20 Hygiene in the emergency medical services (EMS) calls for attention
AimContaminated environmental surfaces are known to provide an important potential source for transmission of healthcare associated pathogens1 and prehospital treatment appears related to increased risk of infection.2 Nevertheless, few studies present and discuss prehospital hygiene, resulting in li...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | BMJ open 2017-05, Vol.7 (Suppl 3), p.A8-A8 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | A8 |
---|---|
container_issue | Suppl 3 |
container_start_page | A8 |
container_title | BMJ open |
container_volume | 7 |
creator | Vikke, HS Giebner, M Kolmos, HJ |
description | AimContaminated environmental surfaces are known to provide an important potential source for transmission of healthcare associated pathogens1 and prehospital treatment appears related to increased risk of infection.2 Nevertheless, few studies present and discuss prehospital hygiene, resulting in limited knowledge and understanding of related challenges. Our aim was to assess microbial contamination and influencing factors.MethodsA nationwide, semi-blinded, cross-sectional study conducted in Denmark from August to November 2016. Using a combined swab/agar method, samples from environment, equipment and personnel were randomly collected from 80 ambulances and crew, in-between patient courses, after cleaning. Focus was colony forming units (cfu) and healthcare associated pathogens. In addition, explanatory variables e.g. hours from last thorough cleaning, area of service (rural/city) and number of patient courses within the shift, were collected and used in bivariate analyses.Results800 sites, showed an average of 11.3 cfu/cm2 (environmental sites 5.01 cfu/cm2, hands 11.1 cfu/cm2 and uniforms 30.6 cfu/cm2). Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus and Enterobacteriaceae were found on 10, 3.4 and 0.5% of the imprints, respectively. One imprint was MRSA, two were VRE but none was ESBL, and we found no correlation between the explanatory variables and the degree of microbial burden.ConclusionMicrobial contamination and related challenges in the EMS calls for further attention. Several sites were contaminated with healthcare associated pathogens, but neither time from cleaning, number of patients nor area of service were of influence on the degree of contamination. Future research on hygienic challenges and routes of transmission is recommended.ReferencesDancer SJ. Controlling hospital-acquired infection: focus on the role of the ?environment and new technologies for decontamination. Clinical microbiology reviews. 2014;27(4):665–90.Alter SM, Merlin MA. Nosocomial and community-acquired infection rates of patients treated by prehospital advanced life support compared with other admitted patients. The American journal of emergency medicine. 2011;29(1):57–64.Conflict of interestH. S. Vikke and M. Giebner, is employed by Falck Denmark A/S H. J. Kolmos has no conflicts of interestFundingThe project is partly fundet by Falck A/S and Innovation fund DK |
doi_str_mv | 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-EMSabstracts.20 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_9YT</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2099422445</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2099422445</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b1300-b6c052b745de254f659f68d9502f8e18921d37146606bec698e782c23e247cfd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkDFPwzAUhC0EElXpf7AEAwwp9ovtJCOqCkEqYgBmK3FeSqrGKbaL1I2FP8ovwVU79JZ3Op3eSR8hN5xNOU_Vfd2vhg3aBBjPkvnLW1X74CoT_BTYGRkBEyJRTMrzE39JJt6vWJSQhZQwIiWwv5_fcrfs0CLtLA2fSLFHt0RrdrTHpjPVmnp0351BT2_j0h2N0drTdnC0CgFt6AZ7RS7aau1xcrxj8vE4f5-VyeL16Xn2sEhqnjKW1MowCXUmZIMgRatk0aq8KSSDNkeeF8CbNONCKaZqNKrIMcvBQIogMtM26ZhcH_5u3PC1RR_0atg6Gyc1sKIQAELI2MoOrUhJb1zXV26nOdN7cvpITu_J6VNyMUn_AVv3ZjU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2099422445</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>20 Hygiene in the emergency medical services (EMS) calls for attention</title><source>BMJ Journals (Open Access)</source><creator>Vikke, HS ; Giebner, M ; Kolmos, HJ</creator><creatorcontrib>Vikke, HS ; Giebner, M ; Kolmos, HJ</creatorcontrib><description>AimContaminated environmental surfaces are known to provide an important potential source for transmission of healthcare associated pathogens1 and prehospital treatment appears related to increased risk of infection.2 Nevertheless, few studies present and discuss prehospital hygiene, resulting in limited knowledge and understanding of related challenges. Our aim was to assess microbial contamination and influencing factors.MethodsA nationwide, semi-blinded, cross-sectional study conducted in Denmark from August to November 2016. Using a combined swab/agar method, samples from environment, equipment and personnel were randomly collected from 80 ambulances and crew, in-between patient courses, after cleaning. Focus was colony forming units (cfu) and healthcare associated pathogens. In addition, explanatory variables e.g. hours from last thorough cleaning, area of service (rural/city) and number of patient courses within the shift, were collected and used in bivariate analyses.Results800 sites, showed an average of 11.3 cfu/cm2 (environmental sites 5.01 cfu/cm2, hands 11.1 cfu/cm2 and uniforms 30.6 cfu/cm2). Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus and Enterobacteriaceae were found on 10, 3.4 and 0.5% of the imprints, respectively. One imprint was MRSA, two were VRE but none was ESBL, and we found no correlation between the explanatory variables and the degree of microbial burden.ConclusionMicrobial contamination and related challenges in the EMS calls for further attention. Several sites were contaminated with healthcare associated pathogens, but neither time from cleaning, number of patients nor area of service were of influence on the degree of contamination. Future research on hygienic challenges and routes of transmission is recommended.ReferencesDancer SJ. Controlling hospital-acquired infection: focus on the role of the ?environment and new technologies for decontamination. Clinical microbiology reviews. 2014;27(4):665–90.Alter SM, Merlin MA. Nosocomial and community-acquired infection rates of patients treated by prehospital advanced life support compared with other admitted patients. The American journal of emergency medicine. 2011;29(1):57–64.Conflict of interestH. S. Vikke and M. Giebner, is employed by Falck Denmark A/S H. J. Kolmos has no conflicts of interestFundingThe project is partly fundet by Falck A/S and Innovation fund DK</description><identifier>ISSN: 2044-6055</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2044-6055</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-EMSabstracts.20</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: BMJ Publishing Group LTD</publisher><subject>Conflicts of interest ; Emergency medical care ; Nosocomial infections ; Pathogens ; Patients</subject><ispartof>BMJ open, 2017-05, Vol.7 (Suppl 3), p.A8-A8</ispartof><rights>2017, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions</rights><rights>Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2017. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. 2017This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttp://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/Suppl_3/A8.2.full.pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttp://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/Suppl_3/A8.2.full$$EHTML$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,860,27528,27529,27903,27904,77348,77379</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-EMSabstracts.20$$EView_record_in_BMJ_Publishing_Group_Ltd$$FView_record_in_$$GBMJ_Publishing_Group_Ltd</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Vikke, HS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Giebner, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kolmos, HJ</creatorcontrib><title>20 Hygiene in the emergency medical services (EMS) calls for attention</title><title>BMJ open</title><description>AimContaminated environmental surfaces are known to provide an important potential source for transmission of healthcare associated pathogens1 and prehospital treatment appears related to increased risk of infection.2 Nevertheless, few studies present and discuss prehospital hygiene, resulting in limited knowledge and understanding of related challenges. Our aim was to assess microbial contamination and influencing factors.MethodsA nationwide, semi-blinded, cross-sectional study conducted in Denmark from August to November 2016. Using a combined swab/agar method, samples from environment, equipment and personnel were randomly collected from 80 ambulances and crew, in-between patient courses, after cleaning. Focus was colony forming units (cfu) and healthcare associated pathogens. In addition, explanatory variables e.g. hours from last thorough cleaning, area of service (rural/city) and number of patient courses within the shift, were collected and used in bivariate analyses.Results800 sites, showed an average of 11.3 cfu/cm2 (environmental sites 5.01 cfu/cm2, hands 11.1 cfu/cm2 and uniforms 30.6 cfu/cm2). Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus and Enterobacteriaceae were found on 10, 3.4 and 0.5% of the imprints, respectively. One imprint was MRSA, two were VRE but none was ESBL, and we found no correlation between the explanatory variables and the degree of microbial burden.ConclusionMicrobial contamination and related challenges in the EMS calls for further attention. Several sites were contaminated with healthcare associated pathogens, but neither time from cleaning, number of patients nor area of service were of influence on the degree of contamination. Future research on hygienic challenges and routes of transmission is recommended.ReferencesDancer SJ. Controlling hospital-acquired infection: focus on the role of the ?environment and new technologies for decontamination. Clinical microbiology reviews. 2014;27(4):665–90.Alter SM, Merlin MA. Nosocomial and community-acquired infection rates of patients treated by prehospital advanced life support compared with other admitted patients. The American journal of emergency medicine. 