Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"As the Zika virus continues to spread throughout North America, people need answers. What are the origins of this virus? How does it spread? Should we be concerned? How can we stop the spread of infected mosquitos? With the increasing prevalence of Zika, concrete answers are needed now more than ever - The Zika Prevention Handbook serves as the best reference for readers to stay informed about side-effects and symptoms, and to minimize your chance of contracting the virus. The Zika virus is a mosquito-borne infection that is estimated to have originated in Africa in the mid 1940's. In the last several years, the Zika virus has infected thousands of people around the world and has spread to over 60 countries. As of August 2016, Zika-infected mosquitoes have found a new home, the United States. The Zika virus has been reported in all 50 U.S. states, in addition to hundreds of reported cases throughout Mexico and Canada. With the assistance of infectious disease expert, Laura D. Kramer, PhD, author Alexander Webb has compiled the leading research from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Whether you're an expectant mother worried about microcephaly (a side effect of Zika that causes babies to be born with abnormally small heads), planning a vacation to a tropical area, or living in an area where these contagious mosquitoes reside, this book is guaranteed to answer all your questions and ease your fears. Readers will learn about Zika's origins, transmission of the infection, leading prevention techniques, medical testing, symptoms and diagnosis, and much more.\" --Publisher's description.

Objective We aimed to examine the efficacy of medical masks and respirators in protecting against respiratory infections using pooled data from two homogenous randomised control clinical trials (RCTs). Methods The data collected on 3591 subjects in two similar RCTs conducted in Beijing, China, which examined the same infection outcomes, were pooled. Four interventions were compared: (i) continuous N95 respirator use, (ii) targeted N95 respirator use, (iii) medical mask use and (iv) control arm. The outcomes were laboratory‐confirmed viral respiratory infection, influenza A or B, laboratory‐confirmed bacterial colonisation and pathogens grouped by mode of transmission. Results Rates of all outcomes were consistently lower in the continuous N95 and/or targeted N95 arms. In adjusted analysis, rates of laboratory‐confirmed bacterial colonisation (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.21‐0.51), laboratory‐confirmed viral infections (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.23‐0.91) and droplet‐transmitted infections (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.16‐0.42) were significantly lower in the continuous N95 arm. Laboratory‐confirmed influenza was also lowest in the continuous N95 arm (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.10‐1.11), but the difference was not statistically significant. Rates of laboratory‐confirmed bacterial colonisation (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33‐0.87) and droplet‐transmitted infections (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25‐0.72) were also lower in the targeted N95 arm, but not in medical mask arm. Conclusion The results suggest that the classification of infections into droplet versus airborne transmission is an oversimplification. Most guidelines recommend masks for infections spread by droplets. N95 respirators, as “airborne precautions,” provide superior protection for droplet‐transmitted infections. To ensure the occupational health and safety of healthcare worker, the superiority of respirators in preventing respiratory infections should be reflected in infection control guidelines.

In this cluster-randomized trial, the use of expanded barrier precautions did not decrease the incidence of vancomycin-resistant enterococcus and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in intensive care units; however, adherence to the precautions was suboptimal. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococcus (VRE) are major causes of health care–associated infection. 1 Infections caused by these bacteria are usually preceded by colonization of mucous membranes, skin, wounds, or the gastrointestinal tract. Colonization occurs by means of indirect patient-to-patient transmission of MRSA and VRE through the hands of health care providers and through contaminated fomites and environmental surfaces 2 , 3 or, less commonly, by direct transmission from colonized health care providers. 4 Standard interventions to prevent the transmission of MRSA and VRE in health care facilities include hand hygiene, the use of barrier precautions (gloves and gowns) in the care . . .

Prevention of nosocomial infection, especially with MRSA, is a high priority. In this trial involving 74 ICUs at 43 hospitals, universal decolonization with the use of chlorhexidine and mupirocin was associated with a decrease in all-cause bloodstream infections. Health care–associated infection is a leading cause of preventable illness and death and often results from colonizing bacteria that overcome body defenses. 1 – 5 Among the pathogens causing health care–associated infection, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has been given priority as a target of reduction efforts because of its virulence and disease spectrum, multidrug-resistant profile, and increasing prevalence in health care settings, particularly among patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Hospitals commonly screen patients in the ICU for nasal carriage of MRSA and use contact precautions with carriers. 2 – 6 Nine states mandate such screening. 7 Decolonization has been used to reduce transmission . . .

