National evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections (HCAI) in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England were commissioned by the Department of Health (DH) and developed during 1998-2000 by a nurse-led multi-professional team of researchers and specialist clinicians. Following extensive consultation, they were published in January 2001. These guidelines describe the precautions healthcare workers should take in three areas: standard principles for preventing HCAI, which include hospital environmental hygiene, hand hygiene, the use of personal protective equipment, and the safe use and disposal of sharps; preventing infections associated with the use of short-term indwelling urethral catheters; and preventing infections associated with central venous catheters. The evidence for these guidelines was identified by multiple systematic reviews of experimental and non-experimental research and expert opinion as reflected in systematically identified professional, national and international guidelines, which were formally assessed by a validated appraisal process. In 2003, we developed complementary national guidelines for preventing HCAI in primary and community care on behalf of the National Collaborating Centre for Nursing and Supportive Care (National Institute for Healthand Clinical Excellence). A cardinal feature of evidence-based guidelines is that they are subject to timely review in order that new research evidence and technological advances can be identified, appraised and, if shown to be effective in preventing HCAI, incorporated into amended guidelines. Periodically updating the evidence base and guideline recommendations is essential in order to maintain their validity and authority. Consequently, the DH commissioned a review of new evidence published following the last systematic reviews. We have now updated the evidence base for making infection prevention and control recommendations. A critical assessment of the updated evidence indicated that the original epic guidelines published in 2001 remain robust, relevant and appropriate but that adjustments need to be made to some guideline recommendations following a synopsis of the evidence underpinning the guidelines. These updated national guidelines (epic2) provide comprehensive recommendations for preventing HCAI in hospitals and other acute care settings based on the best currently available evidence. Because this is not always the best possible evidence, we have included a suggested agenda for further research in each section of the guidelines. National evidence-based guidelines are broad principles of best practice which need to be integrated into local practice guidelines. To monitor implementation, we have suggested key audit criteria for each section of recommendations. Clinically effective infection prevention and control practice is an essential feature of protecting patients. By incorporating these guidelines into routine daily clinical practice, patient safety can be enhanced and the risk of patients acquiri...

No abstract

Objective To determine the most effective and cost effective type of catheter for patients performing intermittent self catheterisation in the community.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Results were incorporated into a probabilistic Markov model to compare lifetime costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Data sourcesWe searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane and Cinahl databases from 2002 to 18 April 2011 to identify studies comparing hydrophilic, gel reservoir, and non-coated intermittent catheters. Earlier guidelines were used to identify papers published before 2002. To capture studies comparing clean and sterile non-coated intermittent self catheterisation, each database was searched from its date of inception to 18 April 2011. Main outcome measuresClinical outcomes included symptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI), bacteraemia, mortality, patient preference or comfort, and number of catheters used. The economic model included downstream complications of UTI and cost effectiveness was calculated as incremental cost per QALY gained.Results Eight studies were included in the systematic review. Most were conducted in patients with spinal cord injuries, and most of the included patients were men. People using gel reservoir and hydrophilic catheters were significantly less likely to report one or more UTIs compared with sterile non-coated catheters (absolute effect for gel reservoir = 149 fewer per 1000 (95% confidence interval −7 to 198), P=0.04; absolute effect for hydrophilic = 153 fewer per 1000 (−8 to 268), P=0.04). However, there was no difference between hydrophilic and sterile non-coated catheters when outcomes were measured as mean monthly UTIs (mean difference = 0.01 (−0.11 to 0.09), P=0.84) or total UTIs at 1 year (mean difference = 0.18 (−0.50 to 0.86), P=0.60). There was little difference in the incidence of one or more UTIs for people using clean versus sterile non-coated catheters (absolute effect = 12 fewer per 1000 (−134 to 146), P=0.86). Although the most effective, gel reservoir catheters cost >£54 350 per QALY gained and are therefore not cost effective compared with clean non-coated self catheterisation. ConclusionThe type of catheter used for intermittent self catheterisation seems to make little difference to the risk of symptomatic UTI. Given large differences in resource use, clean non-coated catheters are most cost effective. However, because of limitations and gaps in the evidence base and the designation of non-coated catheters as single use devices, we recommend a precautionary principle should be adopted and that patients should be offered a choice between hydrophilic and gel reservoir catheters. IntroductionCatheter associated urinary tract infection is the most common healthcare acquired infection in the world, accounting for 20-45% of all nosocomial infections.1 While most urinary tract infections (UTIs) are mild and easily resolved with appropriate antibiotic treatment, more severe infections can be devastating, resulting in bacteraemia, sepsis, and deat...

Policies and guidelines have recommended that structured programmes to support breastfeeding should be introduced. The objective of this review was to consider the evidence of outcomes of structured compared with non-structured breastfeeding programmes in acute maternity care settings to support initiation and duration of exclusive breastfeeding. Quantitative and qualitative studies were considered. Primary outcomes of interest were initiation of breastfeeding and duration of exclusive breastfeeding. Studies that only considered community-based interventions were excluded. An extensive search of literature published in 1992-2010 was undertaken using identified key words and index terms. Methodological quality was assessed using checklists developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Two independent reviewers conducted critical appraisal and data extraction; 26 articles were included. Because of clinical and methodological heterogeneity of study designs, it was not possible to combine studies or individual outcomes in meta-analyses. Most studies found a statistically significant improvement in breastfeeding initiation following introduction of a structured breastfeeding programme, although effect sizes varied. The impact on the duration of exclusive breastfeeding and duration of any breastfeeding to 6 months was also evident, although not all studies found statistically significant differences. Despite poor overall study quality, structured programmes compared with standard care positively influence the initiation and duration of exclusive breastfeeding and any breastfeeding. In health care settings with low breastfeeding initiation and duration rates, structured programmes may have a greater benefit. Few studies controlled for any potential confounding factors, and the impact of bias has to be considered.

No abstract

This study suggests that the design and use of self-report tools to identify client's adherence to complex antiretroviral regimens may need to measure individual constructs of adherence to accurately assess adherence behavior.

No abstract

No abstract