Low Risk of Transmission of Pathogenic Bacteria between Children and the Assistance Dog during Animal Assisted Therapy if Strict Rules are Followed

Author(s):  
Ann Edner ◽  
Maria Lindström-Nilsson ◽  
Åsa Melhus
2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s405-s406
Author(s):  
Mark Moore

Backround: In American hospitals alone, the CDC estimates that hospital acquired infections (HAIs) account for an estimated 1.7 million infections and 99,000 associated deaths each year.1 Although the United states and most industrialized nations have made strides in lowering the overall HAI rate by taking critical steps to reduce HAIs, an overall formula that combines a global risk assessment per patient for HAI acquisition has yet to be established. To address this issue, we developed the ICEL equation. This equation uses a probabilistic argument to estimate the likelihood of HAI acquisition and to promote infection control dialogue among healthcare practitioners from diverse healthcare disciplines. Methods: We defined HAI risk using the ICEL acronym as follows: HAI risk = (I + C + E + L), where I is invasive devices present; C is patient-specific characteristics; E is the average number of pathogenic organisms in the patient environment; and L is the length of stay. A simple scale of 1–10 points is subjectively assigned for each of the following categories:I = (number of invasive devices / surgeries / % body surface areas open)C = Patient specific characteristics (immune system integrity / immunomodulators / radiation exposure / chemotherapy, etc)E = Environmental conditions / cleaning (average number of pathogenic bacteria in room, 100% hand hygiene compliance, patient / staff colonization, etc)L = Length of stay days risk, where 0–3 days is low risk, 4–7 is moderate risk, and 8–10+ is high riskSumming the points for each of the 4 categories, the greatest possible total is 40. A total score of 0–10 indicates low risk of HAI; 11–20 indicates low-to-medium risk of HAI; 20–30 indicates a high risk of HAI; and 30–40 indicates a very high risk of HAI. Results:This equation was designed to stimulate thought and encourage multidisciplinary cooperation among providers, nursing, environmental services, and facilities departments rather than provide an exact number for HAI risk. All of these categories are key players in the determining patient risk of acquiring an HAI. If any of the 4 hospital departments mentioned fails in their duties, the patient is at higher risk of HAI. Conclusions: This categorical HAI risk assessment relies on the subjective medical and environmental knowledge of the assessor to assign risk across the continuum of the healthcare environment. Although it is nearly impossible to provide exact numbers regarding total risk in these risk categories, the goal of the scoring system is to encourage clinical dialogue among hospital staff so that they communicate and collaborate within their specialties and with their peers to assure that each category poses as low a risk as possible, thus driving the total risk for HAI lower.1. https://www.cdc.gov/hai/data/portal/progress-report.htmlFunding: NoneDisclosures: None


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuexiao Jia ◽  
Wenwen Chen ◽  
Rongbing Tang ◽  
Ruihua Dong ◽  
Xiaoyan Liu ◽  
...  

Abstract Antibiotic resistance of pathogenic bacteria is a serious threat to public health. New antibacterial agents with novel structures or targets are urgently needed. Here we discover a new class of multi-armed antibiotics (MAAs) structurally distinct from known antibiotics. MAAs possess a multi-armed structure composed of a nucleus like ethylene, carbon, benzene, nitrogen or triazine, and three or four symmetrical arms like phenylbenzoic acid or 4-methynylbenzoic acid. The independence from a fixed functional moiety greatly increases their molecular diversity and avoids the rapid emergence of resistance. MAAs have excellent antibacterial activities against Gram-positive bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus. The action mechanism involves selective internalization into Gram-positive bacteria, inhibition of cell wall assembly and influence on cell membrane. Our study not only identifies seven potential antibiotics but also provides a completely new chemical library for future antibiotic designs. Their unique structure and multiple action mechanism alow us to develop a large family of antibiotics with low risk of resistance.


2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 1944-1955 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Schwarz ◽  
Elizabeth C. Ward ◽  
Petrea Cornwell ◽  
Anne Coccetti ◽  
Pamela D'Netto ◽  
...  

Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine (a) the agreement between allied health assistants (AHAs) and speech-language pathologists (SLPs) when completing dysphagia screening for low-risk referrals and at-risk patients under a delegation model and (b) the operational impact of this delegation model. Method All AHAs worked in the adult acute inpatient settings across three hospitals and completed training and competency evaluation prior to conducting independent screening. Screening (pass/fail) was based on results from pre-screening exclusionary questions in combination with a water swallow test and the Eating Assessment Tool. To examine the agreement of AHAs' decision making with SLPs, AHAs ( n = 7) and SLPs ( n = 8) conducted an independent, simultaneous dysphagia screening on 51 adult inpatients classified as low-risk/at-risk referrals. To examine operational impact, AHAs independently completed screening on 48 low-risk/at-risk patients, with subsequent clinical swallow evaluation conducted by an SLP with patients who failed screening. Results Exact agreement between AHAs and SLPs on overall pass/fail screening criteria for the first 51 patients was 100%. Exact agreement for the two tools was 100% for the Eating Assessment Tool and 96% for the water swallow test. In the operational impact phase ( n = 48), 58% of patients failed AHA screening, with only 10% false positives on subjective SLP assessment and nil identified false negatives. Conclusion AHAs demonstrated the ability to reliably conduct dysphagia screening on a cohort of low-risk patients, with a low rate of false negatives. Data support high level of agreement and positive operational impact of using trained AHAs to perform dysphagia screening in low-risk patients.


2006 ◽  
Vol 37 (7) ◽  
pp. 48
Author(s):  
ERIK GOLDMAN
Keyword(s):  

2008 ◽  
Vol 41 (15) ◽  
pp. 41
Author(s):  
ALICIA AULT
Keyword(s):  

2012 ◽  
Vol 45 (15) ◽  
pp. 12-13
Author(s):  
BRUCE JANCIN
Keyword(s):  
Low Risk ◽  

2011 ◽  
Vol 44 (17) ◽  
pp. 24
Author(s):  
HEIDI SPLETE
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document