Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T07:18:15.049Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Infection Control Dogma: Top 10 Suspects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Lilia P. Manangan ,
Gina Pugliese ,
Marguerite Jackson ,
Patricia Lynch ,
Annette H. Sohn ,
Ronda L. Sinkowitz-Cochran  and
William R. Jarvis
Lilia P. Manangan*
Affiliation:
Hospital Infections Program, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Public Health Service, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Georgia
Gina Pugliese
Affiliation:
Premier Safety Institute, Chicago, Illinois
Marguerite Jackson
Affiliation:
University of California–San Diego Medical Center, San Diego, California
Patricia Lynch
Affiliation:
Epidemiology Associates, Seattle, Washington
Annette H. Sohn
Affiliation:
Hospital Infections Program, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Public Health Service, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Georgia Epidemic Intelligence Service, Division of Applied Public Health Training, Epidemiology Program Office, CDC, Public Health Service, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Georgia
Ronda L. Sinkowitz-Cochran
Affiliation:
Hospital Infections Program, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Public Health Service, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Georgia
William R. Jarvis
Affiliation:
Hospital Infections Program, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Public Health Service, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Georgia
*
Hospital Infections Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mailstop E-69, 1600 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA 30333
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As infection control evolved into an art and science through the years, many infection control practices have become infection control dogmas (principles, beliefs, ideas, or opinions). In this “Reality Check” session of the 4th Decennial International Conference on Nosocomial and Healthcare-Associated Infections, we assessed participants' perceptions of prevalent infection control dogmas. The majority of participants agreed with all dogmas having evidence of efficacy, except for the dogma on the frequency of changing mechanical-ventilator tubing. In contrast, the majority of participants disagreed with dogmas not having evidence of efficacy, except for the dogma on perineal care, umbilical cord care, and reminder signs for isolation precaution. As for controversial dogmas, many of the responses were almost evenly distributed between “agree” and “disagree.” Infection control professionals were knowledgeable about evidence-based infection control practices. However, many of the respondents still believe in some of the non–evidence-based dogmas.

Type
From the 4th Decennial International Conference
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , April 2001 , pp. 243 - 247
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2001

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.)

References

1. Manangan, LP. The infection control information system of the Hospital Infections Program, Centers for Disease Control. Am J Infect Control 1996;24:463–467.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Lynch, P, Cummings, MJ, Roberts, PL, Herriott, MJ, Yates, B, Stamm, WE. Implementing and evaluating a system of generic infection precautions: body substance isolation. Am J Infect Control 1990;18:1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Weinstein, SA, Gantz, NM, Pelletier, C, Hibert, D. Bacterial surface contamination of patient's linen: Isolation Precautions versus standard care. Am J Infect Control 1989;17:264–267.Google Scholar
4. Nauseef, WM, Maki, DG. A study of the value of simple protective isolation in patients with granulocytopenia. N Engl J Med 1981;304:448–453.Google Scholar
5. Rego, A, Roley, L. In-use barrier integrity of gloves: latex and nitrile superior to vinyl. Am J Infect Control 1999;27:405–410.Google Scholar
6. Tablan, OC, Anderson, LJ, Arden, NH, Breiman, RF, Butler, JC, McNeil, MM. Guideline for prevention of nosocomial pneumonia. The Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Infect Control andHosp Epidemiol 1994;15:587–627.Google Scholar
7. Pearson, ML, Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guideline for prevention of intravascular device-related infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996;17:438–473.Google Scholar
8. Lai, KK. Prolonging peripheral cannula and intravenous tubing use from 72 to 96 hours. Am J Infect Control 1998;26:66–70.Google Scholar
9. Smith, I, Hathaway, M, Goldman, C, Ng, J, Brunton, J, Simor, AE. A randomized study to determine complications associated with duration of insertion of heparin locks. Res Nurs Health 1990;13:367–373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Fink, JB, Krause, SA, Barrett, L, Schaaff, D, Alex, CG. Extending ventilator circuit change interval beyond 2 days reduces the likelihood of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chest 1998;113:405–411.Google Scholar
11. Saint, S, Elmore, JG, Sullivan, SD, Emerson, SS, Koepsell, TD. The efficacy of silver alloy-coated urinary catheters in prevention of urinary tract infection: a meta-analysis. Am J Med 1998;105:236–241.Google Scholar
12. Garner, JS, the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guideline for isolation precautions in hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996;17:53–80.Google Scholar