BACKGROUND: This study investigated the effectiveness of reinforced contact precautions and active surveillance cultures (ASCs) in reducing the incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and other healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). METHODS: A before- and after-experimental study was performed at the intensive care unit (ICU) in a university-affiliated hospital. Reinforced contact precautions were applied to all patients, and ASCs for MRSA were performed for newly admitted patients at the time of admission and once a week thereafter. The HAIs were investigated in accordance with the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) definitions and compared before and after the interventions. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The number of HAIs caused by MRSA decreased from 2.2 to 0.5 per 100 patients discharged (P=0.02) and from 3.6 to 1.0 per 1,000 patient-days (P=0.032). The number of overall HAIs decreased from 7.6 to 4.0 per 100 patients discharged (P=0.011) and from 12.7 to 7.3 per 1,000 patient-days (P=0.034). The invasive device-associated infections caused by MRSA and other pathogens decreased, but the decrease was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Reinforced contact precautions and ASCs were effective in decreasing both MRSA infections and overall HAIs in the ICU. Further, it was assumed that the incidence of device-associated infections would have decreased if the intervention period was extended.
Cross Infection ; Humans ; Incidence ; Critical Care ; Intensive Care Units ; Methicillin Resistance ; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus

BACKGROUND: Most studies on the incidence rate (IR) and post-exposure reporting rate (RR) of needle-stick injuries (NSIs) were performed using retrospective surveillance, which is vulnerable to recall bias. This study aimed to identify the agreement between IRs and RRs obtained from prospective and retrospective surveillance. METHODS: The prospective surveillance was performed with 716 nurses working at 3 hospitals from August to September in 2012. They prospectively reported when they experienced the NSIs, and the investigator retrospectively calculated the RR from records in the infection control unit or health care unit during the same periods when they reported the number of NSIs. The retrospective surveillance was carried out with 312 nurses who participated in the prospective surveillance. They retrospectively answered the question on the number of NSIs and post-exposure reporting after recalling the experienced NSI from August to September in 2012. RESULTS: The IR of NSIs was 9.8 per 100 nurses by the prospective surveillance and 36.4 per 100 nurses by the retrospective surveillance, which was statistically significantly different (P<0.001). The RR of NSIs was 14.3% by the prospective surveillance and 8.5% by the retrospective surveillance, which was not statistically significantly different. CONCLUSION: We recommend using a prospective approach for calculating the IR of NSIs to reduce the risk of recall bias. However, the RR of NSIs can be calculated using both prospective and retrospective approaches.
Bias (Epidemiology) ; Delivery of Health Care ; Humans ; Incidence* ; Infection Control ; Memory ; Needlestick Injuries* ; Prospective Studies* ; Research Personnel ; Retrospective Studies*

No abstract available.
Hematologic Neoplasms*