1
|
Yangzom T, Tsering DC, Kar S, Kapil J. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Trends among Pathogens Isolated from Blood: A 6-Year Retrospective Study from a Tertiary Care Hospital in East Sikkim, India. J Lab Physicians 2020; 12:3-9. [PMID: 32792787 PMCID: PMC7419168 DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1712814] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/03/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Bloodstream infections (BSIs) are one of the frequent nosocomial infections among hospitalized patients. To understand the local epidemiology and evolving antimicrobial drug resistance of blood-borne pathogens, we analyzed the distribution and antibiotic sensitivity profile of organisms causing BSI in our hospital-based study. Materials and Methods We reviewed retrospective data of laboratory-confirmed BSIs, from January 2013 to December 2018. Causative organisms and their antibiotic susceptibility profile of primary and secondary BSI reports were determined from BacT/Alert and Vitek systems findings (bioMérieux). A 6-year multidrug resistance indexing was done to document the resistance pattern of the commonly isolated organisms. Results A total of 1,340 (10.2%) BSIs were reported from 13,091 blood cultures. Organisms were frequently isolated from the younger population (≤20 years), especially from ages < 1 year (20.8% of total BSIs). Majority of pathogens were bacterial (97.1%) whereas 2.9% were fungal in origin. Monomicrobial growth was recorded in over 98% of BSIs. Gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria isolated were 518 (39.8%) and 783 (60.2%), respectively. Commonly isolated organisms were coagulase-negative Staphylococci (29.4%), Escherichia coli (19.8%), Klebsiella species (13.5%), Salmonella species (9.4%), and Staphylococcus aureus (7.5%). Multidrug-resistance index was observed highest in Acinetobacter species followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and S. aureus . Conclusion Overall, there has been a gradual decline in the reporting of BSI. However, infections by gram-negative bacilli and multidrug-resistant organisms remain persistently high. Ages < 20 years were the vulnerable group, with infants < 1 year contributing to the maximum number of BSI cases caused by both bacteria and fungi. Therefore, additional methods are required to study the origin and causation of these infections, particularly among vulnerable patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tsering Yangzom
- Department of Microbiology, Sikkim Manipal Institute of Medical Sciences, Sikkim Manipal University, Tadong, Sikkim, India
| | - Dechen Chomu Tsering
- Department of Microbiology, Sikkim Manipal Institute of Medical Sciences, Sikkim Manipal University, Tadong, Sikkim, India
| | - Sumit Kar
- Department of Microbiology, Sikkim Manipal Institute of Medical Sciences, Sikkim Manipal University, Tadong, Sikkim, India
| | - Jyotsna Kapil
- Department of Microbiology, Sikkim Manipal Institute of Medical Sciences, Sikkim Manipal University, Tadong, Sikkim, India
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Frampton GK, Shepherd J, Pickett K, Griffiths G, Wyatt JC. Digital tools for the recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a systematic map. Trials 2020; 21:478. [PMID: 32498690 PMCID: PMC7273688 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-020-04358-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/12/2019] [Accepted: 04/28/2020] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Recruiting and retaining participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is challenging. Digital tools, such as social media, data mining, email or text-messaging, could improve recruitment or retention, but an overview of this research area is lacking. We aimed to systematically map the characteristics of digital recruitment and retention tools for RCTs, and the features of the comparative studies that have evaluated the effectiveness of these tools during the past 10 years. METHODS We searched Medline, Embase, other databases, the Internet, and relevant web sites in July 2018 to identify comparative studies of digital tools for recruiting and/or retaining participants in health RCTs. Two reviewers independently screened references against protocol-specified eligibility criteria. Included studies were coded by one reviewer with 20% checked by a second reviewer, using pre-defined keywords to describe characteristics of the studies, populations and digital tools evaluated. RESULTS We identified 9163 potentially relevant references, of which 104 articles reporting 105 comparative studies were included in the systematic map. The number of published studies on digital tools has doubled in the past decade, but most studies evaluated digital tools for recruitment rather than retention. The key health areas investigated were health promotion, cancers, circulatory system diseases and mental health. Few studies focussed on minority or under-served populations, and most studies were observational. The most frequently-studied digital tools were social media, Internet sites, email and tv/radio for recruitment; and email and text-messaging for retention. One quarter of the studies measured efficiency (cost per recruited or retained participant) but few studies have evaluated people's attitudes towards the use of digital tools. CONCLUSIONS This systematic map highlights a number of evidence gaps and may help stakeholders to identify and prioritise further research needs. In particular, there is a need for rigorous research on the efficiency of the digital tools and their impact on RCT participants and investigators, perhaps as studies-within-a-trial (SWAT) research. There is also a need for research into how digital tools may improve participant retention in RCTs which is currently underrepresented relative to recruitment research. REGISTRATION Not registered; based on a pre-specified protocol, peer-reviewed by the project's Advisory Board.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Geoff K. Frampton
- Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC), Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Southampton Science Park, Southampton, SO16 7NS UK
- Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Southampton Science Park, Southampton, SO16 7NS UK
| | - Jonathan Shepherd
- Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC), Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Southampton Science Park, Southampton, SO16 7NS UK
- Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Southampton Science Park, Southampton, SO16 7NS UK
| | - Karen Pickett
- Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC), Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Southampton Science Park, Southampton, SO16 7NS UK
- Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Southampton Science Park, Southampton, SO16 7NS UK
| | - Gareth Griffiths
- Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, University of Southampton and Southampton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, SO16 6YD UK
| | - Jeremy C. Wyatt
- Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Southampton Science Park, Southampton, SO16 7NS UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Shepherd J, Frampton GK, Pickett K, Wyatt JC. Peer review of health research funding proposals: A systematic map and systematic review of innovations for effectiveness and efficiency. PLoS One 2018; 13:e0196914. [PMID: 29750807 PMCID: PMC5947897 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196914] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/19/2017] [Accepted: 04/23/2018] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To investigate methods and processes for timely, efficient and good quality peer review of research funding proposals in health. METHODS A two-stage evidence synthesis: (1) a systematic map to describe the key characteristics of the evidence base, followed by (2) a systematic review of the studies stakeholders prioritised as relevant from the map on the effectiveness and efficiency of peer review 'innovations'. Standard processes included literature searching, duplicate inclusion criteria screening, study keyword coding, data extraction, critical appraisal and study synthesis. RESULTS A total of 83 studies from 15 countries were included in the systematic map. The evidence base is diverse, investigating many aspects of the systems for, and processes of, peer review. The systematic review included eight studies from Australia, Canada, and the USA, evaluating a broad range of peer review innovations. These studies showed that simplifying the process by shortening proposal forms, using smaller reviewer panels, or expediting processes can speed up the review process and reduce costs, but this might come at the expense of peer review quality, a key aspect that has not been assessed. Virtual peer review using videoconferencing or teleconferencing appears promising for reducing costs by avoiding the need for reviewers to travel, but again any consequences for quality have not been adequately assessed. CONCLUSIONS There is increasing international research activity into the peer review of health research funding. The studies reviewed had methodological limitations and variable generalisability to research funders. Given these limitations it is not currently possible to recommend immediate implementation of these innovations. However, many appear promising based on existing evidence, and could be adapted as necessary by funders and evaluated. Where feasible, experimental evaluation, including randomised controlled trials, should be conducted, evaluating impact on effectiveness, efficiency and quality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jonathan Shepherd
- Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Geoff K. Frampton
- Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Karen Pickett
- Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Jeremy C. Wyatt
- Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Perin DC, Erdmann AL, Higashi GDC, Sasso GTMD. Evidence-based measures to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infections: a systematic review. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem 2016; 24:e2787. [PMID: 27598378 PMCID: PMC5016007 DOI: 10.1590/1518-8345.1233.2787] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/11/2015] [Accepted: 02/29/2016] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective: to identify evidence-based care to prevent CLABSI among adult patients hospitalized in ICUs. Method: systematic review conducted in the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cinahl, Web of Science, Lilacs, Bdenf and Cochrane Studies addressing care and maintenance of central venous catheters, published from January 2011 to July 2014 were searched. The 34 studies identified were organized in an instrument and assessed by using the classification provided by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Results: the studies presented care bundles including elements such as hand hygiene and maximal barrier precautions; multidimensional programs and strategies such as impregnated catheters and bandages and the involvement of facilities in and commitment of staff to preventing infections. Conclusions: care bundles coupled with education and the commitment of both staff and institutions is a strategy that can contribute to decreased rates of central line-associated bloodstream infections among adult patients hospitalized in intensive care units.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniele Cristina Perin
- MSc. in Nursing Care Management, RN, Hospital Universitário, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil
| | - Alacoque Lorenzini Erdmann
