考虑预防原则及其在MRSA和SARS-CoV-2作为当时新兴病原体中的应用

IF 2.7 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Infection Disease & Health Pub Date : 2023-05-01 DOI:10.1016/j.idh.2022.08.003
Joanna Harris , Hazel Maxwell , Susan Dodds
{"title":"考虑预防原则及其在MRSA和SARS-CoV-2作为当时新兴病原体中的应用","authors":"Joanna Harris ,&nbsp;Hazel Maxwell ,&nbsp;Susan Dodds","doi":"10.1016/j.idh.2022.08.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In the 1980s Contact Precautions were introduced as a precautionary measure to control the emerging threat of antimicrobial resistance in hospitals, particularly methicillin resistant <em>Staphylococcus aureus</em> (MRSA). Today, antimicrobial resistance remains a concerning global public health threat, and a focus for hospital patient safety priorities.</p><p>In late 2019 a novel respiratory virus described as SARS-CoV-2, was reported. Just as MRSA had prompted control measures developed in the context of limited information and understanding of the pathogen, public health control measures against SARS-CoV-2 were promptly and strictly implemented.</p><p>Whilst SARS-CoV-2 control measures were successful at containing the virus, numerous detrimental socio-economic and health impacts have led to a rebalancing of harms versus benefits and loosening of restrictions. Conversely, evidence collated over the past 50 years, suggests that Contact Precautions are not superior to well-applied standard infection prevention and control precautions in controlling MRSA acquisition in hospitals. Several harms associated with Contact Precautions, affecting patient safety, financial costs, and organisational culture, are described. However, rebalancing of hospital MRSA control policies has been slow to materialise.</p><p>This commentary invites infection prevention and control policy makers to reflect and revise policies for the control of MRSA in hospitals so that harms do not outweigh benefits.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":45006,"journal":{"name":"Infection Disease & Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9458704/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Considering the precautionary principle and its application to MRSA and SARS-CoV-2 as emerging novel pathogens of their time\",\"authors\":\"Joanna Harris ,&nbsp;Hazel Maxwell ,&nbsp;Susan Dodds\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.idh.2022.08.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>In the 1980s Contact Precautions were introduced as a precautionary measure to control the emerging threat of antimicrobial resistance in hospitals, particularly methicillin resistant <em>Staphylococcus aureus</em> (MRSA). Today, antimicrobial resistance remains a concerning global public health threat, and a focus for hospital patient safety priorities.</p><p>In late 2019 a novel respiratory virus described as SARS-CoV-2, was reported. Just as MRSA had prompted control measures developed in the context of limited information and understanding of the pathogen, public health control measures against SARS-CoV-2 were promptly and strictly implemented.</p><p>Whilst SARS-CoV-2 control measures were successful at containing the virus, numerous detrimental socio-economic and health impacts have led to a rebalancing of harms versus benefits and loosening of restrictions. Conversely, evidence collated over the past 50 years, suggests that Contact Precautions are not superior to well-applied standard infection prevention and control precautions in controlling MRSA acquisition in hospitals. Several harms associated with Contact Precautions, affecting patient safety, financial costs, and organisational culture, are described. However, rebalancing of hospital MRSA control policies has been slow to materialise.</p><p>This commentary invites infection prevention and control policy makers to reflect and revise policies for the control of MRSA in hospitals so that harms do not outweigh benefits.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45006,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Infection Disease & Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9458704/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Infection Disease & Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468045122000517\",\"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/S2468045122000517","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

20世纪80年代,引入了接触预防措施,作为一项预防措施,以控制医院中出现的抗菌素耐药性威胁,特别是耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)。今天,抗微生物药物耐药性仍然是一个令人关切的全球公共卫生威胁,也是医院患者安全优先事项的重点。2019年底,一种被称为SARS-CoV-2的新型呼吸道病毒被报道。正如MRSA促使在对病原体的信息和了解有限的情况下制定控制措施一样,针对SARS-CoV-2的公共卫生控制措施得到了及时和严格的实施。虽然SARS-CoV-2控制措施在遏制病毒方面取得了成功,但许多有害的社会经济和健康影响导致了危害与利益的再平衡和限制的放松。相反,过去50年整理的证据表明,在控制医院MRSA感染方面,接触预防措施并不优于应用良好的标准感染预防和控制措施。本文描述了与接触预防措施相关的几种危害,影响患者安全、财务成本和组织文化。然而,医院MRSA控制政策的再平衡进展缓慢。本评论邀请感染预防和控制政策制定者反思和修订医院MRSA控制政策,以使弊大于利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Considering the precautionary principle and its application to MRSA and SARS-CoV-2 as emerging novel pathogens of their time

In the 1980s Contact Precautions were introduced as a precautionary measure to control the emerging threat of antimicrobial resistance in hospitals, particularly methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Today, antimicrobial resistance remains a concerning global public health threat, and a focus for hospital patient safety priorities.

In late 2019 a novel respiratory virus described as SARS-CoV-2, was reported. Just as MRSA had prompted control measures developed in the context of limited information and understanding of the pathogen, public health control measures against SARS-CoV-2 were promptly and strictly implemented.

Whilst SARS-CoV-2 control measures were successful at containing the virus, numerous detrimental socio-economic and health impacts have led to a rebalancing of harms versus benefits and loosening of restrictions. Conversely, evidence collated over the past 50 years, suggests that Contact Precautions are not superior to well-applied standard infection prevention and control precautions in controlling MRSA acquisition in hospitals. Several harms associated with Contact Precautions, affecting patient safety, financial costs, and organisational culture, are described. However, rebalancing of hospital MRSA control policies has been slow to materialise.

This commentary invites infection prevention and control policy makers to reflect and revise policies for the control of MRSA in hospitals so that harms do not outweigh benefits.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Infection Disease & Health
Infection Disease & Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
5.70%
发文量
40
审稿时长
20 days
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.
期刊最新文献
Mapping Australia's COVID-19 quarantine cohort journeys Reducing candidaemia risk in urology patients: Revised algorithm & Pharmacist-Led Implementation Designing for transparency and trust: Next steps for healthcare associated infection surveillance in Queensland The experience of infection prevention and control nurse (IPCN) in conducting post-discharge surveillance (PDS) of surgical site infections (SSI): A qualitative study From basic research to clinical practice: The impact of laminar airflow filters on surgical site infection in vascular surgery
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1