BackgroundIn a previous randomised controlled trial (RCT) in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs), cloth masks resulted in a higher risk of respiratory infections compared with medical masks. This was the only published RCT of cloth masks at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic.ObjectiveTo do a post hoc analysis of unpublished data on mask washing and mask contamination from the original RCT to further understand poor performance of the two-layered cotton cloth mask used by HCWs in that RCT.Setting14 secondary-level/tertiary-level hospitals in Hanoi, Vietnam.ParticipantsA subgroup of 607 HCWs aged ≥18 years working full time in selected high-risk wards, who used a two-layered cloth mask and were part of a randomised controlled clinical trial comparing medical masks and cloth masks.InterventionWashing method for cloth masks (self-washing or hospital laundry). A substudy of contamination of a sample of 15 cloth and medical masks was also conducted.Outcome measureInfection rate over 4 weeks of follow up and viral contamination of masks tested by multiplex PCR.ResultsViral contamination with rhinovirus was identified on both used medical and cloth masks. Most HCW (77% of daily washing) self-washed their masks by hand. The risk of infection was more than double among HCW self-washing their masks compared with the hospital laundry (HR 2.04 (95% CI 1.03 to 4.00); p=0.04). There was no significant difference in infection between HCW who wore cloth masks washed in the hospital laundry compared with medical masks (p=0.5).ConclusionsUsing self-reported method of washing, we showed double the risk of infection with seasonal respiratory viruses if masks were self-washed by hand by HCWs. The majority of HCWs in the study reported hand-washing their mask themselves. This could explain the poor performance of two layered cloth masks, if the self-washing was inadequate. Cloth masks washed in the hospital laundry were as protective as medical masks. Both cloth and medical masks were contaminated, but only cloth masks were reused in the study, reiterating the importance of daily washing of reusable cloth masks using proper method. A well-washed cloth mask can be as protective as a medical mask.Trial resgistration numberACTRN12610000887077.

Intensive care units (ICUs) are high-risk areas for transmission of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria, but no controlled study has tested the effect of rapid screening and isolation of carriers on transmission in settings with best-standard precautions. We assessed interventions to reduce colonisation and transmission of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in European ICUs. We did this study in three phases at 13 ICUs. After a 6 month baseline period (phase 1), we did an interrupted time series study of universal chlorhexidine body-washing combined with hand hygiene improvement for 6 months (phase 2), followed by a 12–15 month cluster randomised trial (phase 3). ICUs were randomly assigned by computer generated randomisation schedule to either conventional screening (chromogenic screening for meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus [MRSA] and vancomycin-resistant enterococci [VRE]) or rapid screening (PCR testing for MRSA and VRE and chromogenic screening for highly resistant Enterobacteriaceae [HRE]); with contact precautions for identified carriers. The primary outcome was acquisition of resistant bacteria per 100 patient-days at risk, for which we calculated step changes and changes in trends after the introduction of each intervention. We assessed acquisition by microbiological surveillance and analysed it with a multilevel Poisson segmented regression model. We compared screening groups with a likelihood ratio test that combined step changes and changes to trend. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00976638. Seven ICUs were assigned to rapid screening and six to conventional screening. Mean hand hygiene compliance improved from 52% in phase 1 to 69% in phase 2, and 77% in phase 3. Median proportions of patients receiving chlorhexidine body-washing increased from 0% to 100% at the start of phase 2. For trends in acquisition of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria, weekly incidence rate ratio (IRR) was 0·976 (0·954–0·999) for phase 2 and 1·015 (0·998–1·032) for phase 3. For step changes, weekly IRR was 0·955 (0·676–1·348) for phase 2 and 0·634 (0·349–1·153) for phase 3. The decrease in trend in phase 2 was largely caused by changes in acquisition of MRSA (weekly IRR 0·925, 95% CI 0·890–0·962). Acquisition was lower in the conventional screening group than in the rapid screening group, but did not differ significantly (p=0·06). Improved hand hygiene plus unit-wide chlorhexidine body-washing reduced acquisition of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria, particularly MRSA. In the context of a sustained high level of compliance to hand hygiene and chlorhexidine bathings, screening and isolation of carriers do not reduce acquisition rates of multidrug-resistant bacteria, whether or not screening is done with rapid testing or conventional testing. European Commission.

Background Device-associated health care-associated infections (DA-HAIs) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients constitute a major therapeutic issue complicating the regular hospitalisation process and having influence on patients’ condition, length of hospitalisation, mortality and therapy cost. Methods The study involved all patients treated > 48 h at ICU of the Medical University Teaching Hospital (Poland) from 1.01.2015 to 31.12.2017. The study showed the surveillance and prevention of DA-HAIs on International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC) Surveillance Online System (ISOS) 3 online platform according to methodology of the INICC multidimensional approach (IMA). Results During study period 252 HAIs were found in 1353 (549F/804M) patients and 14,700 patient-days of hospitalisation. The crude infections rate and incidence density of DA-HAIs was 18.69% and 17.49 ± 2.56 /1000 patient-days. Incidence density of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLA-BSI) and catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CA-UTI) per 1000 device-days were 12.63 ± 1.49, 1.83 ± 0.65 and 6.5 ± 1.2, respectively. VAP(137) constituted 54.4% of HAIs, whereas CA-UTI(91) 36%, CLA-BSI(24) 9.6%.The most common pathogens in VAP and CA-UTI was multidrug-resistant (MDR) Acinetobacter baumannii (57 and 31%), and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE ) in CLA-BSI (45%). MDR Gram negative bacteria (GNB) 159 were responsible for 63.09% of HAIs. The length of hospitalisation of patients with a single DA-HAI at ICU was 21(14–33) days, while without infections it was 6.0 (3–11) days; p  = 0.0001. The mortality rates in the hospital-acquired infection group and no infection group were 26.1% vs 26.9%; p  = 0.838; OR 0.9633;95% CI (0.6733–1.3782). Extra cost of therapy caused by one ICU acquired HAI was US$ 11,475/Euro 10,035. Hand hygiene standards compliance rate was 64.7%, while VAP, CLA-BSI bundles compliance ranges were 96.2–76.8 and 29–100, respectively. Conclusions DA-HAIs was diagnosed at nearly 1/5 of patients. They were more frequent than in European Centre Disease Control report (except for CLA-BSI), more frequent than the USA CDC report, yet less frequent than in limited-resource countries (except for CA-UTI). They prolonged the hospitalisation period at ICU and generated substantial additional costs of treatment with no influence on mortality. The Acinetobacter baumannii MDR infections were the most problematic therapeutic issue. DA-HAIs preventive methods compliance rate needs improvement.

Given the current trends in incidence and underlying healthcare systems vulnerabilities, Africa could become the next epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic. As the pandemic transitions to more widespread community transmission, how can the lessons learned thus far be consolidated to effectively curb the spread of COVID-19 while minimizing social disruption and negative humanitarian and economic consequences?

A randomized controlled study demonstrated that an optimized intraoperative infection control program targeting basic preventive measures can reduce Staphylococcus aureus transmission and surgical site infections. In this study we address potential limitations of operating room heterogeneity of infections and compliance with behavioral interventions following adoption into clinical practice. A post-implementation prospective case-cohort study. Twenty-three operating rooms at a large teaching hospital. A total of 801 surgical patients [425 (53%) women; 350 (44%) ASA > 2, age 54.6 ± 15.9 years] were analyzed for the primary and 804 for the secondary outcomes. A multifaceted, evidence-based intraoperative infection control program involving hand hygiene, vascular care, and environmental cleaning improvements was implemented for 23 operating room environments. Bacterial transmission monitoring was used to provide monthly feedback for intervention optimization. S. aureus transmission (primary) and surgical site infection (secondary). The incidence of S. aureus transmission and surgical site infection before (3.5 months) and after (4.5 months) infection control optimization was assessed. Optimization was defined by a sustained reduction in anesthesia work area bacterial reservoir isolate counts. Poisson regression with robust error variances was used to estimate the incidence risk ratio (IRR) of intraoperative S. aureus transmission and surgical site infection for the independent variable of optimization. Optimization was associated with decreased S. aureus transmission [24% before (85/357) to 9% after (42/444), IRR 0.39, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.56, P < .001] and surgical site infections [8% before (29/360) and 3% after (15/444) (IRR 0.42, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.77, P = .005; adjusted for American Society of Anesthesiologists' physical status, aIRR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.82, P = .009]. An optimized intraoperative infection control program targeting improvements in basic preventive measures is an effective and feasible approach for reducing S. aureus transmission and surgical site infection development. •An evidence-based intraoperative infection control program can reduce surgical site infections.•This study demonstrates implementation effectiveness and feasibility.•With proven efficacy, effectiveness, and feasibility, this important safety measure is poised for dissemination.