Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T10:59:18.049Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Product Evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

William M. Valenti and
Loreen A. Herwaldt
William M. Valenti
Affiliation:
Community Health Network, Rochester, New York
Loreen A. Herwaldt
Affiliation:
University of Iowa College of Medicine, the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As healthcare budgets shrink, infection control personnel must become more involved in the process by which their institutions choose products and equipment. This article suggests an approach that individuals or programs can use to assess products in a consistent and thorough manner

Information

Type
Practical Healthcare Epidemiology
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 18 , Issue 10 , October 1997, pp. 722 - 727
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1997 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

References

1. Garner, J, the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guideline for isolation precautions in hospitals, part II: recommendations for isolation precautions in hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996;17:60–80.Google Scholar
2. Chiarello, LA. Selection of needle stick prevention devices: a conceptual framework for approaching product evaluation. Am J Infect Control 1995;23:386–395.Google Scholar
3. Laufer, FN, Chiarello, LA. Application of cost-effectiveness methodology to the consideration of needle stick prevention technology. Am J Infect Control 1994;22:75–82.Google Scholar
4. L'Ecuyer, PB, Schwab, EO, Iademarco, E, Barr, N, Aton, EA, Fraser, VJ. Randomized prospective study of the impact of three needleless intravenous systems on needlestick injury rates. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996;17:803–808.Google Scholar
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Case-control study of HIV seroconversion in healthcare workers after percutaneous exposure to HIV infected blood. MMWR 1995; 44:929–932.Google Scholar
6. Cooney, TE. Bactericidal activity of copper and noncopper paints. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995;16:444–446.Google Scholar
7. Rutala, WA, Weber, DJ. Environmental interventions to control nosocomial infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995; 16:442–443.Google Scholar
8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendations for preventing transmission of HTLV III/LAV in the workplace. MMWR 1985;34:682–686.Google Scholar
9. Valenti, WM. Tuberculosis in the HIV era: everything old is new again. Am J Infect Control 1992;20:35–36.Google Scholar
10. Lemaitre, D, Elaichouni, A, Hundhausen, M, et al. Tracheal colonization with Sphingomonas paucimobilis in mechanically ventilated neonates due to contaminated ventilator temperature probes. J Hosp Infect 1996;32:199–206.Google Scholar
11. Takigawa, K, Fujita, J, Negayama, K, et al. Eradication of contaminating Mycobacterium chelonae from bronchofiberscopes and an automated bronchoscope disinfection machine. Respir Med 1995;89:423–427.Google Scholar
12. Bennett, SN, Peterson, DE, Johnson, DR, et al. Bronchoscopy-associated Mycobacterium xenopi pseudoinfections. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1994;150:245–250.Google Scholar
13. Dolce, P, Gourdeau, M, April, N, Bernard, PM. Outbreak of glu-taraldehyde-induced protocolitis. Am J Infect Control 1995;23:34–39.Google Scholar
14. Rudnick, JR, Beck-Sague, CM, Anderson, R, et al. Gram-negative bacteremia in open-heart–surgery patients traced to probable tap-water contamination of pressure-monitoring equipment. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996;17:281–285.Google Scholar

Additional Resource

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Evaluation of safety devices for preventing percutaneous injuries among healthcare workers during phlebotomy procedures—Minneapolis-St Paul, New York City, and San Francisco, 1993-1995. MMWR 1997;46(2):21–29.Google Scholar