Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology (2018), 39, 1010–1020 doi:10.1017/ice.2018.112
Letters to the Editor
Would a rose by any other name really smell as sweet? Framing our work in infection prevention
Shelley K. Summerlin-Long MPH, MSW, BSN, RN1, David J. Weber MD, MPH1,2, Lauren M. DiBiase MS, CIC1, Mark O. Buchanan BS, BSN, RN, RN-BC1, Emily E. Sickbert-Bennett PhD, MS1,2 and Department of Hospital
Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Hospitalsa 1Department of Hospital Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina and 2Division of Infectious Diseases, UNC School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
To the Editor—From consumerism to politics to health care, the way we label or frame an issue plays a huge role in how we understand and respond to it. This is why we now shop for “pre- owned” cars and “dried plums” rather than used cars and prunes and buy “tall” (not small) coffees at Starbucks. Realtors are also excellent at framing. A cottage home seems more marketable when described as “cozy” or “charming” than as “tiny” or “cramped.” Cognitive linguist and professor George Lakoff has pointed out how critical framing is in politics as well, from how initiatives are named (eg, “The Clear Skies Initiative” or “No Child Left Behind”) to how concepts are described (eg, “drilling for oil” vs “exploring for energy” or “undocumented workers” vs “illegal aliens”).1 This is also true in the fields of health care and public health.
Many tobacco “control” programs began to use the term tobacco “prevention” instead, focusing on the superior aspects and more positive connotation of prevention. The term for “other people’s smoke” has also evolved from “environmental tobacco smoke” (coined by the tobacco industry) to the more commonly used “secondhand smoke,” which proponents argue puts the focus on the exposed nonsmoker.2 Public health advocates began using the term “car crashes” rather than “accidents” to focus on the fact that most car crashes stem from the preventable results of human error.3,4 In health care, we aim to be more inclusive of the changing
landscape of our personnel by using terms such as “licensed independent providers” to include nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and physician’s assistants when discussing pro- grams that affect “providers” rather than defaulting to “physicians.” We also attempt to be more accurate in describing our work: for example, “holding units” have become “clinical observation units” because we are providing active care, not simply “holding” patients. Similarly, the infection prevention community is redefining
some of its terms and phrases for several reasons: to place them in a more positive light; to improve compliance; or simply to be more precise, accurate, and inclusive with our language. First,
Author for correspondence: Shelley K. Summerlin-Long, MPH, MSW, BSN, RN, Hospital Epidemiology, 1001 West Wing, NCMH, Room W-1063, 101 Manning Drive,
Chapel Hill, NC 27514. E-mail:
shelley.summerlin-long@
unchealth.unc.edu a Members of the Department of Hospital Epidemiology include Brooke Brewer, Judie
Bringhurst, Christa Clark, Karen Croyle, Cynthia Culbreth, Pamela Del Monte, Maria Gergen, Sherie Goldbach, Pamela Miller, Katherine Schultz, and Lisa Teal.
Cite this article: Summerlin-Long SK, et al. (2018). Would a Rose by Any Other
Name Really Smell as Sweet? Framing Our Work in Infection Prevention. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 2018, 39, 1010–1011. doi:10.1017/ice.2018.112
© 2018 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved.
the term “healthcare workers (HCW)” has been expanded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to “healthcare personnel (HCP).” The latter term is broader and more inclusive because HCP also includes volunteers and trainees, who are not employees or “workers.” Clearly, pre-exposure prevention (eg, appropriate vaccines) and personal protective equipment (eg, gloves, masks, and gowns) should be made available to all HCP. Antibiotic stewardship is now recommended by both the CDC and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). At the University of North Carolina (UNC), we have embraced stewardship activities for many years, but our pharmacy and therapeutics subcommittee is named the “Anti-Infectives Sub- committee” because this group also provides expertise and interventions to improve appropriate use of antifungals, anti- virals, drugs used for parasitic diseases, vaccines, and relevant antibody preparations (eg, hepatitis B immune globulin). Similar to the movement with tobacco control, in recent years
there has been a movement to further define our activities to focus on prevention rather than control. Thus, our infection control nurses became infection preventionists, and our work moved from “infection control” to “infection prevention.” We are also shifting from the term “chlorhexidine bathing” to “chlor- hexidine treatment.” The use of the term “treatment” is part of efforts to increase staff compliance and to reduce patient refusals of the chlorhexidine “bath” by emphasizing its essential role as part of a patient’s medical treatment plan for infection prevention rather than as an optional part of daily care for hygiene. Finally, we have increasingly moved to using terms that are less
negative or pejorative. For example, at UNC, when we perform observations with feedback on our units, we are moving from the term “compliance audits” to “just-in-time coaching.” We have a full- time staffmember devoted to bedside coaching with nurses and other HCP. While audits are a fundamental component of quality improvement at our institution, we have come to see that the term itself can create anxiety and other negative reactions. On the same note, some practitioners have begun to use the term “fidelity” rather than “compliance,” which conveys more power and choice to stake- holders. Given that the purpose of our work is to coach staff to follow evidence-based guidelines for infection prevention, we wish to frame this work so that staff view following these guidelines as a decision they make to providethe best patientcarepossibleand seeinterac- tions with our bedside coach as a conversation, not as a judgment.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140
