printed  by

www.postersession.com

PATIENT’S  ROLE  IN  THE  IMPLEMENTATION  OF  INFECTION  PREVENTION  AND  CONTROL  GUIDELINES:  A  SCOPING  REVIEW

Heloise  Agreli,  Michael  Murphy,  Síle  Creedon,  Aileen  Burton,  Cliodhna  Ní  Bhuachalla,  Deirdre  O'Brien,  Dinah  Gould,  Eileen  Savage,  Fiona  Barry,  Jonathan  Drennan,  Maura  Smiddy,  Sarah  Condell,  Sinéad  Horgan,  Siobhan  Murphy,  

Teresa  Wills,  Josephine  Hegarty

UNIVERSITY  COLLEGE  CORK,  IRELAND

From an identified 2078 papers, 14 papers wereincluded in this review. Our findings provideinsights into the need for a fundamental change toIPC, from being solely the healthcareprofessional’s responsibility to one that involves acollaborative relationship between healthcareprofessionals and patients. Themes and respectivesubthemes were identified in the literature (Figure2).

A scoping review1 was undertaken to identify recentpublications (from 2013 to 2018) on patient involvementin the implementation of IPC guidelines.

The findings of this review endorse the need for targeted strategies to overcome the lack of role clarity for patients in the implementation of IPC guidelines.

To explore the role of patients and their involvement in the implementation of IPC guidelines.

BACKGROUND

OBJECTIVE

MATERIALS AND METHODS

RESULTS

CONCLUSION

The failure to implement and adhere to guidelines is oneimportant issue faced in tackling infection prevention andcontrol (IPC). Patient involvement in IPC, by partneringwith healthcare professionals in the implementation of IPCguidelines, has been regarded as a strategy that canincrease patient safety. Such professional-patientpartnership for IPC requires clarity of roles. However, fewstudies have explored patient’s role and mappedsystematically the existing strategies to encourage patientinvolvement in the implementation of IPC guidelines.

Records identified through database screening(n=2078)

Title and abstract screening(n=1545)

Full text screening(n=24)

Studies included from database searching

(n=2)

Studies included in this scoping review(n=14)

Duplicated removed(n=533)

Exclusions by title and abstract screening

(n=1521)

Records excluded after full text screening

(n=22) Studies included from bidirectional

citations searching (n=9)

and grey literature (n=3)

IdentificationScreening

Eligibility

Included

Figure 1. Prisma flow diagram

• Vulnerability v. responsibility

• Real partners v. pseudo partners

Patient role in IPC

• Active strategies• Passive strategies

Levels of patient

involvement

• Power imbalance• Lack of an organizational

culture of shared responsibility

Barriers in the professional-

patient relationship

In general, patients are regarded as vulnerable butalso responsible for preventing and transmittinginfections; partners with professionals in theimplementation of IPC guidelines but alsooutsiders of the “professional” process ofpreventing and controlling infections.

Figure 2. Themes and subthemes.

REFERENCE

1. Peters M, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Soares C, Khalil H, Parker D. The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers' manual 2015: methodology for JBI scoping reviews. 2015.

Email: heloise.agreli@ucc.ie, j.hegarty@ucc.ie

Funding for this study was supported by the Department of Health and the HealthResearch Board. Applied Partnership Awards, APA-­‐2017-­‐002.