A cross-sectional survey of the acceptability of data collection processes for validation of a European point prevalence survey of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial use

Lesley Price, Jacqui Reilly, Jon Godwin, Shona Cairns, Susan Hopkins, Barry Cookson, William Malcolm, Gareth Hughes, Outi Lyytikäinen, Bruno Coignard, Sonja Hansen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: Statistical measurements alone are insufficient to ensure robust data for point prevalence surveys (PPS) of healthcare-associated infections (HAI). Data quality is determined by the type of data, data collection methods and available resources. Data collectors’ views regarding the acceptability of data collection process for validation studies are also important to consider.
Aim: To explore data collectors’ views on the acceptability of data collection processes used for a European validation PPS of HAI and antimicrobial use (AMU).
Methods: An anonymous online survey was conducted with 67 data collectors from 10 European countries involved in the study.
Findings: Twenty five (64.1%) participants viewed AMU data collection as easy/quite easy whereas only 5 (12.8%) thought HAI data collection was easy/quite easy. 6 (17%) participants indicated that incentives and 21 (56.8%) that disincentives were possibly/definitely present for reporting cases of HAI. Engagement of staff was not thought to have adversely affected data collection as only 1 (2.6%) and 5 (15.4%) participants thought involvement of hospital PPS teams and administration was low/very low.
Discussion: Participants believed the approaches used were appropriate but that more training was required prior to data collection, some case definitions should be reviewed and the number of variables reduced.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)122-126
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Infection Prevention
Volume17
Issue number3
Early online date8 Mar 2016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2016

Fingerprint

Cross Infection
Cross-Sectional Studies
Motivation
Validation Studies
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • healthcare associated infection
  • antimicrobial use
  • point prevalence survey
  • acceptability
  • cross-sectional survey

Cite this

Price, Lesley ; Reilly, Jacqui ; Godwin, Jon ; Cairns, Shona ; Hopkins, Susan ; Cookson, Barry ; Malcolm, William ; Hughes, Gareth ; Lyytikäinen, Outi ; Coignard, Bruno ; Hansen, Sonja. / A cross-sectional survey of the acceptability of data collection processes for validation of a European point prevalence survey of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial use. In: Journal of Infection Prevention. 2016 ; Vol. 17, No. 3. pp. 122-126.
@article{deb503000ba54a3f8f69e059398e8a07,
title = "A cross-sectional survey of the acceptability of data collection processes for validation of a European point prevalence survey of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial use",
abstract = "Background: Statistical measurements alone are insufficient to ensure robust data for point prevalence surveys (PPS) of healthcare-associated infections (HAI). Data quality is determined by the type of data, data collection methods and available resources. Data collectors’ views regarding the acceptability of data collection process for validation studies are also important to consider. Aim: To explore data collectors’ views on the acceptability of data collection processes used for a European validation PPS of HAI and antimicrobial use (AMU). Methods: An anonymous online survey was conducted with 67 data collectors from 10 European countries involved in the study. Findings: Twenty five (64.1{\%}) participants viewed AMU data collection as easy/quite easy whereas only 5 (12.8{\%}) thought HAI data collection was easy/quite easy. 6 (17{\%}) participants indicated that incentives and 21 (56.8{\%}) that disincentives were possibly/definitely present for reporting cases of HAI. Engagement of staff was not thought to have adversely affected data collection as only 1 (2.6{\%}) and 5 (15.4{\%}) participants thought involvement of hospital PPS teams and administration was low/very low. Discussion: Participants believed the approaches used were appropriate but that more training was required prior to data collection, some case definitions should be reviewed and the number of variables reduced.",
keywords = "healthcare associated infection, antimicrobial use, point prevalence survey, acceptability, cross-sectional survey",
author = "Lesley Price and Jacqui Reilly and Jon Godwin and Shona Cairns and Susan Hopkins and Barry Cookson and William Malcolm and Gareth Hughes and Outi Lyytik{\"a}inen and Bruno Coignard and Sonja Hansen",
note = "Acceptance from webpage",
year = "2016",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1177/1757177416637131",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "122--126",
journal = "Journal of Infection Prevention",
issn = "1757-1774",
publisher = "SAGE Publications",
number = "3",

