The serious and ongoing issue of needlestick in Australian healthcare settings.

Australian healthcare workers and especially nurses repeatedly have their safety and health jeopardized through occupational exposures to blood and body fluids. Percutaneous or needlestick injuries are especially concerning and consistent. The purpose of this article is to again draw attention to the serious and costly issue of needlestick injuries in Australian healthcare settings. Specifically it considers the context of needlestick injuries and safety engineered devices within Standard 3 of the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care's National Standards reform agenda. Given that Standard 3 alone will likely be insufficient to reduce needlestick injuries, this article also discusses improvements and current challenges in international needlestick injury reduction in an attempt to stimulate key opinion leader consideration of Australia adopting similar strategies.

Preventing catheter-related bloodstream infections: an executive summary of the APIC elimination guide.

This article is an executive summary of the APIC Elimination Guide for catheter-related bloodstream infections. Infection preventionists are encouraged to obtain the original, full-length APIC Elimination Guide for more thorough coverage of catheter-related bloodstream infections prevention.

Legislative mandates for use of active surveillance cultures to screen for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci: Position statement from the Joint SHEA and APIC Task Force.

Legislation aimed at controlling antimicrobial-resistant pathogens through the use of active surveillance cultures to screen hospitalized patients has been introduced in at least 2 US states. In response to the proposed legislation, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc., (APIC) have developed this joint position statement. Both organizations are dedicated to combating health care-associated infections with a wide array of methods, including the use of active surveillance cultures in appropriate circumstances. This position statement reviews the proposed legislation and the rationale for use of active surveillance cultures, examines the scientific evidence supporting the use of this strategy, and discusses a number of unresolved issues surrounding legislation mandating use of active surveillance cultures. The following 5 consensus points are offered. (1) Although reducing the burden of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), is of preeminent importance, the APIC and the SHEA do not support legislation to mandate use of active surveillance cultures to screen for MRSA, VRE, or other antimicrobial-resistant pathogens. (2) The SHEA and the APIC support the continued development, validation, and application of efficacious and cost-effective strategies for the prevention of infections caused by MRSA, VRE, and other antimicrobial-resistant and antimicrobial-susceptible pathogens. (3) The APIC and the SHEA welcome efforts by health care consumers, together with private, local, state, and federal policy makers, to focus attention on and formulate solutions for the growing problem of antimicrobial resistance and health care-associated infections. (4) The SHEA and the APIC support ongoing additional research to determine and optimize the appropriateness, utility, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of using active surveillance cultures to screen both lower-risk and high-risk populations. (5) The APIC and the SHEA support stronger collaboration between state and local public health authorities and institutional infection prevention and control experts.

Legislative mandates for use of active surveillance cultures to screen for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci: position statement from the Joint SHEA and APIC Task Force.

Legislation aimed at controlling antimicrobial-resistant pathogens through the use of active surveillance cultures to screen hospitalized patients has been introduced in at least 2 US states. In response to the proposed legislation, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the Association of Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) have developed this joint position statement. Both organizations are dedicated to combating healthcare-associated infections with a wide array of methods, including the use of active surveillance cultures in appropriate circumstances. This position statement reviews the proposed legislation and the rationale for use of active surveillance cultures, examines the scientific evidence supporting the use of this strategy, and discusses a number of unresolved issues surrounding legislation mandating use of active surveillance cultures. The following 5 consensus points are offered. (1) Although reducing the burden of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), is of preeminent importance, APIC and SHEA do not support legislation to mandate use of active surveillance cultures to screen for MRSA, VRE, or other antimicrobial-resistant pathogens. (2) SHEA and APIC support the continued development, validation, and application of efficacious and cost-effective strategies for the prevention of infections caused by MRSA, VRE, and other antimicrobial-resistant and antimicrobial-susceptible pathogens. (3) APIC and SHEA welcome efforts by healthcare consumers, together with private, local, state, and federal policy makers, to focus attention on and formulate solutions for the growing problem of antimicrobial resistance and healthcare-associated infections. (4) SHEA and APIC support ongoing additional research to determine and optimize the appropriateness, utility, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of using active surveillance cultures to screen both lower-risk and high-risk populations. (5) APIC and SHEA support stronger collaboration between state and local public health authorities and institutional infection prevention and control experts.

Assessing the status of infection control programs in small rural hospitals in the western United States.

BACKGROUND: Organized infection control (IC) interventions have been successful in reducing the acquisition of hospital-associated infections. Rural community hospitals, although contributing significantly to the US health care system, have rarely been assessed regarding the nature and quality of their IC programs. METHODS: A sample of 77 small rural hospitals in Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and eastern Washington completed a written survey in 2000 regarding IC staffing, infrastructure support, surveillance of nosocomial infections, and IC policies and practices. RESULTS: Almost all hospitals (65 of 67, 97%) had one infection control practitioner (ICP), and 29 of 61 hospitals (47.5%) reported a designated physician with IC oversight. Most ICPs (62 of 64, 96.9%) were also employed for other activities outside of IC. The median number of ICP hours per week for IC activities was 10 (1-40), equating to a median of 1.56 (0.30-21.9) full-time ICPs per 250 hospital beds. Most hospitals performed total house surveillance for nosocomial infections (66 of 73, 90.4%) utilizing Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definitions (69 of 74, 93.2%). Most also monitored employee bloodborne exposures (69 of 73, 94.5%). All hospitals had a written bloodborne pathogen exposure plan and isolation policies. CDC guidelines were typically followed when developing IC policies. Access to medical literature and online resources appeared to be limited for many ICPs. CONCLUSIONS: Most rural hospitals surveyed have expended reasonable resources to develop IC programs that are patterned after those seen in larger hospitals and conform to recommendations of consensus expert panels. Given these hospitals' small patient census, short length of stay, and low infection rates, further studies are needed to evaluate necessary components of effective IC programs in these settings that efficiently utilize limited resources without compromising patient care.