Do guidelines for the prevention and control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus make a difference?

Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10147/127194
Title:
Do guidelines for the prevention and control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus make a difference?
Authors:
Humphreys, H
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Microbiology, The Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. hhumphreys@rcsi.ie
Citation:
Do guidelines for the prevention and control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus make a difference? 2009, 15 Suppl 7:39-43 Clin. Microbiol. Infect.
Journal:
Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases
Issue Date:
Dec-2009
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10147/127194
DOI:
10.1111/j.1469-0691.2009.03095.x
PubMed ID:
19951333
Abstract:
Many countries have national guidelines for the prevention and control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) that are similar in approach. The evidence base for many recommendations is variable, and often, in the drafting of such guidelines, the evidence is either not analysed or not specifically reviewed. Guidelines usually recommend screening and early detection, hand hygiene, patient isolation or cohorting, and decolonization. Although many components of a prevention and control programme appear to be self-evident, e.g. patient isolation, the scientific base underpinning these is poor, and scientifically rigorous studies are required. Nonetheless, where measures, based on what evidence there is and on common sense, are implemented, and where the necessary resources are provided, MRSA can be controlled. In The Netherlands and in other low-prevalence countries, these measures have largely kept healthcare facilities MRSA-free. In MRSA-endemic countries, such as Spain and Ireland, national guidelines are often not fully implemented, owing to apparently inadequate resources or a lack of will. However, recent studies from France and Australia demonstrate what is possible in high-prevalence countries when best practice is effectively implemented, with potentially major benefits for patients, the respective health services, and society.
Item Type:
Article
Language:
en
MeSH:
Australia; Cross Infection; Europe; Guidelines as Topic; Health Policy; Health Services Research; Humans; Infection Control; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Staphylococcal Infections
ISSN:
1469-0691

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorHumphreys, Hen
dc.date.accessioned2011-04-05T14:23:04Z-
dc.date.available2011-04-05T14:23:04Z-
dc.date.issued2009-12-
dc.identifier.citationDo guidelines for the prevention and control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus make a difference? 2009, 15 Suppl 7:39-43 Clin. Microbiol. Infect.en
dc.identifier.issn1469-0691-
dc.identifier.pmid19951333-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1469-0691.2009.03095.x-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10147/127194-
dc.description.abstractMany countries have national guidelines for the prevention and control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) that are similar in approach. The evidence base for many recommendations is variable, and often, in the drafting of such guidelines, the evidence is either not analysed or not specifically reviewed. Guidelines usually recommend screening and early detection, hand hygiene, patient isolation or cohorting, and decolonization. Although many components of a prevention and control programme appear to be self-evident, e.g. patient isolation, the scientific base underpinning these is poor, and scientifically rigorous studies are required. Nonetheless, where measures, based on what evidence there is and on common sense, are implemented, and where the necessary resources are provided, MRSA can be controlled. In The Netherlands and in other low-prevalence countries, these measures have largely kept healthcare facilities MRSA-free. In MRSA-endemic countries, such as Spain and Ireland, national guidelines are often not fully implemented, owing to apparently inadequate resources or a lack of will. However, recent studies from France and Australia demonstrate what is possible in high-prevalence countries when best practice is effectively implemented, with potentially major benefits for patients, the respective health services, and society.-
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subject.meshAustralia-
dc.subject.meshCross Infection-
dc.subject.meshEurope-
dc.subject.meshGuidelines as Topic-
dc.subject.meshHealth Policy-
dc.subject.meshHealth Services Research-
dc.subject.meshHumans-
dc.subject.meshInfection Control-
dc.subject.meshMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus-
dc.subject.meshStaphylococcal Infections-
dc.titleDo guidelines for the prevention and control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus make a difference?en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, The Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. hhumphreys@rcsi.ieen
dc.identifier.journalClinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseasesen
dc.description.provinceLeinster-

Related articles on PubMed

All Items in Lenus, The Irish Health Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.