4.5 Article

Prevalence of hospital infection and antibiotic use at a University Medical Center in Hong Kong

Journal

JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL INFECTION
Volume 65, Issue 4, Pages 341-347

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2006.12.013

Keywords

nosocomial infection; hospital-acquired infection; point prevalence survey; Hong Kong

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hospital infection prevalence surveys were performed in our 1400-bed University medical centre in Hong Kong from 1985 to 1988. We investigated the rates of four major hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) (pneumonia, symptomatic urinary tract infection, surgical site infection and laboratory-confirmed bloodstream infection) in order to identify current distribution and any changes after 15 years. A one-day point prevalence study was performed on 7 September 2005. All inpatients were surveyed for HAIs, community-acquired infections (CAIs), risk factors, pathogenic isolates and antibiotics prescribed. Infections were diagnosed according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria. In total, 1021 patients were surveyed; of these, 41 had 42 HAIs (4% prevalence) and 389 (38%) were receiving antibiotics. The commonest HAI was pneumonia (1.4%) followed by bloodstream infection (0.9%) and symptomatic urinary tract infection (0.8%). The prevalence of postoperative surgical site infection was 5.6%. The nosocomial prevalence rate was highest in the Intensive Care Unit, followed by the Pediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care Units, Children's Cancer Centre/Bone Marrow Transplant Unit and Orthopaedics with Traumatology. Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were the commonest pathogens. The rates are significantly lower than previously and reflect the increased resources for infection control made available following the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). (c) 2006 The Hospital Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available