Guideline for infection control in hospital personnel

Williams, Walter W.

doi:10.1016/0196-6553(84)90071-3

Cited by 38 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[1][2][3][4][5] There is a major risk for the transmission of blood-borne pathogens, such as hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). [1][2][3][4][5] The epidemiological characteristics and risk factors for occupational blood exposures (OBEs) in healthcare settings have been studied extensively in developed countries. [1][2][3][4][5] Reports estimate that the number of needlestick injuries per year ranges from 600 000 to 800 000 in the USA, 6 and is 500 000 in two German hospitals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epidemiological characteristics of occupational blood exposures of healthcare workers in a university hospital in South Korea for 10 years

Choe

2005

Journal of Hospital Infection

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epidemiological characteristics of occupational blood exposures of healthcare workers in a university hospital in South Korea for 10 years

Choe

2005

Journal of Hospital Infection

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Seven CDC Guidelines currently exist [18][19][20][21][22][23][24], These Guidelines address preven tion of the four major nosocomial infec tions, handwashing and hospital environ mental control, infection control in hospi tal personnel, and isolation precautions for use in hospitals. A recently completed evaluation of the CDC Guidelines indi cated that development and dissemination of these Guidelines were viewed as an ap propriate activity for CDC, that the Guidelines had been widely disseminated, that the impact of different specific recom mendations on hospital policy varied but that the recommendations did have sub stantial impact on policies in large hospi tals, and that the cost of implementation of the recommendations was generally aceptable.…”

Section: Implications For the Futurementioning

confidence: 99%

Study on the Efficacy of Nosocomial Infection Control (SENIC Project): Results and Implications for the Future

Hughes¹

1988

Chemotherapy

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the Study on the Efficacy of Nosocomial Infection Control (SENIC Project) was to evaluate nosocomial infection prevention and control programs in hospitals in the United States. The overall plan was to assess the surveillance and control activities in hospitals in the United States in 1970 and 1976, to measure the change in the nosocomial infection rates from 1970 to 1976 as determined from a carefully conducted retrospective chart review, and to assess the influence of changes in these programs on infection rates after controlling for other important changes that occured during the interval. The SENIC ‘bottom line’ was that 32% of infections that would have occurred in the absence of well-organized infection surveillance and control programs were potentially preventable. However, only 6% of infections were actually being prevented by programs that existed in 1976. The critical components of an effective program were a balance between surveillance and control efforts, one infection control nurse for every 250 beds, a trained hospital epidemiologist, and feedback of surgical wound infection rates to practicing surgeons. In the United States, priorities for nosocomial infection prevention and control efforts include infections caused by emerging pathogens such as coagulase-negative staphylococci, enterococci, and Candida species; infections of the blood stream and surgical wounds; and infections in critical-care units. In addition, there is a critical need for timely analysis and dissemination of surveillance data and for continued training of infection control practitioners and physicians to maximize the effectiveness of prevention and control efforts.

show abstract

“…For these reasons, the Centers for Disease Control and infectious disease experts have recommended that hospitals remove from work susceptible employees exposed to VZV; employ special precautions in patients with VZV infection or susceptible patients exposed to VZV; and consider prophylaxis with varicella-zoster immune globulin (VZIG) for high-risk susceptible patients exposed to VZV. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] We report the costs of VZV control incurred over a 12-month period by a University Hospital, detail the nature of hospital exposures, and summarize our approach to VZV control.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%