Coopersmith 2002.

Methods	Study design: ITS
Participants	Physicians, nurses, critical care fellows Clinical speciality: not clear Level of training: fully trained Setting/country: hospital/inpatient/US
Interventions	The PEM consisted of a 10‐page self‐study module on risk factors and practice modifications involved in catheter‐related infections. The intervention was primarily targeted at registered nurses and provided actions to address specific risk factors. The stated purpose of the study was to determine whether an education initiative aimed at improving central venous catheter insertion and care could decrease the rate of primary bloodstream infections
Outcomes	1 process outcome: monthly rate per 1000 central venous catheter days of catheter‐related bloodstream infections
Notes	‐
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Intervention independent of other changes ‐ ITS	Unclear risk	No information provided
Shape of Intervention effect pre‐specified ‐ ITS	Low risk	Quote, pg. 59: "to determine whether a focused education initiative in a surgical/burn/trauma ICU could decrease the primary bloodstream infection rate"
Intervention unlikely to affect data collection ‐ ITS	Low risk	The intervention (10‐page self‐study module about catheter‐related bloodstream infections) did not affect either the source or method of data collection
Blinding of outcome assessors (detection bias) ‐ ITS All outcomes	Low risk	The outcome was objective
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) ‐ ITS All outcomes	Low risk	Quote, pg. 60: "all patients admitted to the ICU between January 1, 1998, and June 30, 1999, were followed prospectively by an infection control team and surveyed for bloodstream infections" COMMENT: while this implies complete data follow‐up, this is not specified
Selective reporting (reporting bias) ‐ ITS	Low risk	All relevant outcomes in the methods section were reported in results section
Other bias ‐ ITS	High risk	Quote, pg. 63: "in a pre‐ and post observational, non randomized study, the ICU staff is not blinded to either the presence of or the recipients of the intervention. This raises the possibility of staff behaviour changes based upon the widespread knowledge of the measured outcome"