4.7 Review

Preventing hospital-acquired urinary tract infection in the United States: A national study

期刊

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 46, 期 2, 页码 243-250

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1086/524662

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Although urinary tract infection (UTI) is the most common hospital-acquired infection in the United States, to our knowledge, no national data exist describing what hospitals in the United States are doing to prevent this patient safety problem. We conducted a national study to examine the current practices used by hospitals to prevent hospital-acquired UTI. Methods. We mailed written surveys to infection control coordinators at a national random sample of nonfederal US hospitals with an intensive care unit and >= 50 hospital beds (n = 600) and to all Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals (n = 119). The survey asked about practices to prevent hospital-acquired UTI and other device-associated infections. Results. The response rate was 72%. Overall, 56% of hospitals did not have a system for monitoring which patients had urinary catheters placed, and 74% did not monitor catheter duration. Thirty percent of hospitals reported regularly using antimicrobial urinary catheters and portable bladder scanners; 14% used condom catheters, and 9% used catheter reminders. VA hospitals were more likely than non-VA hospitals to use portable bladder scanners (49% vs. 29%; P < .001), condom catheters (46% vs. 12%; P < .001), and suprapubic catheters (22% vs. 9%; P < .001); non-VA hospitals were more likely to use antimicrobial urinary catheters (30% vs. 14%; P = .002). Conclusions. Despite the strong link between urinary catheters and subsequent UTI, we found no strategy that appeared to be widely used to prevent hospital-acquired UTI. The most commonly used practices-bladder ultrasound and antimicrobial catheters-were each used in fewer than one-third of hospitals, and urinary catheter reminders, which have proven benefits, were used in <10% of US hospitals.

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

4.7
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