- PhD, Full Professor, Departamento de Enfermagem, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Zhang L, Cao S, Marsh N, Ray-Barruel G, Flynn J, Larsen E, Rickard CM. Infection risks associated with peripheral vascular catheters. J Infect Prev 2016; 17:207-213. [PMID: 28989482 DOI: 10.1177/1757177416655472] [Citation(s) in RCA: 62] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2016] [Accepted: 05/18/2016] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Peripheral vascular catheters (PVC) are the most frequently used invasive medical devices in hospitals, with 330 million sold each year in the USA alone. One in three UK inpatients at any one time has at least one PVC in situ according to the Scottish National Prevalence survey. METHOD A narrative review of studies describing the infection risks associated with PVCs. RESULTS It is estimated that 30-80% of hospitalised patients receive at least one PVC during their hospital stay. Despite their prevalence, PVCs are not benign devices, and the high number of PVCs inserted annually has resulted in serious catheter-related bloodstream infections and significant morbidity, prolonged hospital stay and increased healthcare system costs. To date, PVC infections have been under-evaluated. Most studies focus on central venous catheter rather than PVC-associated bloodstream infections. Risks associated with PVC infection must be addressed to reduce patient morbidity and associated costs of prolonged hospital admission and treatment. DISCUSSION This article discusses the sources and routes of PVC-associated infection and outlines known effective prevention and intervention strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Li Zhang
- AVATAR Group, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Siyu Cao
- AVATAR Group, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Nicole Marsh
- AVATAR Group, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.,Centre for Clinical Nursing, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Gillian Ray-Barruel
- AVATAR Group, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Julie Flynn
- AVATAR Group, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.,Centre for Clinical Nursing, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Emily Larsen
- AVATAR Group, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.,Centre for Clinical Nursing, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Claire M Rickard
- AVATAR Group, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.,Centre for Clinical Nursing, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Brisbane, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Miake-Lye IM, Hempel S, Shanman R, Shekelle PG. What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products. Syst Rev 2016; 5:28. [PMID: 26864942 PMCID: PMC4750281 DOI: 10.1186/s13643-016-0204-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 300] [Impact Index Per Article: 37.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/04/2015] [Accepted: 02/02/2016] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The need for systematic methods for reviewing evidence is continuously increasing. Evidence mapping is one emerging method. There are no authoritative recommendations for what constitutes an evidence map or what methods should be used, and anecdotal evidence suggests heterogeneity in both. Our objectives are to identify published evidence maps and to compare and contrast the presented definitions of evidence mapping, the domains used to classify data in evidence maps, and the form the evidence map takes. METHODS We conducted a systematic review of publications that presented results with a process termed "evidence mapping" or included a figure called an "evidence map." We identified publications from searches of ten databases through 8/21/2015, reference mining, and consulting topic experts. We abstracted the research question, the unit of analysis, the search methods and search period covered, and the country of origin. Data were narratively synthesized. RESULTS Thirty-nine publications met inclusion criteria. Published evidence maps varied in their definition and the form of the evidence map. Of the 31 definitions provided, 67 % described the purpose as identification of gaps and 58 % referenced a stakeholder engagement process or user-friendly product. All evidence maps explicitly used a systematic approach to evidence synthesis. Twenty-six publications referred to a figure or table explicitly called an "evidence map," eight referred to an online database as the evidence map, and five stated they used a mapping methodology but did not present a visual depiction of the evidence. CONCLUSIONS The principal conclusion of our evaluation of studies that call themselves "evidence maps" is that the implied definition of what constitutes an evidence map is a systematic search of a broad field to identify gaps in knowledge and/or future research needs that presents results in a user-friendly format, often a visual figure or graph, or a searchable database. Foundational work is needed to better standardize the methods and products of an evidence map so that researchers and policymakers will know what to expect of this new type of evidence review. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION Although an a priori protocol was developed, no registration was completed; this review did not fit the PROSPERO format.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Isomi M. Miake-Lye
- />Evidence-based Synthesis Program (ESP) Center, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, 11301 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90073 USA
- />Department of Health Policy and Management, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, 640 Charles E Young Dr S, Los Angeles, CA USA
| | - Susanne Hempel
- />Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center, RAND Corporation, 1776 Main St, Santa Monica, CA 90401 USA
| | - Roberta Shanman
- />Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center, RAND Corporation, 1776 Main St, Santa Monica, CA 90401 USA
