Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 11 de 11
Filtrar
2.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 41(4): 404-410, 2020 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32052726

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the National Health Safety Network (NHSN) hospital-onset Clostridioides difficile infection (HO-CDI) standardized infection ratio (SIR) risk adjustment for general acute-care hospitals with large numbers of intensive care unit (ICU), oncology unit, and hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) patients. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Eight tertiary-care referral general hospitals in California. METHODS: We used FY 2016 data and the published 2015 rebaseline NHSN HO-CDI SIR. We compared facility-wide inpatient HO-CDI events and SIRs, with and without ICU data, oncology and/or HCT unit data, and ICU bed adjustment. RESULTS: For these hospitals, the median unmodified HO-CDI SIR was 1.24 (interquartile range [IQR], 1.15-1.34); 7 hospitals qualified for the highest ICU bed adjustment; 1 hospital received the second highest ICU bed adjustment; and all had oncology-HCT units with no additional adjustment per the NHSN. Removal of ICU data and the ICU bed adjustment decreased HO-CDI events (median, -25%; IQR, -20% to -29%) but increased the SIR at all hospitals (median, 104%; IQR, 90%-105%). Removal of oncology-HCT unit data decreased HO-CDI events (median, -15%; IQR, -14% to -21%) and decreased the SIR at all hospitals (median, -8%; IQR, -4% to -11%). CONCLUSIONS: For tertiary-care referral hospitals with specialized ICUs and a large number of ICU beds, the ICU bed adjustor functions as a global adjustment in the SIR calculation, accounting for the increased complexity of patients in ICUs and non-ICUs at these facilities. However, the SIR decrease with removal of oncology and HCT unit data, even with the ICU bed adjustment, suggests that an additional adjustment should be considered for oncology and HCT units within general hospitals, perhaps similar to what is done for ICU beds in the current SIR.


Asunto(s)
Infecciones por Clostridium/epidemiología , Infección Hospitalaria/epidemiología , Infección Hospitalaria/microbiología , Trasplante de Células Madre Hematopoyéticas/efectos adversos , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos/estadística & datos numéricos , Servicio de Oncología en Hospital/estadística & datos numéricos , Centros Médicos Académicos , California/epidemiología , Clostridioides difficile , Infecciones por Clostridium/prevención & control , Infección Hospitalaria/prevención & control , Instituciones de Salud , Células Madre Hematopoyéticas , Hospitales Generales , Humanos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Ajuste de Riesgo , Seguridad , Centros de Atención Terciaria , Trasplantes
3.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 37(11): 1378-1382, 2016 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27573521

RESUMEN

The government publishes 3 different public report surgical site infection (SSI) metrics, all called standardized infection ratios (SIRs), that impact perceived hospital quality. We conducted a non-random cross-sectional observational pilot study of 20 California hospitals that voluntarily submitted colon surgery and SSI data. Discordant SIR values, leading to contradictory conclusions, occurred in 35% of these hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;1-5.


Asunto(s)
Colon/cirugía , Infección Hospitalaria/epidemiología , Indicadores de Calidad de la Atención de Salud/normas , Infección de la Herida Quirúrgica/epidemiología , California/epidemiología , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Infección Hospitalaria/etiología , Estudios Transversales , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos del Sistema Digestivo/efectos adversos , Hospitales , Humanos , Internet , Proyectos Piloto , Vigilancia de la Población , Estados Unidos
4.
ASAIO J ; 62(3): 240-5, 2016.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27111738

RESUMEN

The percutaneous lead management kit (PLMK) was developed for the HeartMate 2 (HM2) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) to reduce trauma at the exit site and to maintain a clean environment. REduce Driveline Trauma through StabIlization and Exit Site ManagemenT (RESIST) was a multicenter, prospective, nonrandomized study designed to evaluate the feasibility of the PLMK for managing the HM2 driveline exit site. Fifty patients were enrolled at five sites at a median of 495 days post-HM2 implant; 92% (46 of 50) of patients used the PLMK for a minimum of 30 days. At 30 days, more patients found the PLMK to be extremely comfortable (80% vs. 37%, p < 0.001) and extremely effective at stabilizing the driveline (82% vs. 40%, p < 0.001) compared with each center's standard of care. Frequency of dressing changes was 6-7 days or higher for 85% of the patients with PLMK. Three patients developed driveline infection while on PLMK (6%, 0.15 events per patient year), and 35 patients continued to use the PLMK after 6 months. The PLMK is easy to use, increases patient comfort, and increases driveline stability with a dressing change frequency of 6-7 days.


