Jump to content

Talk:Hospital-acquired infection

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi

[edit]

Hi, my name is Christine Blouin. I am currently enrolled in school, training to be a Medical Assistant at CEI in Somerville, Massachusettes. I was assigned to a presentation in my Aseptic class on Sanitization. I was just wondering how i can find out which hospital in the nation or in the state of Massachusettes has the LOWEST nosocomial rates?

Thank You so much for your time& attention,

Christine

Try the Massachusetts Department of Public Health http://www.mass.gov/dph/ --agr 14:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usage

[edit]

Can anyone tell me the difference between nosocomial and idiopathic? 71.34.36.139 20:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stethoscope

[edit]

I don't see any discussion of the potential for the stethoscope to transmit nosocomial infection. Most doctors do wash their hands, but few do anything to clean the stethoscope between patient visits. Doesn't the stethoscope bell have virtually the same infection spreading potential as the hands? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.138.150.86 (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Your concerns have been researched by others (see [1]). Why not read some of the articles and contribute to the wikipedia article? Cank 17:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately most doctors do not wash there hands as per the medical literature. Neither do nurse or people after using the toilet.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epidemiology

[edit]

Referencing "A ratio of 5 to 19% hospitalized patients are infected". Besides being grammatically incorrect - "of" should be inserted after "19%", IF the remainder is correct, "5 to 19%" (by which I *presume*, but do NOT know for sure, they mean 5% to 19%) is NOT a "ratio". Grndrush (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

heathcare workers

[edit]

Hi.There are strict criteria for an infection to be nosocomial, but nobody's considering about healthcare workers.Healthcare workers can also be infected by these pathogens.Do we also accept these infections as nosocomial?---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unluraket (talk • contribs) 12:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definately :-)

However, this may be the solution for that Talk:Fluorescent lamp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.14.152.15 (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

waqas latif

[edit]

i want to know about the symptoms of wound infection in post open heart surgery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.52.37 (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A "nosocomial" infection is an infection that develops after admission to the healthcare facility. It does not imply that the healthcare facility caused the infection, that the infecting organism was acquired in the facility, or that it was preventable. An infection which results from medical care or treatment would be considered "iatrogenic".75.144.94.81 (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prevention of the infection when using .....

[edit]

Ambulance services has not been thoroughly researched...

--222.67.215.4 (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--222.67.215.4 (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--222.67.215.4 (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mitigation -- Nosocomial influenza infection rates are reduced by vaccination of hospital staff

[edit]

Engels, Goldman, Doyen, Duyse, Van Beers, Vergison

Reduction of the nosocomial influenza A burden in a paediatric hospital by immunisation of the healthcare workers

Abstract number: 1133_242 http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/eccmid15/abstract.asp?id=36255


See also:

Sabine Wicker, Dr. med.,1* Holger F. Rabenau, Prof. Dr. rer. med.,2 Volkhard A. J. Kempf, Prof. Dr. med.,3 and Christian Brandt, Dr.med.4

Vaccination Against Classical Influenza in Health-Care Workers Self-Protection and Patient Protection

Review Article Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2009 September; 106(36): 567–572. Published online 2009 September 4. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2009.0567. PMC 2770210 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2770210/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx (talk • contribs) 01:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Veterinary hospital acquired diseases

[edit]

Nosocomial infections Infections that were not present before the patient came to a hospital, but were acquired by a patient while in the hospital. Mentioned in: Enterobacterial Infections, Staphylococcal Infections [[2]] nosocomial pertaining to or originating in a hospital.

nosocomial infections those acquired during hospitalization or during attendance at any veterinary medical facility. (See above reference) This needs to be expanded. There is a type of MRSA carried by pigs.Bgordski (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor's Neckties

[edit]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125859205137154753.html Neckties a very contaminated object. A good way to cut infections. Bgordski (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holland wins MRSA battle

[edit]

Bgordski (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gram negative?

[edit]

I am a microbiologist and not a doctor, so I do not know if the list of common pathogens is correct. If it is correct, the lead is wrong as the species listed are mostly Gram positive. In brief one of the two sections is wrong. --Squidonius (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved: majority after 51 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nosocomial infection → Hospital-acquired infection – I propose that the title of this article be changed from "Nosocomial infection" to "Hospital-acquired infection" per WP:COMMONNAME. Here is the article's current traffic, which is currently 33,000 people per month making it popular enough to assume that non-specialists from the general public are coming here for information. Because non-specialists are the primary readership, and because most of the content of this article is non-technical, I think that this article should use the non-specialist term. Thoughts? Relisted. BDD (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose move. Nosocomial is the proper term. Let's not dumb it down. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment / support. Would renaming the article "Hospital-acquired infection" and editing it to start "A hospital-acquired infection (HAI), known technically as a nosocomial infection, is..." really amount to dumbing-down..? I imagine there are already quite a few medical names / terms / etc under colloquial / unofficial / non-technical titles in this general encyclopedia. 213.246.91.158 (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. How would

