scholarly journals Infection Surveillance and Control Programs: United States, 1992–1996

2001 ◽  
Vol 22 (02) ◽  
pp. 125
Author(s):  
Gina Pugliese ◽  
Martin S. Favero
2000 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 392-400 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giang T. Nguyêñ ◽  
Suzanne E. Proctor ◽  
Ronda L. Sinkowitz-Cochran ◽  
Denise O. Garrett ◽  
William R. Jarvis

1990 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison McGeer ◽  
William Crede ◽  
Walter J. Hierholzer

The first article in this series reviewed the type of surveillance currently used by most of the infection surveillance and control programs in acute care hospitals in the United States. Five components were identified as critical to the widespread acceptance and continuing success of this surveillance methodology: targeting of events (diseases); early development of standardized definitions; wide acceptance of the criteria for these definitions; advocacy, leadership and education in methodology; and a high level of effectiveness in program practice. Using the framework of these key components, this article will discuss the potential for the application of similar methodology to noninfectious nosocomial adverse events and explore some current successes and problems associated with surveillance for such events.


2010 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carla Morales Guerra ◽  
Monica Parente Ramos ◽  
Virginia Zagallo Penna ◽  
Janaina Midori Goto ◽  
Leandro Queiroz Santi ◽  
...  

1985 ◽  
Vol 121 (2) ◽  
pp. 182-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROBERT W. HALEY ◽  
DAVID H. CULVER ◽  
JOHN W. WHITE ◽  
W. MEADE MORGAN ◽  
T. GRACE EMORI ◽  
...  

1980 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert W. Haley

AbstractAs part of the first two phases of the SENIC Project (Study on the Efficacy of Nosocomial Infection Control), information was collected from the heads of the infection surveillance and control programs (ISCPs) in U.S. hospitals. The data were analyzed to describe these respondents and to determine whether differences among them were related to their areas of professional training or to characteristics of the hospitals where they were located. The findings indicate that the ISCP heads constitute a very heterogeneous group, with substantial differences in age, professional training (40% are pathologists), characteristics of their medical practices, memberships in professional organizations related to infection control, time spent in ISCP activities, approach to epidemiologic problems, and opinions on the preventability of nosocomial infections and the seriousness of infection problems in their hospitals. These differences are related strongly to the ISCP heads' professional training, size of hospital, and, to a lesser extent, medical school affiliation, but there is little evidence that the differences are related to regional or urban-rural location or type of ownership of the hospitals. The average ISCP head estimates that about half of all nosocomial infections are preventable, but these estimates vary inversely with tenure in the position and the tendency to approach a clinical problem epidemiologically.


1987 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 459-464 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elias Abrutyn ◽  
George H. Talbot

The Centers for Disease Control's Study on the Efficacy of Nosocomial Infection Control (SENIC) showed that infection surveillance and control activities are associated with a decrease in nosocomial infection rates. Moreover, the intensity of activity correlated with the magnitude of the fall in infection rates. These results, plus the guidelines of regulatory agencies, mandate that infection control programs conduct surveillance activities. However, absolute standards for the content and nature of surveillance programs have not been established, and many descriptions of different types of surveillance programs are available. In this primer, we describe the considerations involved in development of a surveillance program with emphasis on issues concerning data collection.Langmuir considers surveillance when applied to disease as meaning the collection of data, the analysis of those data, and the distribution of the resulting information to those needing to know. The definition implies that surveillance is observational and that surveillance activities should be clearly separated from other related activities such as control measures. The latter activities, including their initiation, approval, and funding, are administrative matters underpinned by a scientific base that are undertaken by the recipients of the surveillance data and their analyses. They should be clearly separated from surveillance activities per se. There is also the implication that action results from surveillance; surveillance without action should be abandoned.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document