Evidence Appraisal (Other (Not Listed) Sample)

☐Yes → Continue appraisal Does this evidence answer the EBP question? ☐ No → STOP, do not continue evidence appraisal Article Summary Information Article Title: Impact of a multicomponent hand hygiene intervention strategy in reducing infection rates at a university hospital in Saudi Arabia. Author(s): Ahmed Al Kuwaiti Number: 9(Issue No. 3) Population, size, and setting: The population of the study consists of healthcare staff working at King Fahd Hospital of the University in Al-Khobar , Saudi Arabia. N=12 Publication date: 1/9/2017 Complete after appraisal: Evidence level and quality rating: The quality rating appears to be good. The study acknowledges its limitations, provides clear descriptions of the methodology and results, and discusses potential implications and areas for further research. The evidence level of the study appears to be relatively high(quasi-experimental) based on the information supplied. The study utilizes a prospective interventional design, conducts statistical analysis, and gives quantitative data to back up its findings. However, without access to the additional characteristics such as the potential biases, it's challenging to provide a precise evidence level rating. Study findings that help answer the EBP question: The study findings suggest that the implementation of a multicomponent hand hygiene intervention (active educational interventions combined with regular evaluation and feedback) led to a significant improvement in hand hygiene compliance among healthcare staff. This improvement was associated with a decrease in nosocomial infection rates, specifically hospital-acquired infections (HAI) and catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI), in the inpatient wards of King Fahd Hospital of the University in Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia.  Article Appraisal Workflow Level Level Is this evidence: This is… ☐ A clinical practice guideline or a consensus/position statement? NONE Level IV evidence, go to Section I: Level IV Appraisal to determine quality ☐ A literature review or integrative review? NONE Level V evidence, go to Section II, A: Level V Appraisal to determine quality ☐ An expert opinion? NO Level V evidence, go to Section II, B: Level V Appraisal to determine quality ☐ Case report? NO Level V evidence, go to Section II, C: Level V Appraisal to determine quality ☐ An organizational experience (including quality improvement, financial or program evaluations)? YES Level V evidence, go to Section II, D: Level V Appraisal to determine quality ☐ Community standard, clinician experience, or consumer preference? NONE Level V evidence, go to Section II, E: Level V Appraisal to determine quality Section I: Level IV Appraisal Select the type of Level IV evidence ☐ Clinical practice guidelines (systematically developed recommendations from nationally recognized experts based on research evidence or expert consensus panel) ☐ Consensus or position statement (systematically developed recommendations, based on research and nationally recognized expert opinion, that guide members of a professional organization in decision-making for an issue of concern) Quality Quality After selecting the type of Level IV evidence, determine the quality of evidence using the considerations below: Are the types of evidence included identified? ☐ Yes ☐ No Were appropriate stakeholders involved in the development of recommendations? ☐ Yes ☐ No Are groups to which recommendations apply and do not apply clearly defined? ☐ Yes ☐ No Does each recommendation have an identified level of evidence stated? ☐ Yes ☐ No Are recommendations clear? ☐ Yes ☐ No Circle the appropriate quality rating below: * High quality: Material officially sponsored by a professional, public, or private organization or a government agency; documentation of a systematic literature search strategy; consistent results with sufficient numbers of well-designed studies; criteria-based evaluation of overall scientific strength and quality of included studies and definitive conclusions; national expertise clearly evident; developed or revised within the past five years. * Good quality: Material officially sponsored by a professional, public, or private organization or a government agency; reasonably thorough and appropriate systematic literature search strategy; reasonably consistent results, sufficient numbers of well-designed studies; evaluation of strengths and limitations of included studies with fairly definitive conclusions; national expertise clearly evident; developed or revised within the past five years. * Low quality: Material not sponsored by an official organization or agency; undefined, poorly defined, or limited literature search strategy; no evaluation of strengths and limitations of included studies; insufficient evidence with inconsistent results; conclusions cannot be drawn; not revised within the past five years. Record findings that help answer the EBP question on page 1 Section II: Level V Quality Appraisal A Select the type of article: ☐ Integrative review (summary of research evidence and theoretical literature; analyzes, compares themes, notes gaps in the selected literature) ☐ Literature review (summary of selected published literature including scientific and nonscientific, such as reports of organizational experience and opinions of experts) Quality Quality After selecting the type of Level V evidence, determine the quality of evidence using the considerations below: Is the purpose of the review clearly stated? ☐ Yes ☐ No Is literature relevant and up-to-date (most sources are within the past five years or classic)? ☐ Yes ☐ No Are gaps in the literature identified? ☐ Yes ☐ No Are recommendations made for future practice or study? ☐ Yes ☐ No Additionally, for Integrative Reviews only: Was the literature search strategy clearly described? ☐ Yes ☐ No Was literature appraised for strength and quality ☐ Yes ☐ No Of the literature reviewed, is there a meaningful analysis of the conclusions across the articles included in the review? ☐ Yes ☐ No Are recommendations made for future practice or study? ☐ Yes ☐ No Circle the appropriate quality rating below: Integrative Reviews: * High quality: Subject matter is clearly defined, literature search strategies are clear and thorough, authors undertook meaningful analysis of included evidence, conclusions are clear, gaps and limitations thoroughly addressed * Good quality: Subject matter is defined, literature search strategy reasonably clear with possible gaps, author undertook somewhat meaningful analysis of included evidence, fairly clear conclusions, gaps and limitations reasonably addressed * Low quality: Subject matter not clearly defined, literature search strategy lacking transparency or thoroughness, lack of meaningful analysis of included evidence, conclusions cannot be drawn, limitations not addressed Literature Reviews: * High quality: Subject matter is clearly defined, literature is up-to-date, gaps and limitations thoroughly addressed, recommendations for future practice or study are clearly identified * Good quality: Subject matter is defined, literature is mostly up-to-date, gaps and limitations reasonably addressed, recommendations for future practice or study are identified * Low quality: Subject matter not clearly defined, literature is out-of-date, gaps and limitations not addressed, recommendations are not provided Record findings that help answer the EBP question on page 1 Section II: Level V Quality Appraisal (continued) B Select the type of article: ☐ Expert opinion (opinion of one or more individuals based on clinical expertise) Quality Quality After selecting the type of Level V evidence, determine the quality of evidence using the considerations below: Does the author have relevant education and training? ☐ Yes ☐ No Do they have relevant professional and academic affiliations? ☐ Yes ☐ No Have they previously published in the area of interest? ☐ Yes ☐ No Is there thorough citing of recent literature (within the past 5 years)? ☐ Yes ☐ No Have they been recognized by state, regional, national, or international groups for their expertise? ☐ Yes ☐ No Are their publications well cited by others? ☐ Yes ☐ No *A web search can provide information about expertise* Circle the appropriate quality rating below: * High quality: Expertise is clearly evident, draws definitive conclusions, and provides scientific rationale; thought leader in the field. * Good quality: Expertise appears to be credible, draws fairly definitive conclusions, and provides logical argument for opinions. * Low quality: Expertise is not discernable or is dubious; conclusions cannot be drawn. Record findings that help answer the EBP question on page 1 Section II: Level V Quality Appraisal (continued) C Select the type of article: ☐ Case report (an in-depth look at a person or group or another social unit) Quality Quality After selecting the type of Level V evidence, determine the quality of evidence using the considerations below: Is the purpose of the case report clearly stated? ☐ Ye...