction instrument
Study Evidence Source Details and Characteristics |
Citation details | Author/s, publication year, title, journal, volume, issue, pages |
Design and setting | Study design, randomization, blinding, outcomes assessed, country |
Participants |
Recruitment methods | Strategies used for participant inclusion, including eligibility and exclusion criteria. |
Demographic information | Age, gender, length of hospitalization, and type of hospital unit. |
Intervention |
Intervention information | Type of nursing intervention implemented for the prevention of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) (e.g., hand hygiene, use of sterile barriers, infection prevention bundles, monitoring and auditing practices, disinfection of medical devices, and environmental hygiene). |
Co-interventions | Other interventions associated with infection prevention, such as health education strategies, prophylactic antimicrobial use, or technological measures (e.g., ultraviolet light disinfection). |
Comparison |
Comparison information | Implementation or absence of a structured hospital infection prevention program, comparing nursing intervention adherence and effectiveness with standard practice or no intervention. |
Outcomes |
Outcome measured | Incidence rate of healthcare-associated infections, adherence to hygiene protocols, reduction in infection-related mortality and morbidity, reduction in hospital stay duration, reduction in readmission rates, reduction in infection treatment costs, environmental control, and patient satisfaction. |
Definition/assessment metric | Methods used to assess outcomes, including epidemiological indicators, adherence rates to protocols, and patient satisfaction assessment tools. |
Time of outcome assessment | Time of data collection for outcome evaluation (e.g., at hospital discharge, after a follow-up period). |
Results | Results for the outcomes assessed. |
References
- CDC. Healthcare-Associated Infections (HAIs). Current HAI Progress Report. 2024. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/healthcare-associated-infections/php/data/progress-report.html (accessed on 11 February 2025).
- Point Prevalence Survey of Healthcare-Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Use in European Acute Care Hospitals—2022–2023 [Internet]. 2024. Available online: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/PPS-HAI-AMR-acute-care-europe-2022-2023 (accessed on 18 February 2025).
- Santos-Costa, P.; Paiva-Santos, F.; Graveto, J.; PrevInf Group. Nursing Students’ Perceptions of a Novel Education Approach to Prevention and Control of Healthcare-Associated Infections: Insights from PrevInf Pilot Study. Nurs. Rep. 2024, 14, 1494–1503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alhumaid, S.; Al Mutair, A.; Al Alawi, Z.; Alsuliman, M.; Ahmed, G.Y.; Rabaan, A.A.; Al-Tawfiq, J.A.; Al-Omari, A. Knowledge of infection prevention and control among healthcare workers and factors influencing compliance: A systematic review. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2021, 10, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fontana, R.T. As infecções hospitalares e a evolução histórica das infecções. Rev. Bras. Enferm. 2006, 59, 703–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Organização Mundial de Saúde. Global Report On Infection Prevention and Control. Em Genebra; 2022. Available online: https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/integrated-health-services-(ihs)/ipc/ipc-global-report/who_ipc_global-report_web.pdf?sfvrsn=d15fb868_5 (accessed on 9 April 2025).
- Meneguin, S.; Torres, E.A.; Pollo, C.F. Fatores associados à infecção por Staphylococcus aureus resistente à meticilina em unidade de terapia intensiva. Rev. Bras. Enferm. 2020, 73, e20190483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Arzilli, G.; De Vita, E.; Pasquale, M.; Carloni, L.M.; Pellegrini, M.; Di Giacomo, M.; Esposito, E.; Porretta, A.D.; Rizzo, C. Innovative Techniques for Infection Control and Surveillance in Hospital Settings and Long-Term Care Facilities: A Scoping Review. Antibiotics 2024, 13, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- O’Boyle, C.; Jackson, M.; Henly, S.J. Staffing requirements for infection control programs in US health care facilities: Delphi project. Am. J. Infect. Control 2002, 30, 321–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lavallée, J.F.; Gray, T.A.; Dumville, J.; Russell, W.; Cullum, N. The effects of care bundles on patient outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Implement. Sci. 2017, 12, 142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Paiva-Santos, F.; Santos-Costa, P.; Bastos, C.; Graveto, J. Nurses’ Adherence to the Portuguese Standard to Prevent Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections (CAUTIs): An Observational Study. Nurs. Rep. 2023, 13, 1432–1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sickbert-Bennett, E.E.; DiBiase, L.M.; Willis, T.M.S.; Wolak, E.S.; Weber, D.J.; Rutala, W.A. Reduction of Healthcare-Associated Infections by Exceeding High Compliance with Hand Hygiene Practices. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2016, 22, 1628–1630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Browne, K.L.; Crowley, J.D.; Tan, C.J.; O’Sullivan, C.B.; Walsh, W.R. Effect of Ultraviolet-C Light on the Environmental Bacterial Bioburden in Various Veterinary Facilities. 1 July 2021. Available online: https://avmajournals.avma.org/view/journals/ajvr/82/7/ajvr.82.7.582.xml (accessed on 18 February 2025).
- Hammoud, S.; Amer, F.; Lohner, S.; Kocsis, B. Patient education on infection control: A systematic review. Am. J. Infect. Control 2020, 48, 1506–1515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Raeve, P.D. Nurses Combatting Frontline Antimicrobial Resistance. Iris J. Nurs. Care 2024, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salam, M.A.; Al-Amin, M.Y.; Salam, M.T.; Pawar, J.S.; Akhter, N.; Rabaan, A.A.; Alqumber, M.A.A. Antimicrobial Resistance: A Growing Serious Threat for Global Public Health. Healthcare 2023, 11, 1946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tufunaru, C.; Munn, Z.; Aromataris, E.; Campbell, J.; Hopp, L. Systematic reviews of effectiveness. In JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis [Internet]; Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., Porritt, K., Pilla, B., Jordan, Z., Eds.; JBI, The University of Adelaide: North Adelaide, Australia, 2024; Available online: https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/355827955/4.+Systematic+reviews+of+effectiveness (accessed on 11 February 2025).
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Munn, Z.; Aromataris, E.; Tufanaru, C.; Stern, C.; Porritt, K.; Farrow, J.; Lockwood, C.; Stephenson, M.; Moola, S.; Lizarondo, L.; et al. The development of software to support multiple systematic review types: The Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI). Int. J. Evid. Based Healthc. 2019, 17, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Declaração PRISMA 2020: Uma Diretriz Atualizada Para Relatar Revisões Sistemáticas|The BMJ [Internet]. Available online: https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n71 (accessed on 11 February 2025).
- Valentine, J.C.; Pigott, T.D.; Rothstein, H.R. How Many Studies Do You Need?: A Primer on Statistical Power for Meta-Analysis. J. Educ. Behav. Stat. 2010, 35, 215–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
| Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).