| | - Paul G. Shekelle
- />Evidence-based Synthesis Program (ESP) Center, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, 11301 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90073 USA
- />Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center, RAND Corporation, 1776 Main St, Santa Monica, CA 90401 USA
- />Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, 10833 Le Conte Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Ławiński M, Forysiński K, Bzikowska A, Kostro JZ, Gradowska A, Pertkiewicz M. A comparison of two methods of treatment for central catheter tunnel phlegmon in home parenteral nutrition patients. PRZEGLAD GASTROENTEROLOGICZNY 2016; 11:170-175. [PMID: 27713778 PMCID: PMC5047963 DOI: 10.5114/pg.2015.56556] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/23/2015] [Accepted: 05/11/2015] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The ESPEN guidelines on long-term (> 3 months) parenteral nutrition recommend the use of tunnelled central venous catheters (CVCs) to minimise the risk of insertion site infection. A developed symptomatic infection of the soft tissue tunnel surrounding a CVC may rapidly become directly life threatening if the infection progresses along the catheter tunnel towards its end inserted into the venous system. This requires immediate management to eliminate infection and limit its effects. AIM To compare two surgical techniques for the treatment of suppurative inflammation of a CVC tunnel: conventional drainage of the infected tissues (surgical technique A) vs. radical en bloc excision of the infected tissues together with the infected central catheter (surgical technique B). MATERIAL AND METHODS Seventy-three patients hospitalised due to CVC tunnel phlegmon between April 2004 and May 2014 were included in the retrospective study. Thirty-four (46.5%) patients underwent surgical procedure A and another 39 (53.5%) underwent procedure B. RESULTS The mean duration of antibiotic therapy following procedure A was 8 ±3 days, whereas procedure B required 7 ±2 days of antibiotic therapy (NS). The mean hospitalisation period following procedure B was over 8 days shorter in comparison to that following procedure A (16.54 ±7.59 vs. 24.87 ±10.19, p = 0.009, respectively). CONCLUSIONS The surgical treatment of CVC tunnel phlegmon involving radical en bloc excision of suppurated tissues along with the infected CVC shortens hospitalisation, expedites the insertion of a new CVC, and potentially reduces treatment costs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michał Ławiński
- Department of General Surgery and Clinical Nutrition, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
| | - Karol Forysiński
- Department of General and Vascular Surgery, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
| | - Agnieszka Bzikowska
- Department of Human Nutrion, Faculty of Health Science, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
| | - Justyna Z. Kostro
- Department of General, Endocrine and Transplant Surgery, Medical University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland
| | - Aleksandra Gradowska
- Department of Personality, University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw, Poland
| | - Marek Pertkiewicz
- Department of General Surgery and Clinical Nutrition, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Johnson MJ, May CR. Promoting professional behaviour change in healthcare: what interventions work, and why? A theory-led overview of systematic reviews. BMJ Open 2015; 5:e008592. [PMID: 26423853 PMCID: PMC4593167 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008592] [Citation(s) in RCA: 259] [Impact Index Per Article: 28.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2015] [Revised: 08/27/2015] [Accepted: 09/04/2015] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Translating research evidence into routine clinical practice is notoriously difficult. Behavioural interventions are often used to change practice, although their success is variable and the characteristics of more successful interventions are unclear. We aimed to establish the characteristics of successful behaviour change interventions in healthcare. DESIGN We carried out a systematic overview of systematic reviews on the effectiveness of behaviour change interventions with a theory-led analysis using the constructs of normalisation process theory (NPT). MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO and the Cochrane Library were searched electronically from inception to July 2015. SETTING Primary and secondary care. PARTICIPANTS Participants were any patients and healthcare professionals in systematic reviews who met the inclusion criteria of having examined the effectiveness of professional interventions in improving professional practice and/or patient outcomes. INTERVENTIONS Professional interventions as defined by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES Success of each intervention in changing practice or patient outcomes, and their mechanisms of action. Reviews were coded as to the interventions included, how successful they had been and which NPT constructs its component interventions covered. RESULTS Searches identified 4724 articles, 67 of which met the inclusion criteria. Interventions fell into three main categories: persuasive; educational and informational; and action and monitoring. Interventions focusing on action or education (eg, Audit and Feedback, Reminders, Educational Outreach) acted on the NPT constructs of Collective Action and Reflexive Monitoring, and reviews using them tended to report more positive outcomes. CONCLUSIONS This theory-led analysis suggests that interventions which contribute to normative restructuring of practice, modifying peer group norms and expectations (eg, educational outreach) and relational restructuring, reinforcing modified peer group norms by emphasising the expectations of an external reference group (eg, Reminders, Audit and Feedback), offer the best chances of success. Combining such interventions is most likely to change behaviour.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark J Johnson
