3.8 Article Proceedings Paper

Infection control for the otolaryngologist in the era of severe acute respiratory syndrome

期刊

JOURNAL OF OTOLARYNGOLOGY
卷 32, 期 5, 页码 281-287

出版社

B C DECKER INC
DOI: 10.2310/7070.2003.11398

关键词

ears; nose; and throat examination; infection control; otolaryngology; recommendations; severe acute respiratory distress syndrome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) has affected more than 8400 persons in 28 countries, with more than 800 deaths. The current SARS outbreak, especially in North American health care centers, has motivated a re-evaluation of infection control practices in the hospital and clinic environment. These considerations are particularly important to otolaryngology, in which examination. and diagnostic procedures often bring the otolaryngologist in close-if not direct-contact with the patient's upper airway, mucosa, and secretions. The otolaryngologist is at increased risk of contracting a respiratory pathogen. Method: A joint effort by the Department of Otolaryngology at Queen's University and the Infection Control Services of the Hotel Dieu Hospital, Kingston, Ontario, was carried out to develop specific infection control guidelines for the otolaryngologists using strategies from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States and the Laboratory Center for Disease Control, Health Canada. Results: A set of specific recommendations was developed for the otolaryngologists to augment current infection control, including diligent use of personal protective equipment with every patient encounter. Moreover, this equipment should be removed according to specific protocol, to avoid contamination of self, others, and surroundings. Finally, a number of practice modifications are being adopted as prudent precautionary measures. Conclusion: It is essential to adhere to these recommendations in order to protect the health and safety of clinicians, colleagues, and patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据