2011;29(1):57–64.Conflict of interestH. S. Vikke and M. Giebner, is employed by Falck Denmark A/S H. J. Kolmos has no conflicts of interestFundingThe project is partly fundet by Falck A/S and Innovation fund DK</description><subject>Conflicts of interest</subject><subject>Emergency medical care</subject><subject>Nosocomial infections</subject><subject>Pathogens</subject><subject>Patients</subject><issn>2044-6055</issn><issn>2044-6055</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNpNkDFPwzAUhC0EElXpf7AEAwwp9ovtJCOqCkEqYgBmK3FeSqrGKbaL1I2FP8ovwVU79JZ3Op3eSR8hN5xNOU_Vfd2vhg3aBBjPkvnLW1X74CoT_BTYGRkBEyJRTMrzE39JJt6vWJSQhZQwIiWwv5_fcrfs0CLtLA2fSLFHt0RrdrTHpjPVmnp0351BT2_j0h2N0drTdnC0CgFt6AZ7RS7aau1xcrxj8vE4f5-VyeL16Xn2sEhqnjKW1MowCXUmZIMgRatk0aq8KSSDNkeeF8CbNONCKaZqNKrIMcvBQIogMtM26ZhcH_5u3PC1RR_0atg6Gyc1sKIQAELI2MoOrUhJb1zXV26nOdN7cvpITu_J6VNyMUn_AVv3ZjU</recordid><startdate>201705</startdate><enddate>201705</enddate><creator>Vikke, HS</creator><creator>Giebner, M</creator><creator>Kolmos, HJ</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201705</creationdate><title>20 Hygiene in the emergency medical services (EMS) calls for attention</title><author>Vikke, HS ; Giebner, M ; Kolmos, HJ</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b1300-b6c052b745de254f659f68d9502f8e18921d37146606bec698e782c23e247cfd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Conflicts of interest</topic><topic>Emergency medical care</topic><topic>Nosocomial infections</topic><topic>Pathogens</topic><topic>Patients</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Vikke, HS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Giebner, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kolmos, HJ</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>BMJ open</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Vikke, HS</au><au>Giebner, M</au><au>Kolmos, HJ</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>20 Hygiene in the emergency medical services (EMS) calls for attention</atitle><jtitle>BMJ open</jtitle><date>2017-05</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>7</volume><issue>Suppl 3</issue><spage>A8</spage><epage>A8</epage><pages>A8-A8</pages><issn>2044-6055</issn><eissn>2044-6055</eissn><abstract>AimContaminated environmental surfaces are known to provide an important potential source for transmission of healthcare associated pathogens1 and prehospital treatment appears related to increased risk of infection.2 Nevertheless, few studies present and discuss prehospital hygiene, resulting in limited knowledge and understanding of related challenges. Our aim was to assess microbial contamination and influencing factors.MethodsA nationwide, semi-blinded, cross-sectional study conducted in Denmark from August to November 2016. Using a combined swab/agar method, samples from environment, equipment and personnel were randomly collected from 80 ambulances and crew, in-between patient courses, after cleaning. Focus was colony forming units (cfu) and healthcare associated pathogens. In addition, explanatory variables e.g. hours from last thorough cleaning, area of service (rural/city) and number of patient courses within the shift, were collected and used in bivariate analyses.Results800 sites, showed an average of 11.3 cfu/cm2 (environmental sites 5.01 cfu/cm2, hands 11.1 cfu/cm2 and uniforms 30.6 cfu/cm2). Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus and Enterobacteriaceae were found on 10, 3.4 and 0.5% of the imprints, respectively. One imprint was MRSA, two were VRE but none was ESBL, and we found no correlation between the explanatory variables and the degree of microbial burden.ConclusionMicrobial contamination and related challenges in the EMS calls for further attention. Several sites were contaminated with healthcare associated pathogens, but neither time from cleaning, number of patients nor area of service were of influence on the degree of contamination. Future research on hygienic challenges and routes of transmission is recommended.ReferencesDancer SJ. Controlling hospital-acquired infection: focus on the role of the ?environment and new technologies for decontamination. Clinical microbiology reviews. 2014;27(4):665–90.Alter SM, Merlin MA. Nosocomial and community-acquired infection rates of patients treated by prehospital advanced life support compared with other admitted patients. The American journal of emergency medicine. 2011;29(1):57–64.Conflict of interestH. S. Vikke and M. Giebner, is employed by Falck Denmark A/S H. J. Kolmos has no conflicts of interestFundingThe project is partly fundet by Falck A/S and Innovation fund DK</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</pub><doi>10.1136/bmjopen-2017-EMSabstracts.20</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext_linktorsrc |
identifier | ISSN: 2044-6055 |
ispartof | BMJ open, 2017-05, Vol.7 (Suppl 3), p.A8-A8 |
issn | 2044-6055 2044-6055 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2099422445 |
source | BMJ Journals (Open Access) |
subjects | Conflicts of interest Emergency medical care Nosocomial infections Pathogens Patients |
title | 20 Hygiene in the emergency medical services (EMS) calls for attention |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T16%3A17%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_9YT&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=20%E2%80%85Hygiene%20in%20the%20emergency%20medical%20services%20(EMS)%20calls%20for%20attention&rft.jtitle=BMJ%20open&rft.au=Vikke,%20HS&rft.date=2017-05&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=Suppl%203&rft.spage=A8&rft.epage=A8&rft.pages=A8-A8&rft.issn=2044-6055&rft.eissn=2044-6055&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-EMSabstracts.20&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_9YT%3E2099422445%3C/proquest_9YT%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2099422445&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |