scholarly journals Prevention strategies for Health–Care Workers (Joint Symposium with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, USA)

1997 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 43-44 ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 176-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald H. J. Hermann

Recent court decisions imposing liability on physicians who fail to inform patients that they carry the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) before performing invasive procedures create an urgent need for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (formerly the Centers for Disease Control) to reopen the issuance of guidelines and to address authoritatively the question of the appropriate limits within which HIV-infected health care providers can treat patients.Public fear of HIV-infected physicians (polls show 80 to 90 percent of patients surveyed want to know if their physicians are HIV-infected) were kindled by reports, beginning in 1990, that Dr. David Acer, an HIV-infected dentist, had infected a number of his patients. However, great skepticism has arisen as to whether Dr. Acer’s patients were infected as a result of procedures conducted in accordance with universal precautions against transmission. Moreover, look back studies have failed to identify even one patient, among the thousands who have undergone procedures administered by HIV-infected physicians, who contracted the virus directly from his/her physician.


2004 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 863-893 ◽  
Author(s):  
Günter Kampf ◽  
Axel Kramer

SUMMARY The etiology of nosocomial infections, the frequency of contaminated hands with the different nosocomial pathogens, and the role of health care workers' hands during outbreaks suggest that a hand hygiene preparation should at least have activity against bacteria, yeasts, and coated viruses. The importance of efficacy in choosing the right hand hygiene product is reflected in the new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline on hand hygiene (J. M. Boyce and D. Pittet, Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 51: 1-45, 2002). The best antimicrobial efficacy can be achieved with ethanol (60 to 85%), isopropanol (60 to 80%), and n-propanol (60 to 80%). The activity is broad and immediate. Ethanol at high concentrations (e.g., 95%) is the most effective treatment against naked viruses, whereas n-propanol seems to be more effective against the resident bacterial flora. The combination of alcohols may have a synergistic effect. The antimicrobial efficacy of chlorhexidine (2 to 4%) and triclosan (1 to 2%) is both lower and slower. Additionally, both agents have a risk of bacterial resistance, which is higher for chlorhexidine than triclosan. Their activity is often supported by the mechanical removal of pathogens during hand washing. Taking the antimicrobial efficacy and the mechanical removal together, they are still less effective than the alcohols. Plain soap and water has the lowest efficacy of all. In the new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline, promotion of alcohol-based hand rubs containing various emollients instead of irritating soaps and detergents is one strategy to reduce skin damage, dryness, and irritation. Irritant contact dermatitis is highest with preparations containing 4% chlorhexidine gluconate, less frequent with nonantimicrobial soaps and preparations containing lower concentrations of chlorhexidine gluconate, and lowest with well-formulated alcohol-based hand rubs containing emollients and other skin conditioners. Too few published data from comparative trials are available to reliably rank triclosan. Personnel should be reminded that it is neither necessary nor recommended to routinely wash hands after each application of an alcohol-based hand rub. Long-lasting improvement of compliance with hand hygiene protocols can be successful if an effective and accessible alcohol-based hand rub with a proven dermal tolerance and an excellent user acceptability is supplied, accompanied by education of health care workers and promotion of the use of the product.


2021 ◽  
pp. 101053952110147
Author(s):  
Yaena Song ◽  
Linda Ko ◽  
Sou Hyun Jang

This study aimed to examine the types of misinformation spreading in South Korea during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic by exploring the fact-checking posts uploaded on the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) website. We conducted a content analysis of the posts written on the KCDC website titled, “COVID-19: Fact and Issue Check,” from February to August 2020 (n = 81). Two coders individually coded the posts using a codebook. Discrepancies in coding were discussed to reach reconciliation. Fifteen different Korean government agencies used the KCDC platform to refute various topics of COVID-19 misinformation, including policy (42.0%), how to prevent the spread (16.0%), health care professionals (12.3%), testing (11.1%), prevention (self-care) (9.9%), masks (8.6%), confirmed cases (8.6%), statistics (3.7%), self-quarantine (2.5%), and treatment (1.2%). We found that there are more dissemination and correction of nonmedical areas of COVID-19 misinformation than medical areas in Korea. Future studies need to examine to what extent the corrected COVID-19 misinformation has been disseminated on different social media platforms, beyond the KCDC website.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document