Asunto(s)
Corazón Auxiliar/efectos adversos , Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis/prevención & control , Autocuidado/instrumentación , Adulto , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Prospectivos , Infecciones Relacionadas con Prótesis/etiología , Autocuidado/métodos
6.
Am J Infect Control ; 40(3): 194-200, 2012 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22440670

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) remains one of the most prevalent multidrug-resistant organisms causing health care-associated infections. Limited data are available about how the prevalence of MRSA has changed over the past several years and what MRSA prevention practices have been implemented since the 2006 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc, MRSA survey. METHODS: We conducted a national prevalence survey of MRSA colonization or infection in inpatients at US health care facilities. The survey was developed, received institutional review board approval, and then was distributed to all US Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc, members. Members were asked to complete the survey on 1 day during the period August 1 to December 30, 2010, reporting the number of inpatients with MRSA infection or colonization and facility- and patient-specific information. RESULTS: Personnel at 590 facilities indicated a state and responded to the survey. All states were represented, except for Alaska and Washington, DC (mean, 12 facilities per state; range, 1-38). Respondents reported 4,476 MRSA-colonized/infected patients in 67,412 inpatients; the overall MRSA prevalence rate was 66.4 per 1,000 inpatients (25.3 infections and 41.1 colonizations per 1,000 inpatients). Active surveillance testing was conducted by 75.7% of the respondents; 39.6% used nonselective media, 37.2% used selective media, and 23.3% used polymerase chain reaction. Detailed data were provided on 3,176 MRSA-colonized/infected patients. Of those in whom colonization/infection status was reported (1,908/3,086 [61.8%] were MRSA colonized and 1,778/3,086 [38.2%] were MRSA infected), most MRSA-colonized or infected patients (78.3%) were detected within 48 hours of admission; the most common site of infection was skin and soft tissue (42.9%); and, using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's definitions, approximately 50% would be classified as health care-associated infections. CONCLUSION: Our survey documents that the MRSA prevalence in 2010 is higher than that reported in our 2006 survey. However, the majority of facilities currently are performing active surveillance testing, and, compared with 2006, the rate of MRSA infection has decreased while the rate of MRSA colonization has increased. In addition, compared with 2006, the proportion of MRSA strains recovered from MRSA-colonized/infected patients that are health care-associated strains has deceased, and community-associated strains have increased.


Asunto(s)
Portador Sano/epidemiología , Infección Hospitalaria/epidemiología , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente a Meticilina/aislamiento & purificación , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/epidemiología , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Portador Sano/microbiología , Niño , Preescolar , Infección Hospitalaria/microbiología , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Humanos , Lactante , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Prevalencia , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/microbiología , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Adulto Joven
7.
Am J Infect Control ; 37(4): 263-70, 2009 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19278754

