scholarly journals The prevalence of nosocomial infection rates and needle sticks injuries at a teaching hospital, during 2013–2014

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 785-790
Author(s):  
Mohammad Effatpanah ◽  
Hosein Effatpanah ◽  
Sahar Geravandi ◽  
Noorollah Tahery ◽  
Arghavan Afra ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nosocomial Infection ◽  
Teaching Hospital ◽  
Infection Rates ◽  
Needle Sticks

scholarly journals Handwash versus hand-rub practices for preventing nosocomial infection in hospital intensive care units: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 82-90
Author(s):  
S Bello ◽  
EA Bamgboye ◽  
DT Ajayi ◽  
EN Ossai ◽  
EC Aniwada ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Nosocomial Infection ◽  
Intensive Care Units ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Infection Rates

Background: Compliance with handwashing in busy healthcare facilities, such as intensive care units (ICUs), is suboptimal and alcohol hand-rub preparations have been suggested to improve compliance. There is no evidence on the comparative effectiveness between handwash and hand-rub strategies. This systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of handwash versus hand-rub strategies for preventing nosocomial infection in ICUs. Methods Studies conducted in ICUs and indexed in PubMed comparing the clinical effectiveness and adverse events between handwash and hand-rub groups were included in a systematic review. The primary outcome was nosocomial infection rates. Secondary outcomes included microbial counts on healthcare providers’ hands, mortality rates, patient/hospital cost of treatment of healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs), length of ICU/hospital stays, and adverse events. Studies were independently screened and data extracted by at least two authors. Meta-analyses of risk ratios (RR), incidence rate ratios (IRR), odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD), were conducted using the RevMan 5.3 software. Results: Seven studies published between 1992-2009 and involving a total of 11,663 patients were included. Five studies (10,981 patients) contributed data to the ICU acquired nosocomial infection rates. The pooled IRR was 0.71 (95% CI 0.61, 0.82; I2 = 94%). On sensitivity analysis, pooled IRR was 0.39 (95% CI 0.32, 0.48; 4 studies; 8,247 patients; I2 = 0%) in favour of hand rub. The pooled OR for mortality was 0.95 (95% CI 0.78, 1.61; 4 studies; 3,475 patients; I2 = 39%). The pooled MD for length of hospital stay was -0.74 (95% CI -2.83, 1.34; 3 studies; 741 patients; I2 = 0%). The pooled OR for an undesirable skin effect was 0.37 (95% CI 0.23, 0.60; 3 studies;1504 patients; I2 = 0%) in favour of hand rub. Overall quality of evidence was low. Conclusion: Hand rub appeared more effective when compared to handwash in ICUs.

Surveillance Objectives: Descriptive Epidemiology

1987 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 454-458 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank S. Rhame
Keyword(s):  
Nosocomial Infection ◽  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Medical Records ◽  
Infection Rates ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Clinical Events ◽  
Infection Surveillance ◽  
Weak Evidence ◽  
Feedback Data

This paper addresses the problems associated with defining and classifying events as nosocomial infections, discusses the methods by which rates of nosocomial infection are calculated and their rationales, and presents some specific rates useful in nosocomial epidemiology. Previously unpublished data demonstrate important differences between antibiotic susceptibility tallies produced by clinical laboratories and similar tallies derived from nosocomial infection surveillance data.Conversion of real world events into categorical data presents formidable difficulties. Surveillance personnel must classify a given series of clinical events as 0,1, or more infections and make a determination as to whether each infection is nosocomial or community acquired. High-quality research studies to validate these efforts should compare the sensitivity and specificity of methods used to some “gold standard.” The gold standard is usually a review of medical records or patients by an infectious diseases physician. But even the standard is flawed. In clinical practice this flaw presents less of a problem because therapy for infectious diseases is generally quite safe and may be instituted when the probability of infection is 10%, 5%, or even lower. For surveillance purposes a higher standard is required, which is particularly important when surveillance information is used to provide feedback data to physicians who understandably bridle at overestimates of infection rates in their patients. The overestimation of infections based on weak evidence under-cuts feedback efforts.

Device-associated nosocomial infection rates in intensive care units in four Mexican public hospitals

2006 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 244-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ector Jaime Ramirez Barba ◽  
Victor Daniel Rosenthal ◽  
Francisco Higuera ◽  
Martha Sobreyra Oropeza ◽  
Hector Torres Hernández ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Nosocomial Infection ◽  
Intensive Care Units ◽  
Public Hospitals ◽  
Infection Rates
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document