\s=b\The correlation between Staphylococcus aureus colonization and infection among newborns was studied during a four-year period. Of the 9,423 newborns cultured, 24% were colonized at the time of discharge and in 2% of these an infection developed, whereas only 0.2% of the noncolonized newborns experienced a staphylococcal infection. The weekly colonization rates ranged from 0% to 62%, and outbreaks of infections (two or more concurrent) occurred periodically when the colonization rates ranged from 11% to 57%. Colonization rates per se did not serve as an indicator of an actual or potential outbreak of infection. Instead, the occurrence of two or more concurrent cases of staphylococcal infection or presumptive evidence of an outbreak seems to be a more reliable indicator than colonization monitoring.(Am J Dis Child 132: [893][894][895][896] 1978) The newborn who becomes colo¬ nized with Staphylococcus aureus after birth is more likely to have a staphylococcal infection develop than one who is uncolonized.1"7 Because of this, effective control of staphylococ¬ cal colonization in the newborn has become an integral component of infection control in the hospital nur¬ sery. During the past several years, considerable effort has been devoted to the development of techniques for controlling staphylococcal colonization among newborns."1' One such proce¬ dure is that of staphylococcal coloniza¬ tion surveillance. Staphylococcal col¬ onization surveillance was initiated in an effort to recognize any sudden increase in the staphylococcal coloni¬ zation rate and to permit prompt remedial action before a severe epi¬ demic could develop. The effective¬ ness of this infection surveillance procedure was studied over a fouryear time period by analyzing S aureus colonization rates and their influence on the development of nursery-acquired infections among newborns. METHODS Nursery RoutinesDuring the four-year study period, admissions to the nursery averaged 2,300 newborns per year; the average stay was four days. The nursery was situated on the top floor of a 558-bed community-teaching hospital adjacent to the delivery suites and the obstetrical ward. Traffic into the nursery was restricted. The nursery was organized into a cohort system of two small nurseries each admitting 20 consecutive newborns directly from the delivery room. Premature infants or those who were high risk or ill at birth were admitted to the "premie" nursery rather than the general nursery. The newborns remained in their respective cohorts until discharged. At¬ tempts were made to have nursing person¬ nel limit their work to one of the cohort groups during a given shift, but because of the large number of newborns and limited staff, the nurses often worked in both areas.All nursery personnel followed routine nursery technique. This included a threeto five-minute hand scrubbing with 3% hexachlorophene on entering the nursery and a hand washing with the same prepa¬ ration before and after each infant contact.Nurses working full-time in the nursery wore scru...
No abstract
Background Guidewire retention and sharps injury during central venous catheter insertion are errors that cause patient and healthcare professional harm. The WireSafeTM is a novel procedure safety pack engineered to prevent guidewire retention and sharps injury during central venous catheter insertion. This is a pilot study aimed to determine its acceptability, usability and safety during clinical practice. Methods An observational time and motion study was conducted comparing central venous catheter insertion and sharps disposal practice using standard versus WireSafeTM techniques. One-year following implementation, a structured survey was conducted to determine clinician opinion and experiences of using the WireSafeTM. Results 15 procedures were observed using standard practice and 16 using the WireSafeTM technique. The WireSafeTM technique decreased the time taken from removal of the guidewire to disposal of sharps (standard 11.4 ± 5.6 min vs WireSafeTM 8.7 ± 1.4 min, p = 0.035), as well as total procedure time (standard 16 ± 7 min vs WireSafeTM 14.2 ± 2 min, p = 0.17), although this latter trend did not reach significance. Clinicians frequently practiced unsafe behaviour during sharps disposal in the standard group (53%), but when using the WireSafeTM technique, 100% exhibited safe practice by transferring sharps to the bin inside the sealed WireSafeTM box. One-year following implementation, 20 clinicians participated in the structured survey. Clinicians across three different departments used the WireSafeTM in varying clinical situations and reported that its use for central line insertion was either easier (10/20) or no different (10/20) compared to standard practice. All clinicians (20/20) felt that the WireSafeTM reduced the risk of guidewire retention and all stated that they approved of the WireSafeTM technique, and supported its use for convenience and safety benefits. Conclusion Utilising the WireSafeTM for central line insertion facilitated earlier and safer sharps disposal, and the device was well supported by clinicians for its convenience and safety benefits.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.