    A nosocomial infection, also known as a hospital-acquired infection or HAI

    be any different from

    A hospital-acquired infection or HAI, also known as a nosocomial infection

Except that nosocomial... gets 597,000 ghits vs 271,000 for hospital... In google books it is 81,300 to 18,700. In google news it is 7 to 99 (which caters to the public, avoiding four syllable words). --Apteva (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the difference is that the article names implied are, respectively, "Nosocomial infection" and "Hospital-acquired infection". But am I missing the point..? 213.246.91.158 (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • support WP:JARGON -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Don't use complex specialist terms unless we have to, and in this case, we don't have to. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Only specialists have ever heard the word "nosocomial", but practially everyone is aware of hospital-aquired infections. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We need to see some specific evidence that the suggested title really is the common name. So far the evidence provided by Apteva suggests that nosocomial infection may be more common.Cúchullain t/c 16:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think that it is necessary to see hard data of the sort which Apteva provided because I think that the opinions of English-speaking persons who visit this page can constitute enough specific evidence to make a decision. "Hospital-acquired infection" is not the most common name. Since it is not a technical term, people may also say "infection I got in the hospital", "complication from surgery", "disease I got at the doctor's office" or any number of other things which are less precise, but still not a technical term. My reason for proposing the move was to avoid jargon, and not necessarily to identify the single term most used in publication. I feel that very few English speakers would immediately recognize and understand this term and that many more would understand the term "hospital-acquired infection". Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does MOS:MED apply? I really wish the first ref weren't dead, because I want to know the etymolgy of "nosocomial." Hearing "nosocomial infection" without context, I'd assume it refers to a class of infections with some sort of biological relationship. If it's just a sort of jargony euphemism for any infection acquired in a hospital, it should be avoided. If it's a discreet class in medical literature, it should probably be retained per MOS:MED. --BDD (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also note that the most used reference in the article, the New York Times article, doesn't mention the specialist term at all. --BDD (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see 14k for "hospital acquired infection" and 60k for "nosocomial infection". "Hospital infection" gets 57k. "Nosocomial infection" seems to be the most popular term in this case but by these numbers perhaps it is used in fewer than half of the articles on the topic. "Hospital infection" and "nosocomial infection" are used together in 14.5k articles, and "hospital acquired infection" and "nosocomial infection" are together in 5.5k articles. There are different ways to interpret this information, but it is not correct to say that "nosocomial" is the only term used in scholarly literature. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cost

[edit]

Meta-analysis as to cost in USA doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.9763 JFW | T@lk 21:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail

[edit]

This was added "In the United Kingdom, some people are exempt from hand-hygiene and this has led to criticism from professionals and patients.[1]"

  1. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-519072/Muslim-medics-refuse-roll-sleeves-hygiene-crackdown--religion.html

Daily Mail as a source is good for mostly nothing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so why does Daily mail and Telegraph exist if they do not provide any correct stuff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thats easy, they exist to make money for their shareholders. Same reason the National Enquirer exists. The also have the additional purpose of promoting the political agenda of those that own them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
more importantly, this is WP:TRIVIA that deserves no weight in an encyclopedia article. Some muslim students are working with the hospital in which they are training to negotiate a way to meet the requirements of good hospital hand-washing practice while abiding by their religious practice. It will get worked out, and will be over. WP is WP:NOTNEWS and we don't discuss passing trivia. Please also see WP:RECENTISM. Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV issues

[edit]

I am tagging this article because it is not neutral. It reads like something someone would write if they wanted to highlight the 'evilness' of nosocomial infections. It's like it is an editorial. It is really not an encyclopedia article in its current form.

This article is cut and pasted from here. It has all the right copyright permissions but it is still poorly written and sourced. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara (WVS) Are you suggesting this Wikipedia article is a copyright violation or was inappropriately copied? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes
The content was cut and pasted from the above website which is taking credit for its content but allowing it to be used under CCA-3 (I hope I got that number right...). It is word-for-word cut and paste (before I got to work on it) from a primary source,i.e., it is one journal article acting like an encyclopedia article. It may even be self published since the website invites others to publish their work via the website. The name of the website is Project Gutenburg Self-publishing Press.Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an example of a statement or section which violates WP:NPOV? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"...Visitors and healthcare personnel are equally to blame in transmitting infection...", the word blame catches my eye, it is also unsourced unless you count a cut and paste a source. Using the word blame indicates to me that someone, without documentation, can ascribe blame. That is POV for me.
"...hospital indoor air quality needs to be on agenda in management." This is an editorial statement. If it is a statement from the primary source that is cited, it would need to be in quotes. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

