Literature review
It is evident that preventable diseases infections in hospitals have posed a threat to medical practitioners in both developed and developing countries. However, in the developing countries the rate of getting infections in medical facilities has been enormous because of lack of proper antiseptic scrubbing solutions. In places where there are solutions, they do not meet the required standards to alleviate these preventable diseases acquired through poor patients handling practices. Topics on prevention of infectious disease through proper use of antiseptic solution in hospitals have attracted attention of many researchers, academicians, medical professionals, and health organizations to study the best way to address this issue. As a result, different antiseptic scrubbing solutions have developed, whereas the knowledge on preventing the infectious diseases has tremendously expanded. Different researchers and writers have expressed divided opinions on this topic.
According to Warrell, Cox and Firth (2003), the existence of hospital acquired or nosocomial infections are prevalent to both patients and the medical practioners. As a result, they suggested an epidemiological tool to assist in establishing the infections soon after admission of patients. It is possible to study these infections within 48 hours after admission based on the manifestation of the infections on the patient. However, different [patients are likely to manifest these sign at different time given that some diseases such as hospital acquired Hepatitis B camouflages signs for infection even for some months after the readmission of the patient. Infections can be in various categories, for example, the iatrogenic infections acquisition as a direct consequence of a therapeutic intervention such as insertion of a urinary catheter (Block, 2001; Wiener-Well et al., 2011; Russell, & William, 1999).
On the opther hand, there is optimistic infections in which organisms attack people with impaired defenses. Endogenous or autogenous infections emanates from the patient’s normal flora, whereas exogenous infections result from exogenous infections, an attempt for this differentiation is necessary because of important implications for control it have. Therefore, there should be proper antiseptic scrubbing solutions and process to avoid the spreading of these infections.
Damani and Emmerson (2003), atributed the increased rates and nature of these infections from the rapid changes in health care provision in hospitals. They criticized the tendencies of doctors to make early discharges, especially the surgical patients who might have contributed to an under assessment of the burden of nosocomial infection. Study by Clark, Richard, Robert and Barry (2004), revealed a need to identify and distinction of isolates causing nosocomial infections to make a close comparison of the microorganisms. Invasive multi-resistant organisms, such as MRSA, often require infection control measures to prevent their spread, and so minimize the use of expensive, sometimes toxic, antibiotics required for their prophylaxis and treatment.
A publication by Larson (1995), for the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. (APIC) presented a trend in which nosocomial infections have been eradicated by hand washing and hand antisepsis in the hospitals. The report revealed that hand washing among the patients and the hospitals protected them from the infection hence reducing morbidity and mortality rates. However, the study questioned the feasibility of hand washing as a preventive measure to nosocomial infections. Therefore, they suggested use of antimicrobial products for situations of high risks. Questions facing the ICPs in various hospitals remain in a dilemma of when to use these antiseptics, and exactly which among them is the best. As a result, APIC and other health agencies have indulged into publications of “guidelines, regulations, and standards regarding the topical use of antimicrobials for skin hygiene” (Larson, 1995, p. 1). In addition, this guideline provided information on the description of hand skin, types of antimicrobial agents that are applicable to hand scrubbing, methods used in surgical scrubbing, and protective measures (Garner & Favero, 1985).
According to Ayliffe, Lowbury, Geddes and Williams (1992), soap washing is not applicable in incidents. Therefore, the following considerations define if hand washing can be significant. To start with, there should be consideration of the intensity of contact among the patients. The extent of probable contamination emanating from contact between the patient and the doctor. In addition, the susceptibility of the patient to the infection during that contact, and the kind of procedure used during the doctor patient contact.
In the article Infection Prevention Guidelines, different researchers have researched progressively on the cause of surgical site infections for more than 100 years now. Surprisingly, postoperative wound infections contributed much into the nosocomial infections. Unfortunately, microorganisms from unsterilized hands of a surgeon were likely to cause infections during this surgery process (Galle, Homesley, & Rhyne, 1978), but this was not always the causative agent.
According to Larson (2001), to curb instances on infection during the surgical practice must consider three steps. In that order, a preoperative surgical antisepsis must follow three basic processes. First, there should be observation of hand hygiene, and wearing of gloves as well as application of antiseptic agent by the surgical team to block any transmission of infection to the surgical site. Second process occurs after a successive hand hygiene process. There is application of Waterless, alcohol-based antiseptic hand rub to minimize the bacteria and fungi population. Studies reveled that surgical antisepsis had ability to reduce the bacterial and fungal infections in wounds during surgeries. Doctors should capitalize it in the attempts to eradicate the nosocomial infection (Platt & Bucknall, 1984). However, this was not the only way to fight infections hence; there should be usage of other means.
References
Ayliffe, G.A.J., Lowbury, E.J.L., Geddes, A.M., Williams, J.D. (Eds.). (1992). Control of hospital infections: a practical handbook (3rd ed). London: Chapman and Hall.
Block, S.S. (2001). Disinfection, sterilization, and preservation (5th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Clark, R., Richard, P., Robert, W., & Barry, B. (2004). Nosocomial Infection in the NICU: A Medical Complication or Unavoidable Problem? Journal of Perinatology, 24, 382–388.
Damani, N., & Emmerson, A.M. (2003). Manual of Infection Control Procedures (2nd ed.). California: Cambridge University Press.
Galle, P.C., Homesley, H.D., & Rhyne, A.L. (1978). Reassessment of the surgical scrub. Surg Gynecol Obstet., 147(2), 215–218.
Garner, J.S., & Favero, M.S. (1986). CDC guideline for hand washing and hospital environmental control, 1985. Infect Control, 7, 231-5.
Larson, E.L. (1995). APIC Guideline for Hand Washing and Hand Antisepsis in Health- Care Settings. Web.
Larson, E.L. (2001). Comparison of different regimens for surgical hand preparation. AORN J., 73(2), 412–432.
Platt, J., & Bucknall, R.A. (1984). An experimental evaluation of antiseptic Wound irrigation. J Hosp Infect., 5(2), 181–188.
Russell, D., & William, B.H. (1999). Principles and practice of disinfection, preservation, and sterilization. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Warrell, D.A., Cox, T.M., & Firth, J.D. (2003). Oxford textbook of medicine (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wiener-Well, Y., Galuty, M., Rudensky, B., Schlesinger, Y., Attias, D., & Yinnon, A.M. (2011). Nursing and physician attire as possible source of nosocomial infections. American Journal of Infection Control, 39 (7), 555-559.