Article

Hand hygiene and infection control survey pre- and peri-H1N1-2009 pandemic: knowledge and perceptions of final year medical students in Singapore.

Department of Medicine, National University Health System, 1E Kent Ridge Road, NUHS Tower Block, Level 10, Singapore 119228.
Singapore medical journal (Impact Factor: 0.63). 07/2011; 52(7):486-90.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Infection control and hand hygiene are taught at different points in the undergraduate medical curriculum. We conducted a survey on fifth year medical (M5) students pre- and peri-influenza A (H1N1-2009) pandemic, attempting to ascertain whether the pandemic had affected their knowledge, perception and practice of hand hygiene and other aspects of infection control.
A self-administered anonymous survey of M5 students was performed between August 2008 and February 2010, corresponding to two successive classes: M5-2008 (Class of 2004/09) and M5-2009 (Class of 2005/10). Completed survey forms were collated and analysed centrally.
There were 191 and 123 respondents for M5-2008 and M5-2009, respectively, corresponding to 74.9% and 47.3% of the respective classes. More M5-2009 respondents recognised alcohol hand rub as the preferred mode of hand hygiene practice and felt that there were insufficient isolation facilities in hospitals. Otherwise, survey responses were consistent. The majority felt that few doctors practiced hand hygiene appropriately, with the major obstructing factor being lack of time during ward rounds. The most important factor for improving hand hygiene compliance among junior doctors and students was for senior clinicians to lead by example. A significant minority believed that it was necessary to isolate patients with chikungunya, malaria or HIV.
The 2009 H1N1 pandemic made little impact on medical students' knowledge and practice of infection control. Nonetheless, their responses have suggested avenues for improving infection control practice, including persuading senior clinicians to lead by example in hand hygiene practice and addressing gaps in knowledge on patient isolation policies.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
83 Views
  • Clinical Infectious Diseases 03/2005; 40(4):632-3. · 9.37 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients admitted to intensive-care units are at high risk of health-care-associated infections, and many are caused by antimicrobial-resistant pathogens. We aimed to assess excess mortality and length of stay in intensive-care units from bloodstream infections and pneumonia. We analysed data collected prospectively from intensive-care units that reported according to the European standard protocol for surveillance of health-care-associated infections. We focused on the most frequent causative microorganisms. Resistance was defined as resistance to ceftazidime (Acinetobacter baumannii or Pseudomonas aeruginosa), third-generation cephalosporins (Escherichia coli), and oxacillin (Staphylococcus aureus). We defined 20 different exposures according to infection site, microorganism, and resistance status. For every exposure, we compared outcomes between patients exposed and unexposed by use of time-dependent regression modelling. We adjusted results for patients' characteristics and time-dependency of the exposure. We obtained data for 119 699 patients who were admitted for more than 2 days to 537 intensive-care units in ten countries between Jan 1, 2005, and Dec 31, 2008. Excess risk of death (hazard ratio) for pneumonia in the fully adjusted model ranged from 1·7 (95% CI 1·4-1·9) for drug-sensitive S aureus to 3·5 (2·9-4·2) for drug-resistant P aeruginosa. For bloodstream infections, the excess risk ranged from 2·1 (1·6-2·6) for drug-sensitive S aureus to 4·0 (2·7-5·8) for drug-resistant P aeruginosa. Risk of death associated with antimicrobial resistance (ie, additional risk of death to that of the infection) was 1·2 (1·1-1·4) for pneumonia and 1·2 (0·9-1·5) for bloodstream infections for a combination of all four microorganisms, and was highest for S aureus (pneumonia 1·3 [1·0-1·6], bloodstream infections 1·6 [1·1-2·3]). Antimicrobial resistance did not significantly increase length of stay; the hazard ratio for discharge, dead or alive, for sensitive microorganisms compared with resistant microorganisms (all four combined) was 1·05 (0·97-1·13) for pneumonia and 1·02 (0·98-1·17) for bloodstream infections. P aeruginosa had the highest burden of health-care-acquired infections because of its high prevalence and pathogenicity of both its drug-sensitive and drug-resistant strains. Health-care-associated bloodstream infections and pneumonia greatly increase mortality and pneumonia increase length of stay in intensive-care units; the additional effect of the most common antimicrobial resistance patterns is comparatively low. European Commission (DG Sanco).
    The Lancet Infectious Diseases 01/2011; 11(1):30-8. · 19.97 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Infection control programs were created three decades ago to control antibiotic-resistant healthcare-associated infections, but there has been little evidence of control in most facilities. After long, steady increases of MRSA and VRE infections in NNIS System hospitals, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Board of Directors made reducing antibiotic-resistant infections a strategic SHEA goal in January 2000. After 2 more years without improvement, a SHEA task force was appointed to draft this evidence-based guideline on preventing nosocomial transmission of such pathogens, focusing on the two considered most out of control: MRSA and VRE. Medline searches were conducted spanning 1966 to 2002. Pertinent abstracts of unpublished studies providing sufficient data were included. Frequent antibiotic therapy in healthcare settings provides a selective advantage for resistant flora, but patients with MRSA or VRE usually acquire it via spread. The CDC has long-recommended contact precautions for patients colonized or infected with such pathogens. Most facilities have required this as policy, but have not actively identified colonized patients with surveillance cultures, leaving most colonized patients undetected and unisolated. Many studies have shown control of endemic and/or epidemic MRSA and VRE infections using surveillance cultures and contact precautions, demonstrating consistency of evidence, high strength of association, reversibility, a dose gradient, and specificity for control with this approach. Adjunctive control measures are also discussed. Active surveillance cultures are essential to identify the reservoir for spread of MRSA and VRE infections and make control possible using the CDC's long-recommended contact precautions.
    Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 06/2003; 24(5):362-86. · 4.02 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
0 Downloads
Available from