38 research outputs found
Core components for effective infection prevention and control programmes: new WHO evidence-based recommendations
Abstract
Health care-associated infections (HAI) are a major public health problem with a significant impact on morbidity, mortality and quality of life. They represent also an important economic burden to health systems worldwide. However, a large proportion of HAI are preventable through effective infection prevention and control (IPC) measures. Improvements in IPC at the national and facility level are critical for the successful containment of antimicrobial resistance and the prevention of HAI, including outbreaks of highly transmissible diseases through high quality care within the context of universal health coverage. Given the limited availability of IPC evidence-based guidance and standards, the World Health Organization (WHO) decided to prioritize the development of global recommendations on the core components of effective IPC programmes both at the national and acute health care facility level, based on systematic literature reviews and expert consensus. The aim of the guideline development process was to identify the evidence and evaluate its quality, consider patient values and preferences, resource implications, and the feasibility and acceptability of the recommendations. As a result, 11 recommendations and three good practice statements are presented here, including a summary of the supporting evidence, and form the substance of a new WHO IPC guideline
Phase 1 development of an index to measure the quality of neuraxial labour analgesia: exploring the perspectives of childbearing women
A matter of conscience: a call to action for system improvements involving epidural and spinal catheters.
Comparison of parturient - controlled remifentanil with epidural bupivacain and sufentanil for labour analgesia: Randomised controlled trial
Paraesthesia during the needle-through-needle and the double segment technique for combined spinal epidural anaesthesia*
The impact of anesthesia providers on major morbidity following screening colonoscopies
David A Lubarsky,1 Jason R Guercio,2 John W Hanna,3,4 Maria T Abreu,5 Qianli Ma,3 Claudia Uribe,3 David J Birnbach,1,6 David R Sinclair,1 Keith A Candiotti1 1Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Medicine and Pain Management, University of Miami – Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA; 2Department of Anesthesiology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; 3Humana, Comprehensive Health Insights, Miami, FL, USA; 4University of Miami – Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA; 5Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, University of Miami – Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA; 6Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Miami – Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA Background and aims: Few studies evaluate the impact of anesthesia providers during procedures, such as colonoscopy, on low-risk patients. The objective of this study was to compare the effect of anesthesia providers on several outcome variables, including major morbidity, following screening colonoscopies. Methods: A propensity-matched cohort study of 14,006 patients who enrolled with a national insurer offering health maintenance organization (HMO), preferred provider organization (PPO), and Medicare Advantage plans for a screening colonoscopy between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2007 were studied. Records were evaluated for completion of the colonoscopy, new cancer diagnosis (colon, anal, rectal) within 6 months of the colonoscopy, new primary diagnosis of myocardial infarction (MI), new primary diagnosis of stroke, hospital admission within 7 days of the colonoscopy, and adherence to guidelines for use of anesthesia providers. Results: The presence of an anesthesia provider did not affect major morbidity or the percent of completed exams. Overall morbidity within 7 days was very low. When an anesthesia provider was present, a nonsignificant trend toward greater cancer detection within 6 months of the procedure was observed. Adherence to national guidelines regarding the use of anesthesia providers for low-risk patients was poor. Conclusion: A difference in outcome associated with the presence or absence of an anesthesia provider during screening colonoscopy in terms of MI, stroke, or hospital admission within 7 days of the procedure was not observed. Adherence to published guidelines for the use of anesthesia providers is low. The incidence of completed exams was unaffected by the presence of an anesthesia provider. However, a nonstatistically significant trend toward increased cancer detection requires further study. Keywords: safety, complications, myocardial infarction, stroke, endoscopy, anesthesiolog