- National Institute for Health Research, Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, and University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Carl R May
- University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
- Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Disinfection of Needleless Connector Hubs: Clinical Evidence Systematic Review. Nurs Res Pract 2015; 2015:796762. [PMID: 26075093 PMCID: PMC4446481 DOI: 10.1155/2015/796762] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/12/2014] [Accepted: 02/19/2015] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Background. Needleless connectors (NC) are used on virtually all intravascular devices, providing an easy access point for infusion connection. Colonization of NC is considered the cause of 50% of postinsertion catheter-related infections. Breaks in aseptic technique, from failure to disinfect, result in contamination and subsequent biofilm formation within NC and catheters increasing the potential for infection of central and peripheral catheters. Methods. This systematic review evaluated 140 studies and 34 abstracts on NC disinfection practices, the impact of hub contamination on infection, and measures of education and compliance. Results. The greatest risk for contamination of the catheter after insertion is the NC with 33-45% contaminated, and compliance with disinfection as low as 10%. The optimal technique or disinfection time has not been identified, although scrubbing with 70% alcohol for 5-60 seconds is recommended. Studies have reported statistically significant results in infection reduction when passive alcohol disinfection caps are used (48-86% reduction). Clinical Implications. It is critical for healthcare facilities and clinicians to take responsibility for compliance with basic principles of asepsis compliance, to involve frontline staff in strategies, to facilitate education that promotes understanding of the consequences of failure, and to comply with the standard of care for hub disinfection.
Collapse
|
10
|
Loveday HP, Wilson JA, Pratt RJ, Golsorkhi M, Tingle A, Bak A, Browne J, Prieto J, Wilcox M, UK Department of Health. epic3: national evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in NHS hospitals in England. J Hosp Infect 2014; 86 Suppl 1:S1-70. [PMID: 24330862 PMCID: PMC7114876 DOI: 10.1016/s0195-6701(13)60012-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 660] [Impact Index Per Article: 66.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
National evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections (HCAI) in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England were originally commissioned by the Department of Health and developed during 1998-2000 by a nurse-led multi-professional team of researchers and specialist clinicians. Following extensive consultation, they were first published in January 2001(1) and updated in 2007.(2) A cardinal feature of evidence-based guidelines is that they are subject to timely review in order that new research evidence and technological advances can be identified, appraised and, if shown to be effective for the prevention of HCAI, incorporated into amended guidelines. Periodically updating the evidence base and guideline recommendations is essential in order to maintain their validity and authority. The Department of Health commissioned a review of new evidence and we have updated the evidence base for making infection prevention and control recommendations. A critical assessment of the updated evidence indicated that the epic2 guidelines published in 2007 remain robust, relevant and appropriate, but some guideline recommendations required adjustments to enhance clarity and a number of new recommendations were required. These have been clearly identified in the text. In addition, the synopses of evidence underpinning the guideline recommendations have been updated. These guidelines (epic3) provide comprehensive recommendations for preventing HCAI in hospital and other acute care settings based on the best currently available evidence. National evidence-based guidelines are broad principles of best practice that need to be integrated into local practice guidelines and audited to reduce variation in practice and maintain patient safety. Clinically effective infection prevention and control practice is an essential feature of patient protection. By incorporating these guidelines into routine daily clinical practice, patient safety can be enhanced and the risk of patients acquiring an infection during episodes of health care in NHS hospitals in England can be minimised.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- H P Loveday
- Richard Wells Research Centre, College of Nursing, Midwifery and Healthcare, University of West London (London).
| | - J A Wilson
- Richard Wells Research Centre, College of Nursing, Midwifery and Healthcare, University of West London (London)
| | - R J Pratt
- Richard Wells Research Centre, College of Nursing, Midwifery and Healthcare, University of West London (London)
| | - M Golsorkhi
- Richard Wells Research Centre, College of Nursing, Midwifery and Healthcare, University of West London (London)
| | - A Tingle
- Richard Wells Research Centre, College of Nursing, Midwifery and Healthcare, University of West London (London)
| | - A Bak
- Richard Wells Research Centre, College of Nursing, Midwifery and Healthcare, University of West London (London)
| | - J Browne
- Richard Wells Research Centre, College of Nursing, Midwifery and Healthcare, University of West London (London)
| | - J Prieto
- Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton (Southampton)
| | - M Wilcox
- Microbiology and Infection Control, Leeds Teaching Hospitals and University of Leeds (Leeds)
| | | |
Collapse
|