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Recent published estimates of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) incidence have been based on small numbers of hospitals or national hospital discharge data. These data suggest that CDI incidence is increasing. METHODS: We conducted a point prevalence survey of C difficile in inpatients at US health care facilities. The survey was developed, received Institutional Review Board approval, and was then distributed to all Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc (APIC) members. They were asked to complete the survey on 1 day between May 7 and August 29, 2008, reporting the number of inpatients with CDI or colonization and facility-specific information. RESULTS: Personnel at 648 hospitals completed the survey; this represents approximately 12.5% of all US acute care facilities. All but 3 states and the District of Columbia were represented (mean, 14 facilities per state; range, 2-43). Eighty-two percent reported that their CDI rate had not decreased in the past 3 years. Respondents reported 1443 C difficile-colonized/infected patients among 110,550 inpatients; the overall C difficile prevalence rate was 13.1 per 1000 inpatients (94.4% infection). Detailed data were provided on 1062 (73.6%) patients. Of these, 55.5% were female, 69.2% were >60 years of age, 67.6% had selected comorbid conditions, 79% had received antimicrobials within 30 days, and 94.4% were detected by enzyme immunoassay. The majority of patients (54.4%) were diagnosed < or =48 hours of hospitalization, but 35% had been admitted to a long-term care facility within 30 days, and 47% had been hospitalized within 90 days; 73% met Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria for health care-associated CDI. Most facilities (>90%) used contact isolation for CDI patients. Bleach was used for environmental disinfection more commonly during CDI outbreaks than during nonoutbreak periods. CONCLUSION: Our survey documents a higher C difficile prevalence rate than previous estimates using different methodologies. The majority of inpatient CDI appears to be health care associated. Given that not all patients with diarrhea are tested for CDI and that most facilities use enzyme immunoassays with limited sensitivity to detect C difficile, these are minimum estimates of the US health care facility C difficile burden.


Asunto(s)
Portador Sano/epidemiología , Clostridioides difficile , Infecciones por Clostridium/epidemiología , Infección Hospitalaria/epidemiología , Pacientes Internos/estadística & datos numéricos , Infecciones por Clostridium/microbiología , Recolección de Datos , Diarrea/epidemiología , Instituciones de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Control de Infecciones/métodos , Prevalencia , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Estados Unidos/epidemiología
8.
Am J Infect Control ; 35(10): 631-7, 2007 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-18063126

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Despite methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) being endemic in virtually all US health care facilities, there are no data on the prevalence of MRSA in US health care facilities. METHODS: We conducted a national prevalence survey of MRSA in inpatients at US health care facilities. The survey was developed, received institutional review board approval, and then distributed to all members of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. (APIC). Members were asked to complete the survey on one day during the period October 1 to November 16, 2006, reporting the number of inpatients with MRSA infection or colonization and facility-specific information. RESULTS: Personnel at 1237 hospitals completed the survey. Complete facility data were provided for 1187 (96%) of these health care facilities. All states were represented (mean, 23 facilities per state; range, 1-99). Respondents reported 8654 MRSA-colonized/infected patients in 187,058 inpatients; the overall MRSA prevalence rate was 46.3 per 1000 inpatients (34 infections and 12 colonizations per 1000 inpatients). Active MRSA surveillance testing was conducted by 29% of respondents: 54% used routine media, 38% used selective media, and 8% used polymerase chain reaction. Detailed data were provided on 7994 (92.4%) MRSA-colonized/infected patients. Our data suggest that approximately 70% of isolates were more consistent with health care-associated MRSA (HA-MRSA) than community-associated MRSA. CONCLUSION: Our survey documents a much higher MRSA prevalence rate than previous studies using different methodologies. The majority of MRSA in inpatients appears to be HA-MRSA. Given that most facilities did not perform active surveillance testing, these are minimum estimates of the national burden of MRSA in US health care facilities.


Asunto(s)
Infección Hospitalaria/epidemiología , Instituciones de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Resistencia a la Meticilina , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/epidemiología , Staphylococcus aureus/efectos de los fármacos , Portador Sano , Recolección de Datos , Humanos , Prevalencia , Estados Unidos/epidemiología
9.
ASAIO J ; 51(4): 461-70, 2005.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16156314

RESUMEN

Implantable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have demonstrated clinical success in both the bridge-to-transplantation and destination-therapy patient populations; however, infection remains one of the most common causes of mortality during mechanical circulatory support. Thus, serious LVAD infections may negate the benefits of LVAD implantation, resulting in decreased quality of life, increased morbidity and mortality, and increased costs associated with implantation. Prevention of device-related infection is crucial to the cost-effective use of mechanical circulatory support devices. Therefore, adherence to evidence-based infection control and prevention guidelines, meticulous surgical technique and optimal postoperative surgical site care form the foundation for LVAD associated infection prevention.


