We partner with a secure submission system to handle manuscript submissions.
Please note:
You will need an account for the submission system, which is separate to your Cambridge Core account. For login and submission support, please visit the
submission and support pages.
Please review this journal's author instructions, particularly the
preparing your materials
page, before submitting your manuscript.
Click Proceed to submission system to continue to our partner's website.
To save this undefined to your undefined account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your undefined account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org 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.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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 survey the attitudes of healthcare personnel regarding influenza immunization.
Design:
A questionnaire was given to all hospital employees.
Setting:
A 650-bed community teaching hospital.
Intervention:
Employees were offered an in-service regarding influenza immunization in October 1991. Influenza immunization was given free of charge by Employee Health Services from October to December 1991. One thousand fifty-six employees (30.2%) received influenza vaccines. Survey forms were distributed with paychecks to all employees during the second half of January 1992. Completed survey forms were returned during the next 2 weeks.
Results:
One thousand two hundred three of the 3,501 (34.3%) questionnaires were returned. Some of the survey forms were not completely filled out. A total of 28.1% of male employees (202/717) and 35.4% of female employees (987/2783) (p<.01) responded. Mean years employed were 11.35 ± 7.57 for respondents and 9.30 ± 7.39 for all employees (p<.001). Four hundred sixty-one respondents (38.4%) received the influenza vaccine and 734 (6 1.4%) did not. Among the respondents, employees who were older or working full time were more likely to receive the vaccine. Proportionally, more respondents who received the vaccine attended the in-service, although only 8.7% of those immunized attributed their receiving influenza vaccine to the in-service. More physician respondents were vaccinated. Tbe respondents who received influenza vaccine were more likely to have received the vaccine during the past 2 years (p<.001). The major reasons given for not receiving the vaccine were “bad side effects” and “do not like shots.” The major side effect of influenza immunization was a “sore arm.” Multivariate analysis suggested that the in-service was not associated with obtaining the vaccine.
Conclusions:
The in-service regarding influenza immunization seemed to have a negligible influence. Most employees who received the vaccine had previous influenza immunization. There were no major side effects of influenza immunization. “Bad side effects” and “do not like shots” were major reasons given for not receiving influenza vaccine.
To assess postoperative exposure to parenteral antibiotics and coded discharge diagnoses of infection as markers of nosocomial infection, postoperative morbidity, and potentially inappropriate antibiotic use after cesarean section.
Design:
Retrospective cohort study to compare automated markers with the criterion of record review.
Setting:
Tertiary care hospital.
Patients:
Women admitted to a large teaching hospital after April 15, 1987, and discharged before October 1, 1989, who underwent a nonrepeat, nonelective cesarean section and had received prophylaxis with a cephalosporin.
Methods:
Antibiotic exposure and discharge diagnosis codes were obtained from a large electronic hospital data base. A sample of charts was reviewed to determine the presence of infection, other postoperative complications, and postoperative antibiotic exposure.
Results:
A total of 2,197 women who had undergone a nonrepeat nonelective cesarean section were included in the study cohort. These women were assigned to 6 subgroups based on postoperative antibiotic exposure status and discharge codes suggesting endometritis, other postoperative infection, or no infection. Review of 457 records indicated that the overall infection rate was 9%. Eight percent of all the patients had a coded diagnosis for infection, and 16% received some parenteral antibiotics after the first postoperative day. Exposure to at least 2 days of parenteral postoperative antibiotics was the best marker by which to discriminate between infected and uninfected patients, with a sensitivity of 81 %, a specificity of 95%, and a positive predictive value of 61% for detecting infection. The corresponding figures for coded diagnoses for infection had rates of 65%, 97%, and 74%, respectively. The combination of discharge codes and exposure to parenteral postoperative antibiotics resulted in a more accurate but less sensitive marker for nosocomial infections, with a positive predictive value of 94% and a sensitivity of 59%. The groups with discordant parenteral postoperative antibiotics exposure and discharge codes for infection were enriched for errors in coding, noninfectious morbidity, and unexplained antibiotic use. Less than 1% of the entire cohort had ≥ 2 days of parenteral postoperative antibiotics without any reason apparent in the medical record.
Conclusions:
Parenteral postoperative antibiotic exposure determined from automated pharmacy records correlated with the results of the more labor-intensive manual review of medical records for the identification of nosocomial infection. In addition, information on antibiotic exposure combined with coded discharge diagnoses provided a rapid screen to identify subgroups of patients with higher rates of infectious and noninfectious morbidity, unexplained antibiotic use, and errors in discharge coding. Information derived from electronic data bases created for administrative purposes may be useful as a marker for infectious complications, inappropriate antibiotic prescribing, and other issues related to total quality hospital monitoring.
To investigate trends in plasmid types of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus over a 3-year period and determine the clinical impact of plasmid typing.
Design:
Restriction endonuclease analysis of plasmid DNA (REAP) was used to type 270 clinical isolates.
Setting:
A Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
Results:
Forty-four different REAP types were identified and, of these, 23 appeared only once. Types designed as V1 and V2 were more commonly found in nosocomial cases than in community-acquired cases (p<.05); whereas the K and D types were more common in isolates from community-acquired cases (<c.05). In 30 (11%) isolates, no plasmid was detected. When combined with epidemiological data, REAP typing revealed 4 small outbreaks that would have been missed using traditional epidemiological methods alone. In large outbreaks involving 10 or more cases, REAP typing data revealed unsuspected patterns of transmission.
Conclusions:
Multiple plasmid types were present in this endemic setting. Restriction endonuclease analysis of plasmid DNA was a practical and valuable adjunct to traditional epidemiological methods.
The current study was designed to evaluate the activity of glutaraldehyde-based disinfectants against Clostridium difficile using the Association of Official Analytical Chemists' (AOAC) sporicidal test. This study was undertaken because gastrointestinal endoscopes that may be contaminated with C difficile spores are most commonly disinfected between patients using glutaraldehyde-based disinfectants.
Design:
Using the AOAC test, the following disinfectants were tested: 2% alkaline glutaraldehyde, 2% acid glutaraldehyde, a 1: 16 dilution of a 2% glutaraldehyde-7.05% phenol- 1.20% sodium phenate, and a 1:20 dilution of a 10% glutaraldehyde-0.5% phenylphenol-0.1% amylphenol.
Results:
Test results of the four disinfectants against C difficile spores at exposure times of 10, 20, and 60 minutes were as follows (number of positive penicylinders per 30 replicates): 0, 0, and 0 for 2% alkaline glutaraldehyde; 6, 3, and 0 for 2% acid glutaraldehyde; 30, 29, and 30 for a 1:16 dilution of glutaraldehyde- 7.05% phenol-1.20% sodium phenate; and 30, 30, and 30 for a 1:20 dilution of glutaraldehyde- 0.5% phenylphenol-0.1% amylphenol.
Conclusions:
C difficile spores are more susceptible to inactivation by glutaraldehyde-based disinfectants than the spore-forming organisms recommended in the AOAC sporicidal test (i.e., Bacillus subtilis and Clostridium sporogenes). Diluting glutaraldehyde-based disinfectants below 2% led to the inability to inactivate spores of C difficle using exposure times commonly employed to disinfect semicritical items such as gastrointestinal endoscopes.