Methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus screening as a patient safety initiative: using patients' experiences to improve the quality of screening practices. Issue 1 (21st September 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Currie, Kay; Knussen, Christina; Price, Lesley; Reilly, Jacqui
• Is Part Of: Journal of clinical nursing. Volume 23:Issue 1/2(2014)
• Page Start: 221
• Page End: 231
• Publication Date: 2013-09-21
• Subjects: Nursing -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; 610.7305
• DOI: 10.1111/jocn.12366
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0962-1067

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" id="jocn12366-abs-0001"> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <sec id="jocn12366-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <title>Aims and objectives</title> <p>To explore the patient experience and acceptability of methicillin‐resistant <italic>Staphylococcus aureus</italic> screening of inpatient admissions to acute hospital settings.</p> </sec> <sec id="jocn12366-sec-0002" sec-type="section"> <title>Background</title> <p>Prevention of healthcare‐associated infections such as methicillin‐resistant <italic>Staphylococcus aureus</italic> is a major patient safety concern internationally. Screening of patients for methicillin‐resistant <italic>Staphylococcus aureus</italic> colonisation is becoming a routine aspect of hospital admission; however, evidence of the patient experience and acceptability of methicillin‐resistant <italic>Staphylococcus aureus</italic> screening is limited.</p> </sec> <sec id="jocn12366-sec-0003" sec-type="section"> <title>Design</title> <p>A mixed‐methods study set in six acute care hospitals in three Scottish regions.</p> </sec> <sec id="jocn12366-sec-0004" sec-type="section"> <title>Methods</title> <p>Data collection involved postdischarge self‐report survey of patients who had been screened (<italic>n</italic> = 54) and qualitative patient interviews (<italic>n</italic> = 10). Theoretical constructs derived from the Health Belief Model and Theory of Planned Behaviour used in analysis.</p> </sec> <sec id="jocn12366-sec-0005" sec-type="section"> <title>Results</title> <p>Findings indicated that methicillin‐resistant <italic>Staphylococcus aureus</italic> screening was broadly acceptable to patients. The experience of screening did not appear to be problematic; responses demonstrate that screening provided reassurance and generated confidence that health organisations were tackling healthcare‐associated infections. Patients were less positive regarding the provision of information, the possibility of refusing a screen and the consequences of a positive test result. Furthermore, there were indications that patients wanted to be told the results of the screen and strong support for screening of hospital staff.</p> </sec> <sec id="jocn12366-sec-0006" sec-type="section"> <title>Conclusions</title> <p>Analysis of constructs from our theoretical frameworks provides evidence that attitudes were largely positive; responses indicate a belief in the beneficial impact of methicillin‐resistant <italic>Staphylococcus aureus</italic> screening for patients and the wider community. However, it is important that health professionals continually assess the patient experience of 'routine' aspects of health care such as MRSA screening.</p> </sec> <sec id="jocn12366-sec-0007" sec-type="section"> <title>Relevance to clinical practice</title> <p>The findings from this study suggest that while methicillin‐resistant <italic>Staphylococcus aureus</italic> screening is generally acceptable to patients as a regular patient safety initiative, to enhance the quality of the patient experience, clinicians should consider the timing, content and effectiveness of information provision.</p> </sec> </abstract>