Asunto(s)
Infecciones Bacterianas/complicaciones , Infecciones Bacterianas/prevención & control , Corazón Auxiliar/microbiología , Estudios Multicéntricos como Asunto , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/microbiología , Circulación Asistida/economía , Circulación Asistida/instrumentación , Circulación Asistida/mortalidad , Infecciones Bacterianas/diagnóstico , Infecciones Bacterianas/terapia , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Humanos , Calidad de Vida , Factores de Riesgo , Infección de la Herida Quirúrgica/etiología , Infección de la Herida Quirúrgica/mortalidad , Tasa de Supervivencia
10.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 25(12): 1020-5, 2004 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15636287

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To help facilities prepare for potential future cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), assisted by members of professional societies representing public health, healthcare workers, and healthcare administrators, developed guidance to help facilities both prepare for and respond to cases of SARS. INTERVENTIONS: The recommendations in the CDC document were based on some of the important lessons learned in healthcare settings around the world during the SARS outbreak of 2003, including that (1) a SARS outbreak requires a coordinated and dynamic response by multiple groups; (2) unrecognized cases of SARS-associated coronavirus are a significant source of transmission; (3) restricting access to the healthcare facility can minimize transmission; (4) airborne infection isolation is recommended, but facilities and equipment may not be available; and (5) staffing needs and support will pose a significant challenge. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare facilities were at the center of the SARS outbreak of 2003 and played a key role in controlling the epidemic. Recommendations in the CDC's SARS preparedness and response guidance for healthcare facilities will help facilities prepare for possible future outbreaks of SARS.


Asunto(s)
Brotes de Enfermedades , Instituciones de Salud , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Salud Pública , Síndrome Respiratorio Agudo Grave , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Planificación en Desastres , Personal de Salud , Humanos , Higiene , Aislamiento de Pacientes , Síndrome Respiratorio Agudo Grave/epidemiología , Síndrome Respiratorio Agudo Grave/prevención & control , Síndrome Respiratorio Agudo Grave/terapia , Estados Unidos
11.
MMWR Recomm Rep ; 52(RR-10): 1-42, 2003 Jun 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-12836624

RESUMEN

The health-care facility environment is rarely implicated in disease transmission, except among patients who are immunocompromised. Nonetheless, inadvertent exposures to environmental pathogens (e.g., Aspergillus spp. and Legionella spp.) or airborne pathogens (e.g., Mycobacterium tuberculosis and varicella-zoster virus) can result in adverse patient outcomes and cause illness among health-care workers. Environmental infection-control strategies and engineering controls can effectively prevent these infections. The incidence of health-care--associated infections and pseudo-outbreaks can be minimized by 1) appropriate use of cleaners and disinfectants; 2) appropriate maintenance of medical equipment (e.g., automated endoscope reprocessors or hydrotherapy equipment); 3) adherence to water-quality standards for hemodialysis, and to ventilation standards for specialized care environments (e.g., airborne infection isolation rooms, protective environments, or operating rooms); and 4) prompt management of water intrusion into the facility. Routine environmental sampling is not usually advised, except for water quality determinations in hemodialysis settings and other situations where sampling is directed by epidemiologic principles, and results can be applied directly to infection-control decisions. This report reviews previous guidelines and strategies for preventing environment-associated infections in health-care facilities and offers recommendations. These include 1) evidence-based recommendations supported by studies; 2) requirements of federal agencies (e.g., Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and U.S. Department of Justice); 3) guidelines and standards from building and equipment professional organizations (e.g., American Institute of Architects, Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, and American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers); 4) recommendations derived from scientific theory or rationale; and 5) experienced opinions based upon infection-control and engineering practices. The report also suggests a series of performance measurements as a means to evaluate infection-control efforts.


Asunto(s)
Control de Infecciones/normas , Microbiología del Aire/normas , Animales , Ambiente Controlado , Contaminación de Equipos/prevención & control , Ambiente de Instituciones de Salud/normas , Arquitectura y Construcción de Hospitales/normas , Humanos , Eliminación de Residuos Sanitarios/normas , Estados Unidos , Microbiología del Agua/normas , Abastecimiento de Agua/normas
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...