To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
To evaluate the incidence of needlestick injuries (NSIs) among different models of safety-engineered devices (SEDs) (automatic, semiautomatic, and manually activated safety) in healthcare settings.
This multicenter survey, conducted from January 2005 through December 2006, examined all prospectively documented SED-related NSIs reported by healthcare workers to their occupational medicine departments. Participating hospitals were asked retrospectively to report the types, brands, and number of SEDs purchased, in order to estimate SED-specific rates of NSI.
Sixty-one hospitals in France.
More than 22 million SEDs were purchased during the study period, and a total of 453 SED-related NSIs were documented. The mean overall frequency of NSIs was 2.05 injuries per 100,000 SEDs purchased. Device-specific NSI rates were compared using Poisson approximation. The 95% confidence interval was used to define statistical significance. Passive (fully automatic) devices were associated with the lowest NSI incidence rate. Among active devices, those with a semiautomatic safety feature were significantly more effective than those with a manually activated toppling shield, which in turn were significantly more effective than those with a manually activated sliding shield (P < .001, x2 test). The same gradient of SED efficacy was observed when the type of healthcare procedure was taken into account.
Passive SEDs are most effective for NSI prevention. Further studies are needed to determine whether their higher cost may be offset by savings related to fewer NSIs and to a reduced need for user training.
To evaluate nosocomial infection (NI) surveillance strategies in French ICUs and to identify similar patterns defining subsets within which comparisons can be made.
A questionnaire was sent to all French ICUs, and a random sample of nonresponders was interviewed.
Three hundred ninety-five responder ICUs (69%) in France.
In 282 ICUs (71%), a dedicated ICU staff member was responsible for infection control activities. The microbiology laboratory was usually in the hospital (90%) and computerized (94%) but issued regular hospital microbiology records in only 48% of cases. Patients receiving mechanical ventilation, central venous catheterization, and urinary catheterization were 90%, 79%, and 60%, respectively. Patients were screened for carriage of mul-tidrug-resistant bacteria on admission and during the stay in 70% and 60% of ICUs, respectively, most often targeting MRSA. Quantitative cultures were used to diagnose ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in 90% of ICUs, including distal specimens in 80% and bronchoscopy specimens in 60%. Quantitative central venous catheter (CVC)-segment cultures were used in 70% of ICUs. All CVCs were cultured routinely in 53% of the ICUs. Despite wide variations in infection control and surveillance strategies, multiple correspondence analysis identified 13 key points (4 structural variables and 9 variables concerning the diagnosis of VAP, the surveillance and diagnosis of catheter-related and urinary tract infections, and the mode of screening of MRSA carriers) that categorize the variability of French ICUs' approaches to NIs.
This study revealed profound differences in N1 surveillance strategies across ICUs, indicating a need for caution when using N1 surveillance data for comparisons and benchmarking.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.