Health and Fitness

• Surgical site infections (SSIs)

  Surgical site infections (SSIs) initiated during invasive procedures can require additional and/or extended treatment. Despite the best efforts of healthcare facilities to maintain safe surgical environments, surgical site infections result in up to $10 billion in treatment costs every year in the U.S. alone.

  * 780,000 out of 30 million surgical procedures performed annually in the U.S. result in SSI.1
  * In the United Kingdom, the estimated direct costs for a patient who has developed a surgical site infection are between €2,265 and €2,518.2
  * According to a study in the Netherlands, SSIs result in 5.8 to 17 extra days of hospitalization.3
  * In France, approximately 11% of surgical patients acquire a surgical site infection.4

  Some common causes of SSI are:

  * Complications from surgical hypothermia
  * Contamination of the incision area by skin flora
  * Bacterial cross–contamination
  * Surgical instrument contamination

  1 Cook, R. “Hospitals learn simple, cheap steps can prevent infections,” San Francisco Chronicle, May 18, 2004; F1.
  2 Coello R, Glenister H, Fereres J, Bartlett C, Leigh D, Sedgwick J, et al. The cost of infection in surgical patients: a case–control study. J Hosp Infect 1993; 24(4):239–50., and Plowman R, Graves N, Griffin MA, Roberts JA, Swan AV, Cookson, B, et al. The rate and cost of hospital–acquired infections occurring in patients admitted to selected specialties of a district general hospital in England and the national burden imposed. J Hosp Infect 2001; 47(3):198–209.
  3 Geubbels EL, Mintjes–de Groot AJ, Van den Berg JM, de Boer AS. An operating surveillance system of surgical site infections in the Netherlands: results of the PREZIES national surveillance network. Preventie van Ziekenhuisinfecties door Surveillance. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000; 21 (5): 107.
  4 Source: Prevalence of nosocomial infections in France; results of the nationwide survey in 1996. Journal of Hospital Infection. 2000; 46:186–193

• Cross Contamination

  Unfortunately even with the best of intentions, healthcare workers do not always wash and disinfect their hands as often as they should. This less than perfect hand hygiene performance can pose a serious risk to patients because as stated by Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), “Clean hands are the single most important factor in preventing the spread of dangerous germs and antibiotic resistance in healthcare settings.”1

  While the use of gloves does not eliminate the need for hand hygiene, likewise, the use of hand hygiene does not eliminate the need for gloves. Gloves reduce hand contamination by 70 percent to 80 percent, prevent cross–contamination and protect patients and healthcare personnel from infection.

  The importance of gloves, masks, and other personal protective apparel cannot be overestimated in preventing infection in healthcare settings. They, along with hand hygiene, are the first line of defense in preventing the spread of infection from person to person within healthcare settings.

  1. http://www.cdc.gov/handhygiene/pressrelease.htm

• Ventilator–associated pneumonia (VAP)

  Ventilator–associated pneumonia (VAP) is one of the top three infection concerns of clinicians today; it may account for up to 60% of all deaths from healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) in the U.S.1 Other key U.S. statistics include:

  * Approximately 8–28% of critical care patients develop VAP2
  * Healthcare–associated pneumonia patients have a mortality rate of 20% to 33%1
  * VAP increases patient time in the ICU by 4 to 6 days1
  * Each incidence of VAP is estimated to generate an increased cost of $20,000 to $40,0001

  VAP is a global issue. In Germany, between 2001 and 2005, 5.72% of ICU patients developed VAP.3 According to recent statistics, 9.2% of ICU patients in France develop ICU–acquired pneumonia.4 And in the UK, hospital–acquired lower respiratory tract infection adds an average of 12 days to hospital stays, at an average additional cost of $4,149 per patient.5

  The CDC’s National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance System (NNIS) reported that in 2002, patients receiving continuous mechanical ventilation had 6–21 times the risk of developing healthcare–associated pneumonia compared with patients who were not receiving mechanical ventilation. Because of this tremendous risk, in the last two decades, most of the research on healthcare–associated pneumonia has been focused on VAP.6

  1.CDC. Guidelines for Preventing Healthcare–Associated Pneumonia, 2003. Recommendations of the CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. MMWR 2004; 53 (No. RR–3).
  2.Chastre J, Fagon J. Ventilator–associated pneumonia. Crit Care Med. 2002; 165:867–903.
  3.Source: KISS Krankenhaus–Infektions–Surveillance–System. Modul ITS–KISS. http://www.nrz-hygiene.de/dwnld/ITS_reference_200512.pdf
  4.Source: HELICS Implementation Phase II, Final Report, March 2005
  5.The Socio–economic Burden of Hospital Acquired Infection. Executive Summary. Public Health Laboratory Service. 1999
  6. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/dpac_ventilate.html

When someone develops an infection at a hospital or other patient care facility that they did not have prior to treatment, this is referred to as a Healthcare-Associated (sometimes hospital-acquired) Infection (HAI).

Healthcare-Associated Infections (HAIs) are a global crisis affecting both patients and healthcare workers.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), at any point in time, 1.4 million people worldwide suffer from infections acquired in hospitals.

A Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report published in March-April 2007 estimated the number of U.S. deaths from healthcare associated infections in 2002 at 98,987.

The risk of acquiring Healthcare-Associated Infections in developing countries is 2-20 times higher than in developed countries.

Afflicting thousands of patients every year, HAI often leads to lengthened hospital stays, increasing the likelihood of readmission, and adding sizably to the cost of care per patient.

Financially, HAIs represent an estimated annual impact of $6.7 billion to healthcare facilities, but the human cost is even higher.

About Not on My Watch Prevention Campaign

To protect patients by reducing the risk of HAI, healthcare professionals must continually update their knowledge of infection management.

As part of an ongoing commitment to quality care and infection prevention, nationwide doctors and hospitals are partnering with Kimberly-Clark to deliver continuing education programs on Healthcare-Associated Infection (HAI) prevention to staff and management. As simple as education sounds, busy doctors and nurses on the front lines of delivering care can find it difficult to find the time to take advantage of scheduled programs within their hospitals.

The HAI Education Program is part of a national infection awareness campaign for healthcare professionals called “Not on My Watch” and will provide the facility with a toolkit that contains informational flyers, patient safety tips and posters.

The “Not on My Watch” campaign provides accredited continuing education (CE) programs based on best practices and guidelines as well as research available on reducing the incidence of Healthcare-Associated Infections.

For details about the “Not On My Watch” campaign, and the HAI Education Bus please visit www.HAIwatch.com.

Join the community of healthcare professionals concerned with preventing Healthcare-Associated Infections (HAIs), which at any given moment seriously affect 1.4 million hospitalized patients worldwide. The HAI WATCHDOG* Community forums are intended to provide a place for healthcare providers to discuss issues and best practices related to Healthcare-Associated Infections (HAIs).
Kimberly-Clark is committed to helping win the battle to prevent HAIs. As part of that effort, we are pleased to sponsor this community site for healthcare providers to discuss HAIs without mention of product-specific information.