Remember back in 2020, when the COVID pandemic was still new, and we were all getting used to lockdowns, social distancing, and masks? Many of us will also remember that as a time of so-called "COVID products," items designed and marketed to take advantage of the general public's desire for safety. People were willing to spend money on products that sounded like they could help keep the virus away, and included flagrant misinformation that led a few companies into legal troubles. More pernicious, and therefore more dangerous, were the products that seemed like they were backed by science and that were adopted by well-meaning companies and consumers. In today's post, we'll look at some of those seemingly innovative and cutting-edge products that turned out to be just as ineffective as some of the crazier products - and those that stood the test of time, and science.
In our last post, we explored how adopting a new product can result in some heavy lifting. Not only does product adoption require financial investment, it requires significant investment of time and resources even before the decision is made. Even after the new product is in place, the heavy lifting can continue, especially if the intended users are resistant to change. In today's post, we'll look at the obstacles to adopting new products, even if they are proven to improve patient outcomes or save money. Even if they are considered standard of care.
The release of any new phone model reveals much about where people fall on the product adoption curve. There are the camp-outside-the-store-since-midnight enthusiasts all the way to the I-like-my-flip-phone skeptics. All of us fall along the curve somewhere and we may fall into different segments of the curve ourselves, depending on the product. When it comes to the adoption of medical innovations, consumers fall into the same basic categories. This can lead to complex negotiations when one person at a facility is an enthusiast while another important decision-maker is a skeptic. What can we do to stay ahead of the curve - the most important place to be when new research and innovations can be life saving - and find a way to keep everyone satisfied?
We have often discussed the different terms used to describe products that clean the patient environment in this blog. Using the correct terms, and understanding their full definitions, is a critical first step in both writing and learning about the field of infection control and prevention. One term that comes up often as we talk to folks not directly involved in the field is the broad term "antimicrobial." In today's post, we will look at how this broad term covers a huge variety of products and efficacy against pathogens, and we will provide some examples to put this word in context.
You go to a professional conference and learn about an exciting new medical innovation. You think it might work at your facility, so you go ahead and authorize its purchase and are ready to go. Then you wake up from your daydream and remember all the steps required to get that exciting new innovation into your facility - if that is even possible. With a sigh, you move on to your next session, thinking, how can we fast-track those medical innovations that could really make a difference in patient outcomes? What would that take? In today's post, we'll look at some of the things your facility can expect if they want to fast-track a medical innovation, and some ideas to make that process successful.
The National Institutes of Health is the largest public funder of biomedical research around the globe. This support has led to life-saving treatments as well as an ever-growing body of research that paves the way for future breakthroughs. NIH funding comes in the form of grants, of which there are dozens of types. In today's post, we'll look at just one type of grant and why it is so important to research in infection control and prevention.
What happens after laboratory tests confirm that an environmental product kills bacteria? Is that the end of the line for testing a product's efficacy? One pair of researchers say no. Here is their proposal for an evidence hierarchy that describes how, in theory, data can begin to connect a product to a reduction in HAIs. While many regulatory agencies exist to protect the consumer by ensuring that HAI reduction claims are true, it is important for us to still be aware of the burden of proof in research, and how that plays out in a laboratory and real-life setting.