}

A cross-sectional survey of the acceptability of data collection processes for validation of a European point prevalence survey of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial use. / Price, Lesley; Reilly, Jacqui; Godwin, Jon; Cairns, Shona; Hopkins, Susan; Cookson, Barry ; Malcolm, William; Hughes, Gareth ; Lyytikäinen, Outi; Coignard, Bruno; Hansen, Sonja.

In: Journal of Infection Prevention, Vol. 17, No. 3, 05.2016, p. 122-126.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A cross-sectional survey of the acceptability of data collection processes for validation of a European point prevalence survey of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial use

AU - Price, Lesley

AU - Reilly, Jacqui

AU - Godwin, Jon

AU - Cairns, Shona

AU - Hopkins, Susan

AU - Cookson, Barry

AU - Malcolm, William

AU - Hughes, Gareth

AU - Lyytikäinen, Outi

AU - Coignard, Bruno

AU - Hansen, Sonja

N1 - Acceptance from webpage

PY - 2016/5

Y1 - 2016/5

N2 - Background: Statistical measurements alone are insufficient to ensure robust data for point prevalence surveys (PPS) of healthcare-associated infections (HAI). Data quality is determined by the type of data, data collection methods and available resources. Data collectors’ views regarding the acceptability of data collection process for validation studies are also important to consider. Aim: To explore data collectors’ views on the acceptability of data collection processes used for a European validation PPS of HAI and antimicrobial use (AMU). Methods: An anonymous online survey was conducted with 67 data collectors from 10 European countries involved in the study. Findings: Twenty five (64.1%) participants viewed AMU data collection as easy/quite easy whereas only 5 (12.8%) thought HAI data collection was easy/quite easy. 6 (17%) participants indicated that incentives and 21 (56.8%) that disincentives were possibly/definitely present for reporting cases of HAI. Engagement of staff was not thought to have adversely affected data collection as only 1 (2.6%) and 5 (15.4%) participants thought involvement of hospital PPS teams and administration was low/very low. Discussion: Participants believed the approaches used were appropriate but that more training was required prior to data collection, some case definitions should be reviewed and the number of variables reduced.

AB - Background: Statistical measurements alone are insufficient to ensure robust data for point prevalence surveys (PPS) of healthcare-associated infections (HAI). Data quality is determined by the type of data, data collection methods and available resources. Data collectors’ views regarding the acceptability of data collection process for validation studies are also important to consider. Aim: To explore data collectors’ views on the acceptability of data collection processes used for a European validation PPS of HAI and antimicrobial use (AMU). Methods: An anonymous online survey was conducted with 67 data collectors from 10 European countries involved in the study. Findings: Twenty five (64.1%) participants viewed AMU data collection as easy/quite easy whereas only 5 (12.8%) thought HAI data collection was easy/quite easy. 6 (17%) participants indicated that incentives and 21 (56.8%) that disincentives were possibly/definitely present for reporting cases of HAI. Engagement of staff was not thought to have adversely affected data collection as only 1 (2.6%) and 5 (15.4%) participants thought involvement of hospital PPS teams and administration was low/very low. Discussion: Participants believed the approaches used were appropriate but that more training was required prior to data collection, some case definitions should be reviewed and the number of variables reduced.

KW - healthcare associated infection

KW - antimicrobial use

KW - point prevalence survey

KW - acceptability

KW - cross-sectional survey

U2 - 10.1177/1757177416637131

DO - 10.1177/1757177416637131

M3 - Article

VL - 17

SP - 122

EP - 126

JO - Journal of Infection Prevention

JF - Journal of Infection Prevention

SN - 1757-1774

IS - 3

ER -