1

Module 3 Assignment

Student’s Name :

Institutional Affiliation:

Course Name:

Instructor’s Name:

Due Date:
 2

Module 3 Assignment

Part A

Infections Studied

The infections studied were Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP), Surgical Site

Infection (SSI), Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infection (CLABSI), and Catheter-

Associated Urinary Tract Infection (CAUTI).

According to AHRQ (n.d.), nineteen studies of QI strategies implementation to decrease

VAP rates met inclusion criteria and controlled confounding trends. Three of these studies were

ranked as high quality, four as medium quality, and 12 as low quality. For SSI, out of fifteen

studies, four from the 2007 report and one extra identified from a recent literature search applied

QI approaches to execute preemptive interventions meant to reduce SSI. The studies controlled

confounding trends and met inclusion standards in the systematic review. On CLABSI, 26

studies that addressed prevention of CLABSI by controlling confounding factors trends met

inclusion standards. One study was rated ES-11 high quality,19 studies were graded medium

quality, and 16 of these studies were rated low quality. Finally, the CAUTI literature search

acknowledged 11 studies that addressed prevention of CAUTI and controlled for the

confounding factors trend. One study was graded as high quality, three of average quality, and

seven as low quality.

What was Revealed Effective in Prevention of HAIs

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are at the top as risks to patient safety, affecting

1 of 31 hospital-based patients (AHRQ, 2019). More than 1 million HAIs occur in U.S.
 3

healthcare system each year, resulting in loss of thousands of lives and adding dollars to

healthcare costs.

The Urinary Catheter Care Bundles method was shown effective, as illustrated by cluster

regression model analysis between the base and sustained effect periods. The researchers

substantially improved the infection rates (Marbella et al., 2012). Bundle compliance was the

only method revealed as an essential predictor of the rate of infection reduction. A study was

completed identifying the relevance of compliance to the implementation and upkeep

of treatment packs. Although, measurement of conformity will be required to assure execution.

The care package can then be used as an audit tool to help healthcare practitioners improve and

measure the implementation of essential components of care.

All bundle's last purpose is to minimize Healthcare-Associated Infections (HAIs). The

goals of the Urinary Catheter Care Bundle are to reduce the number of catheter insertions in use

and illnesses linked with those that are essential. Marbella et al., 2012 reveal that personal

protective equipment such as (gloves, shields, aprons), sterile methods, handwashing, and

environmental infection prevention techniques are essential. They protect patients from disease-

causing pathogens transmission from others. Protective clothing and equipment also safeguard

medical practitioners and other workers from bacterial contamination in the workplace.

The strength of evidence is revealed through the defining scope of the planned research

studies. This is a essential element in moving ahead. Assessing intended outcome of search, in

this case, provided simplicity of purpose and direction. For appropriate evidence, the researchers

conducting the studies related to the infections applied a critical step to understand how the

topics fit in their related knowledge field (Mateo & Foreman, 2013). They thus completed a
 4

sensitivity analysis to identify relevant drivers of the observed drop in the contraction of

diseases. The significant indicator of lower illness rates after changing the area and pediatric ICU

demographics was adherence to the CLABSI maintenance bundle (Marbella et al., 2012). It also

involved a hierarchical cluster regression model. Average CLABSI fell to 4.3 infections per

1,000 catheter days during the simulation until it controlled to 3.1 per 1,000 catheter days

(Marbella et al., 2012). This further underlines the efficiency of the method used to reduce the

infection rates.

Part B

Title

The title of the research study article is "General practitioners' (GPs) perceptions of the

vaccination controversies: a French national cross-sectional study.”

What the Study is About

The studies revolve around a controversy in France concerning vaccines in relation to

GPs. The authors reveal that GPs are basis of French vaccination-based system in France. They

recommend several vaccines, and on consultations, they may direct clients and influence them

get vaccinated. GPs' belief in vaccination has been weakening over past 20 years, with

percentage of the French GPs favorable to vaccination overall reducing from 85 percent in 1994

to 77 percent in 2009 (Le Marechal et al., 2018).

Purpose of Study

The purpose of the study was to define French GPs' perspectives on most notable

vaccination debates and their use of vaccine-critical web based sites.

 5

Framework of the Study

The study's theoretical framework focused on the Pandemrix global flu vaccine and the

seasonal flu vaccine linked to a statistically significant elevated narcolepsy risk and Guillain-

Barré syndrome (Le Marechal et al., 2018).

Protocol Development

Between 2013 December and 2014 march, participants were recruited. They were

picked randomly from a sample group of 62 000 French general practitioners from Department

of Health's extensive database of French healthcare specialists (Le Marechal et al., 2018).

The topic was backed by the clinical nursing staff officials, who gave the green light for

selecting and choosing the right individuals.

The project team members revealed in the study are GPs and professional investigators.

No meeting was shown since interviews were led with computer-assisted telephone

interview (CATI) software (Le Marechal et al., 2018).

Materials such as questionnaires and surveys were used to collect data for the study and

later put on Likert scales for analysis.

Description of Study Evaluation

Cross-sectional survey back in 2014 requested representative nationwide sample for the

GPs. The GPs were randomly picked from a comprehensive database of the health specialists in

France concerning their views of probability of severe negative actions related with 6, unlike

vaccines. In 2 of them, the relationship was built on several scientific evidence, while that wasn't

the case for the rest four. Cluster analysis was completed to form a typology of the GP views on
 6

the probability of these possible six associations. The factors related to specific interest clusters

were acknowledged using logistic regression models. The study evaluation can be associated

with summative research because it involves questionnaires, polls, and surveys. It also presents

unique insights into Physicians' perspectives on vaccine debates (Le Marechal et al., 2018). This

study used a large representative sample of French doctors chosen at random from an extensive

list, and the outcomes were standardized, making it highly representational.

Findings and Conclusions

1582 GPs overall contributed to questionnaire survey. The cluster analysis acknowledged

4 groups of the GPs following their vulnerability to vaccine disagreements. The first group had a

52 percent limited vulnerability to controversies. The second group, 32% overall, were unsure

but precluded a relationship between the hepatitis B vaccine and multiple sclerosis. Third group,

11 percent were extremely vulnerable to the controversies, and in fourth group, 5% were unsure.

GPs who sometimes practiced alternative medication and those who considered information

given by the mass media consistent were more vulnerable to the controversies.

GPs had unique profiles of vulnerability towards vaccination controversies, and several

of their opinions on these controversies weren't based on the scientific evidence.

 7

References

AHQR, (n.d.). Prevention of Healthcare-Associated Infections. Retrieved from Prevention of

Healthcare-Associated Infections.

AHRQ, (2019), Aug.). AHRQ's Healthcare-Associated Infections Program. Retrieved from

AHRQ's Healthcare-Associated Infections Program.

Le Marechal, M., Fressard, L., Agrinier, N., Verger, P., & Pulcini, C. (2018). General

practitioners' perceptions of vaccination controversies: a French nationwide cross-

sectional study. Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 24(8), 858-864. Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2017.10.021

Marbella, A., Pines, E., Chopra, R., Black, E. R., & Aronson, N. (2012). Closing the quality gap:

revisiting the state of the science (vol. 6: prevention of healthcare-associated

infections). Evidence report/technology assessment, (208.6), 1-578. Retrieved from

https://europepmc.org/article/NBK/nbk115404

Mateo, M. A., & Foreman, M. D. (Eds.). (2013). Research for advanced practice nurses: From

evidence to practice. Springer Publishing Company.