Urethral catheters: can we reduce use?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Indwelling urinary catheters are the main cause of healthcare-associated urinary tract infections. It can be expected that reduction of the use of urinary catheters will lead to decreased numbers of urinary tract infection.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The efficacy of an intervention programme to improve adherence to recommendations to reduce the use of urethral catheters was studied in a before-after comparison in ten Dutch hospitals. The programme detected barriers and facilitators and each individual facility was supported with developing their own intervention strategy. Outcome was evaluated by the prevalence of catheters, alternatives such as diapers, numbers of urinary tract infections, the percentage of correct indications and the duration of catheterization. The costs of the implementation as well as the catheterization were evaluated.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of a population of 16,495 hospitalized patients 3335 patients of whom 2943 were evaluable for the study, had a urethral catheter. The prevalence of urethral catheters decreased insignificantly in neurology (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.77 - 1.13) and internal medicine wards (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.83 - 1.13), decreased significantly in surgical wards (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.75 - 0.96), but increased significantly in intensive care (IC) and coronary care (CC) units (OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.01 - 2.17). The use of alternatives was limited and remained so after the intervention. Duration of catheterization decreased insignificantly in IC/CC units (ratio after/before 0.95; 95% CI 0.78 - 1.16) and neurology (ratio 0.97; 95% CI 0.80 - 1.18) and significantly in internal medicine (ratio 0.81; 95% CI 0.69 - 0.96) and surgery wards (ratio 0.80; 95% CI 0.71 - 0.90). The percentage of correct indications on the day of inclusion increased from 50 to 67% (p < 0.0001). The prevalence of urinary tract infections in catheterized patients did not change. The mean cost saved per 100 patients was € 537.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Targeted implementation of recommendations from an existing guideline can lead to better adherence and cost savings. Especially, hospitals which use a lot of urethral catheters or where catheterization is prolonged, can expect important improvements.</p

Preventing the introduction of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus into hospitals

The objective of this review was to provide an up-to-date account of the interventions used to prevent the introduction of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) from the expanding community and livestock reservoirs into hospitals in the USA, Denmark, The Netherlands and Western Australia. A review of existing literature and local guidelines for the management of MRSA in hospitals was performed. In Denmark, The Netherlands and Western Australia, where the prevalence of MRSA is relatively low, targeted admission screening and isolation of predefined high-risk populations have been used for several decades to successfully control MRSA in the hospital. Furthermore, in Denmark and The Netherlands, all identified MRSA carriers undergo routine decolonisation, whereas only carriers of particularly transmissible or virulent MRSA clones are subjected to decolonisation in Western Australia. In the USA, which continues to be a high-prevalence MRSA country, policies vary by state and even by hospital, and whilst guidelines from professional organisations provide a framework for infection control practices, these guidelines lack the authority of a legislative mandate. In conclusion, the changing epidemiology of MRSA, exemplified by the recent emergence of MRSA in the community and in food animals, makes it increasingly difficult to accurately identify specific high-risk groups to screen for MRSA carriage. Understanding the changing epidemiology of MRSA in a local as well as global context is fundamental to prevent the introduction of MRSA into hospitals

Public health implications of using various case definitions in The Netherlands during the worldwide SARS outbreak.

Contains fulltext : 50172timen.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)This study analysed the consequences of deviation from the WHO case definition for the assessment of patients with suspected severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in The Netherlands during 2003. Between 17 March and 7 July 2003, as a result of dilemmas in balancing sensitivity and specificity, five different case definitions were used. The patients referred for SARS assessment were analysed from a public health perspective. None of the patients referred had SARS, based on serological and virological criteria. Nevertheless, all 72 patients required thorough assessment and, depending on the results of the assessment, institution of appropriate prevention and control measures. Changing case definitions caused confusion in classifying cases. A centralised assessment of the reported cases by a team with clinical and public health expertise (epidemiological and geographical risk assessment) is a practical solution for addressing differences in applying case definitions. The burden of managing non-cases is an important issue when allocating public health resources, and should be taken into account during the preparation phase, rather than during an outbreak. This applies not only to SARS, but also to other public health threats, such as pandemic influenza or a bioterrorist episode