| Title |
Improved quality of care for patients infected or colonised with ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae in a French teaching hospital: impact of an interventional prospective study and development of specific tools
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10096-018-3234-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Véronique Mondain, Florence Lieutier, Céline Pulcini, Nicolas Degand, Luce Landraud, Raymond Ruimy, Thierry Fosse, Pierre Marie Roger |
| Abstract |
The increasing incidence of ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-E) in France prompted the publication of national recommendations in 2010. Based on these, we developed a toolkit and a warning system to optimise management of ESBL-E infected or colonised patients in both community and hospital settings. The impact of this initiative on quality of care was assessed in a teaching hospital. The ESBL toolkit was developed in 2011 during multidisciplinary meetings involving a regional network of hospital, private clinic and laboratory staff in Southeastern France. It includes antibiotic treatment protocols, a check list, mail templates and a patient information sheet focusing on infection control. Upon identification of ESBL-E, the warning system involves alerting the attending physician and the infectious disease (ID) advisor, with immediate, advice-based implementation of the toolkit. The procedure and toolkit were tested in our teaching hospital. Patient management was compared before and after implementation of the toolkit over two 3-month periods (July-October 2010 and 2012). Implementation of the ESBL-E warning system and ESBL-E toolkit was tested for 87 patients in 2010 and 92 patients in 2012, resulting in improved patient management: expert advice sought and followed (16 vs 97%), information provided to the patient's general practitioner (18 vs 63%) and coding of the condition in the patient's medical file (17 vs 59%), respectively. Our multidisciplinary strategy improved quality of care for in-patients infected or colonised with ESBL-E, increasing compliance with national recommendations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 15% |
| Researcher | 3 | 15% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 35% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 10% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 25% |
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 13 April 2018.
All research outputs
#17,944,820
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#2,091
of 2,796 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,686
of 329,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#23
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,796 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 329,912 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.