Variation in administrators’ and clinicians’ attitudes toward critical elements of an infection control program and the role of the infection control practitioner in New South wales, Australia

C. L. Murphy, M. L. McLaws

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Debate remains over the core activities of infection control (IC) programs. Differences in stakeholder opinions must be considered if consensus panel guidelines and recommendations are to be broadly applied. This article describes a survey of administrators and clinicians employed in hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. Respondents self-reported their levels of agreement with affirmative statements regarding the role of the infection control practitioner (ICP) and the essential requirements and infrastructure of IC programs. Method: The study population included administrators and clinicians in each public, private, and freestanding day hospital in New South Wales. Respondents reported the intensity of their agreement with 16 affirmative statements relating to IC program infrastructure and resources and the ICP’s role and responsibilities. Results: The overall response rate was 62.1% (587/945). Clinicians (349/587) and administrators (238/587) accounted for 59.5% and 40.5% of the response rate, respectively. Overall, administrators and clinicians reported greatest levels of agreement for those elements not requiring additional resources. Conclusion: The extent of divergence between administrators and clinicians is not so great that it can not be resolved. Our findings demonstrate the degree of administrator support that clinicians can expect for each element. We advocate better communication between clinicians and administrators in conjunction with objective strategic planning. Our findings provide a guide for ICPs to either establish or negotiate the core components of their IC program.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)262-270
Number of pages9
JournalAmerican Journal of Infection Control
Volume29
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Aug 2001
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Infection Control Practitioners
South Australia
New South Wales
Infection Control
Administrative Personnel
Consensus
Communication
Guidelines

Cite this

@article{c2d2e1900ea7454a986028617edb454b,
title = "Variation in administrators’ and clinicians’ attitudes toward critical elements of an infection control program and the role of the infection control practitioner in New South wales, Australia",
abstract = "Background: Debate remains over the core activities of infection control (IC) programs. Differences in stakeholder opinions must be considered if consensus panel guidelines and recommendations are to be broadly applied. This article describes a survey of administrators and clinicians employed in hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. Respondents self-reported their levels of agreement with affirmative statements regarding the role of the infection control practitioner (ICP) and the essential requirements and infrastructure of IC programs. Method: The study population included administrators and clinicians in each public, private, and freestanding day hospital in New South Wales. Respondents reported the intensity of their agreement with 16 affirmative statements relating to IC program infrastructure and resources and the ICP’s role and responsibilities. Results: The overall response rate was 62.1{\%} (587/945). Clinicians (349/587) and administrators (238/587) accounted for 59.5{\%} and 40.5{\%} of the response rate, respectively. Overall, administrators and clinicians reported greatest levels of agreement for those elements not requiring additional resources. Conclusion: The extent of divergence between administrators and clinicians is not so great that it can not be resolved. Our findings demonstrate the degree of administrator support that clinicians can expect for each element. We advocate better communication between clinicians and administrators in conjunction with objective strategic planning. Our findings provide a guide for ICPs to either establish or negotiate the core components of their IC program.",
author = "Murphy, {C. L.} and McLaws, {M. L.}",
year = "2001",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1067/mic.2001.117037",
language = "English",
volume = "29",
pages = "262--270",
journal = "American Journal of Infection Control",
issn = "0161-6005",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Variation in administrators’ and clinicians’ attitudes toward critical elements of an infection control program and the role of the infection control practitioner in New South wales, Australia

AU - Murphy, C. L.

AU - McLaws, M. L.

PY - 2001/8/1

Y1 - 2001/8/1

N2 - Background: Debate remains over the core activities of infection control (IC) programs. Differences in stakeholder opinions must be considered if consensus panel guidelines and recommendations are to be broadly applied. This article describes a survey of administrators and clinicians employed in hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. Respondents self-reported their levels of agreement with affirmative statements regarding the role of the infection control practitioner (ICP) and the essential requirements and infrastructure of IC programs. Method: The study population included administrators and clinicians in each public, private, and freestanding day hospital in New South Wales. Respondents reported the intensity of their agreement with 16 affirmative statements relating to IC program infrastructure and resources and the ICP’s role and responsibilities. Results: The overall response rate was 62.1% (587/945). Clinicians (349/587) and administrators (238/587) accounted for 59.5% and 40.5% of the response rate, respectively. Overall, administrators and clinicians reported greatest levels of agreement for those elements not requiring additional resources. Conclusion: The extent of divergence between administrators and clinicians is not so great that it can not be resolved. Our findings demonstrate the degree of administrator support that clinicians can expect for each element. We advocate better communication between clinicians and administrators in conjunction with objective strategic planning. Our findings provide a guide for ICPs to either establish or negotiate the core components of their IC program.

AB - Background: Debate remains over the core activities of infection control (IC) programs. Differences in stakeholder opinions must be considered if consensus panel guidelines and recommendations are to be broadly applied. This article describes a survey of administrators and clinicians employed in hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. Respondents self-reported their levels of agreement with affirmative statements regarding the role of the infection control practitioner (ICP) and the essential requirements and infrastructure of IC programs. Method: The study population included administrators and clinicians in each public, private, and freestanding day hospital in New South Wales. Respondents reported the intensity of their agreement with 16 affirmative statements relating to IC program infrastructure and resources and the ICP’s role and responsibilities. Results: The overall response rate was 62.1% (587/945). Clinicians (349/587) and administrators (238/587) accounted for 59.5% and 40.5% of the response rate, respectively. Overall, administrators and clinicians reported greatest levels of agreement for those elements not requiring additional resources. Conclusion: The extent of divergence between administrators and clinicians is not so great that it can not be resolved. Our findings demonstrate the degree of administrator support that clinicians can expect for each element. We advocate better communication between clinicians and administrators in conjunction with objective strategic planning. Our findings provide a guide for ICPs to either establish or negotiate the core components of their IC program.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034863903&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1067/mic.2001.117037

DO - 10.1067/mic.2001.117037

M3 - Article

VL - 29

SP - 262

EP - 270

JO - American Journal of Infection Control

JF - American Journal of Infection Control

SN - 0161-6005

IS - 4

ER -