That source copied Wikipedia. Wikipedia did not copy them. See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_75#Hospital_Acquired_Infections. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Blue, if that statement appears or appeared in the wikipedia article, no matter the source, the phrase: "needs to be on (an) agenda" indicates an opinion, or point of view, or at worst some kind of advice. I am a little confused because I thought we were discussing POV. How is the POV resolved? I deleted the statements that I could find in the article that seems to be expressing opinion so the ones I described above are now gone. There may be more. Not a problem-I will just remove them when I see them. The cut and paste issue is resolved; the POV is not. No further action is necessary. As I go about my article edit-a-thon I will remove editorial/pov statements as I find them. Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS) (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I agree, those statements are POV and should be removed.
I have difficulty having more than one discussion at once. I saw the end to the copyright violation discussion and thought the entire concern was resolved. It was my mistake, but it seems the other issue is resolved also. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with the photo

[edit]

The original photo is from one photographer who loaded it up to commons. Another editor took the photo and put little icons all over the photo where he believes that a nosocomial infection can be acquired. You can't doctor up (pun intended) a photo to prove an encyclopedic statement unless those specific locations are somehow cited in a MEDRS source. The photo itself is an editorial statement and at best unsourced. It should be removed. It is used all over other wikis without a problem. You can't use a graphic relaying unsourced information. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara (WVS) Practically all photos submitted are original research and almost none are tied to any source. There is no routine process for demanding that photos have explicit backing of sources. This is a problem but it is also the current state of Wikipedia quality, so I am not concerned immediately that this photo is lower than average quality.
I think that the image is intended to illustrate points in the room which health care providers and patients touch often. I think that the picture communicates the concept of a fomite, and it seems like a fair example to me. Can you say more about why you feel that the image is inappropriate? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for communicating with me about this. Right now it is a moot point since Doc James reverted the photo and so even if I find a photo that is better sourced (perhaps from the CDC), a health dept., from an infectious control specialist it wouldn't matter. I can't insert a photo even if it were impeccably sourced since I would be reverting him for the second time. I don't prefer to put him into the position of deciding whether to revert it again or not. I am not the contentious type. I have a problem with the photo since it doesn't include the presence of medical personnel(who may be the most common vector of nosocomial infections, but since that comes out in the article anyway. It is not a 'fair' photo since operating theatres are pretty 'clean' places with constant removal of airborne fomites. I guess I don't think it a good representation, that's all. Obviously Doc James disagrees. Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS) (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I checked your discussion. As you like - the conversation is resolved now if you wish it to be, or it can continue if you want it to do so. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Major revision

[edit]

My next personal edit-athon will involve this article. If another editor wants to collaborate with me, I certainly welcome their involvement. I tag the article for point of view issues because some of the language appears to me to be over emphasize certain methods of transmission over others; that is to say my impression is that the article was written by someone who has possibly experienced this kind of infection. I could be way out there, I realize. But the article does not seem to be written in a neutral manner.

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hospital-acquired infection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hospital-acquired infection. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retraction of study gives Wikipedia as one of the reasons

[edit]

I found this to be mildly interesting. This article was copy-pasted for use in a medical article which was retracted for a number of reasons.[1] "Fragments of text overlap with text from the "Hospital-acquired infection" entry on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital-acquired_infection"

References

  1. ^ "Retraction: Metagenomic Human Repiratory Air in a Hospital Environment".

- TeeVeeed (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

wow, this is about the fifth time this has happened, including a textbook! Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I noted this as a "backwards copy". Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hospital-acquired infection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prevalence update

[edit]

There is now a global-scale systematic review available: PMID 31215326 LeadSongDog come howl! 21:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio

[edit]

This paper https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-020-09750-0 (full paper with paywall https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s12109-020-09750-0?sharing_token=-Kdjc4Vwp59b3KZ6uHgDave4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY4zL2q_VjfJmW6twqPCXJPXlqW5_aE7qZ7HWX3KWOmI1rC75-j9MEV2tAZ8OTJF9lboVHukkDv5VdfLmO0zcnoLBg8bHnV0lkHKl54JJc8mrfhI3-WubEpLDKrsjp-W8dg%3D) mentioned plagiarism in this article,
copy paste i.e from https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/27/business/27germ.html
It was confirmed with this tool: https://copyvios.toolforge.org
LaMèreVeille (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 September 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. This discussion did not have enough participation or strong enough consensus to reverse the previous discussion leading to the current title. An alternative was suggested but did not receive any replies. If a move is still desired, another discussion may be attempted later. (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 15:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hospital-acquired infection → Nosocomial infection – The current title ignores non-hospital related infections. Nosocomial infections also include veterinary practices. Nosocomial infection is also more common on Google Scholar Traumnovelle (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hospital-acquired_infection&oldid=1249165509"