PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
November 1, 1990Journal of Burn Care & Rehabilitation42 citations

Infection Control in a Burn Center

View Full Paper
JLJ J LeeJMJanet A. MarvinDHDavid M. Heimbach

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

No consensus has been reached on the ideal isolation technique to prevent hospital-acquired infection in the patient with burns. This study reports four 2-month consecutive periods of microbial surveillance in a burn center intensive care unit. Phase I, the first period of surveillance, demonstrated a unit-acquired colonization rate of 63%, with the marker organisms appearing at 4 to 8 days. Direct observation of isolation technique showed a 51% error rate. A mandatory educational session reviewing the high colonization rates, observed breaks in isolation technique, and principles of infection control failed to decrease the colonization rates as measured in phase II. A simplified isolation technique was adopted, which led to a decrease in unit-acquired colonization, from 63% to 33% in phase III from phase I values (p = 0. 0514) ; and to a significant delay in inception, from 7. 8 to 21 days, in those colonized with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (p less than 0. 05). The simplified isolation technique decreased isolation costs over a 6-month period from 53, 000 to 30, 000. To confirm the decrease colonization rates from phase I to phase III, a fourth 2-month surveillance period was undertaken 6 months later. Phase IV demonstrated similar results to those of phase III.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Lee et al. (1990) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a7e7cff084666b5350d1e34https://doi.org/10.1097/00004630-199011000-00018
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper