Less contact isolation is more in the ICU: pro
Type de document :
Article dans une revue scientifique
URL permanente :
Titre :
Less contact isolation is more in the ICU: pro
Auteur(s) :
Poulakou, Garyphallia [Auteur]
University of Athens Medical School [Athens]
Nseir, Saad [Auteur]
Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire [CHU Lille] [CHRU Lille]
Lille Inflammation Research International Center (LIRIC) - U995
Daikos, George L. [Auteur]
University of Athens Medical School [Athens]
University of Athens Medical School [Athens]
Nseir, Saad [Auteur]
Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire [CHU Lille] [CHRU Lille]
Lille Inflammation Research International Center (LIRIC) - U995
Daikos, George L. [Auteur]
University of Athens Medical School [Athens]
Titre de la revue :
Intensive Care Medicine
Nom court de la revue :
Intensive Care Med
Numéro :
46
Pagination :
1727-1731
Éditeur :
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date de publication :
2020-07-09
ISSN :
1432-1238
Discipline(s) HAL :
Sciences du Vivant [q-bio]
Résumé en anglais : [en]
Additional contact precautions (ACP) have been endorsed by International Recommendations in patients with colonisation or infection by multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) [1, 2]. Contact isolation (CI), considered initially ...
Lire la suite >Additional contact precautions (ACP) have been endorsed by International Recommendations in patients with colonisation or infection by multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) [1, 2]. Contact isolation (CI), considered initially as the holy grail of the interruption of transmission of MDROs, currently remains debated [3, 4]. Suboptimal contact of healthcare personnel with the patients has been associated with service care errors including falls, pressure ulcers, fluid/electrolyte disorders and suboptimal documentation of vital signs or physician notes. Patients’ dissatisfaction and stress as well as increased healthcare costs are the major downsides of CI [3]. In view of the divergent opinions in the literature, infection control practices in ICU vary considerably. In this narrative review, we will focus on the most relevant studies, with messages in line with the principle “less is more” (Table 1). In the present manuscript, we considered “less CI” as surrogate to “not universal" or “targeted” CI (and evidently not “no CI”). However, we also discuss studies in which CI seems less important or less effective compared to other pivotal infection control measures, therefore, less desirable.Lire moins >
Lire la suite >Additional contact precautions (ACP) have been endorsed by International Recommendations in patients with colonisation or infection by multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) [1, 2]. Contact isolation (CI), considered initially as the holy grail of the interruption of transmission of MDROs, currently remains debated [3, 4]. Suboptimal contact of healthcare personnel with the patients has been associated with service care errors including falls, pressure ulcers, fluid/electrolyte disorders and suboptimal documentation of vital signs or physician notes. Patients’ dissatisfaction and stress as well as increased healthcare costs are the major downsides of CI [3]. In view of the divergent opinions in the literature, infection control practices in ICU vary considerably. In this narrative review, we will focus on the most relevant studies, with messages in line with the principle “less is more” (Table 1). In the present manuscript, we considered “less CI” as surrogate to “not universal" or “targeted” CI (and evidently not “no CI”). However, we also discuss studies in which CI seems less important or less effective compared to other pivotal infection control measures, therefore, less desirable.Lire moins >
Langue :
Anglais
Audience :
Internationale
Vulgarisation :
Non
Établissement(s) :
Université de Lille
CNRS
CNRS
Équipe(s) de recherche :
Glycobiology in fungal Pathogenesis and Clinical Applications
Date de dépôt :
2021-07-15T08:54:34Z
2021-08-25T09:50:08Z
2021-08-25T09:50:08Z