Sarah Russo , Jill Telfer , Carla Silva , Eliza Daly , Sarah Browning
{"title":"为慢性乙型肝炎病毒感染者指定血液透析机:澳大利亚肾病医护人员的实践与态度调查。","authors":"Sarah Russo , Jill Telfer , Carla Silva , Eliza Daly , Sarah Browning","doi":"10.1016/j.idh.2024.02.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>To reduce the risk of viral transmission, guidelines recommend the use of designated haemodialysis machines and patient isolation for patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV). These practices are without a strong evidence base, and may no longer be necessary in the setting of heat disinfection programs and standard precautions.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>An online cross-sectional survey was developed for renal clinicians across Australia and New Zealand to explore infection prevention policy concerning patients with chronic HBV in haemodialysis units. We sought to determine whether psychosocial and cultural impacts might result from the mandatory use of machine designation and patient isolation practices, as perceived by multidisciplinary healthcare workers with experience working with this patient population.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Sixty-seven responses from 27 health districts across all states of Australia and one New Zealand district were received. Most respondents were from urban areas (65%), and were nurses (87%). 50% of health districts reported using designated machines, while 32% isolate patients. Lack of necessary resources limited the use of designated machines (57%), and patient isolation (78%). Respondents not routinely using these precautions were more likely to express concerns regarding patient psychosocial wellbeing and cultural appropriateness. Overall, 30% of respondents expressed concerns regarding the cultural appropriateness of these recommendations.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>We demonstrate wide variation in haemodialysis infection prevention and control policy and practice with regards to managing patients with chronic HBV. While use of standard precautions and machine disinfection are consistently applied, resource availability and concerns for patient psychosocial wellbeing limit adherence to international guidelines.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":45006,"journal":{"name":"Infection Disease & Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246804512400004X/pdfft?md5=61394b4ab9f1f173c0d11bb2fc884b8e&pid=1-s2.0-S246804512400004X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Haemodialysis machine designation for patients with chronic Hepatitis B virus: A practice and attitudes survey of Australian renal healthcare workers\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Russo , Jill Telfer , Carla Silva , Eliza Daly , Sarah Browning\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.idh.2024.02.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>To reduce the risk of viral transmission, guidelines recommend the use of designated haemodialysis machines and patient isolation for patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV). These practices are without a strong evidence base, and may no longer be necessary in the setting of heat disinfection programs and standard precautions.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>An online cross-sectional survey was developed for renal clinicians across Australia and New Zealand to explore infection prevention policy concerning patients with chronic HBV in haemodialysis units. We sought to determine whether psychosocial and cultural impacts might result from the mandatory use of machine designation and patient isolation practices, as perceived by multidisciplinary healthcare workers with experience working with this patient population.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Sixty-seven responses from 27 health districts across all states of Australia and one New Zealand district were received. Most respondents were from urban areas (65%), and were nurses (87%). 50% of health districts reported using designated machines, while 32% isolate patients. Lack of necessary resources limited the use of designated machines (57%), and patient isolation (78%). Respondents not routinely using these precautions were more likely to express concerns regarding patient psychosocial wellbeing and cultural appropriateness. Overall, 30% of respondents expressed concerns regarding the cultural appropriateness of these recommendations.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>We demonstrate wide variation in haemodialysis infection prevention and control policy and practice with regards to managing patients with chronic HBV. While use of standard precautions and machine disinfection are consistently applied, resource availability and concerns for patient psychosocial wellbeing limit adherence to international guidelines.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45006,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Infection Disease & Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246804512400004X/pdfft?md5=61394b4ab9f1f173c0d11bb2fc884b8e&pid=1-s2.0-S246804512400004X-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Infection Disease & Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246804512400004X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infection Disease & Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246804512400004X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Haemodialysis machine designation for patients with chronic Hepatitis B virus: A practice and attitudes survey of Australian renal healthcare workers
Background
To reduce the risk of viral transmission, guidelines recommend the use of designated haemodialysis machines and patient isolation for patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV). These practices are without a strong evidence base, and may no longer be necessary in the setting of heat disinfection programs and standard precautions.
Methods
An online cross-sectional survey was developed for renal clinicians across Australia and New Zealand to explore infection prevention policy concerning patients with chronic HBV in haemodialysis units. We sought to determine whether psychosocial and cultural impacts might result from the mandatory use of machine designation and patient isolation practices, as perceived by multidisciplinary healthcare workers with experience working with this patient population.
Results
Sixty-seven responses from 27 health districts across all states of Australia and one New Zealand district were received. Most respondents were from urban areas (65%), and were nurses (87%). 50% of health districts reported using designated machines, while 32% isolate patients. Lack of necessary resources limited the use of designated machines (57%), and patient isolation (78%). Respondents not routinely using these precautions were more likely to express concerns regarding patient psychosocial wellbeing and cultural appropriateness. Overall, 30% of respondents expressed concerns regarding the cultural appropriateness of these recommendations.
Conclusion
We demonstrate wide variation in haemodialysis infection prevention and control policy and practice with regards to managing patients with chronic HBV. While use of standard precautions and machine disinfection are consistently applied, resource availability and concerns for patient psychosocial wellbeing limit adherence to international guidelines.
期刊介绍:
The journal aims to be a platform for the publication and dissemination of knowledge in the area of infection and disease causing infection in humans. The journal is quarterly and publishes research, reviews, concise communications, commentary and other articles concerned with infection and disease affecting the health of an individual, organisation or population. The original and important articles in the journal investigate, report or discuss infection prevention and control; clinical, social, epidemiological or public health aspects of infectious disease; policy and planning for the control of infections; zoonoses; and vaccination related to disease in human health. Infection, Disease & Health provides a platform for the publication and dissemination of original knowledge at the nexus of the areas infection, Disease and health in a One Health context. One Health recognizes that the health of people is connected to the health of animals and the environment. One Health encourages and advances the collaborative efforts of multiple disciplines-working locally, nationally, and globally-to achieve the best health for people, animals, and our environment. This approach is fundamental because 6 out of every 10 infectious diseases in humans are zoonotic, or spread from animals. We would be expected to report or discuss infection prevention and control; clinical, social, epidemiological or public health aspects of infectious disease; policy and planning for the control of infections; zoonosis; and vaccination related to disease in human health. The Journal seeks to bring together knowledge from all specialties involved in infection research and clinical practice, and present the best work in this ever-changing field. The audience of the journal includes researchers, clinicians, health workers and public policy professionals concerned with infection, disease and health.