The Silent Killer: Hospital Infections Claim More Victims

[Guest guest]

The Silent Killer: Hospital Infections Claim More Victims

By Shaw

Dec 13, 2004, 12:24

Email this article

Printer friendly page

The Silent Killer: Hospital Infections Claim More Victims

by Shaw

(HealthNewsDigest.com)...Hospitals are supposed to treat illnesses, not

breed them. But the epidemic of infections - an easily preventable problem,

I might add - threatens to destroy the integrity of our most acclaimed

healthcare facilities. The press reports about this outbreak are legion:

overworked medical personnel and sick patients, worsened by negligible

hygiene standards, create an environment that is a breeding ground for

bacterial infections. The Centers for Disease Control estimate that as many

as 2 million of these infections occur annually, and many sources put the

number of deaths caused by them at about 100,000 per year -- just in the US.

In Canada and the United Kingdom these issues repeatedly make headlines, and

more often than here. The death count continues to rise, despite the

existence of various options that would affordably remedy this scandal.

Instead, so-called prestige hospitals leverage their name recognition as a

popular (but wholly ineffective) means of sidestepping this public health

concern. Translation: infections do not discriminate based upon the

individual rankings of - or the Ivy League credentials enjoyed by - famous

research hospitals; and winning this battle will require personal will and

scientific fact.

Indeed, patients often mistakenly use the words " clean, " " disinfected, " and

" sterile " interchangeably, universally assigning respect to hospitals that

undoubtedly distinguish among these categories. That is, differences exist

between a medical instrument that is clean, which is absolutely necessary,

and an object that is sterile, which is a certifiably higher standard of

care. Or, put another way, all medical devices may be clean but not all

medical instruments are sterile. And therein lies one of the root causes

responsible for the exponential rise in hospital infections.

At my own company, Interscan Corp. (www.gasdetection.com), I often remind

employees and friends - particularly those who plan to undergo elective

surgery, or those for whom more immediate medical attention is an obvious

priority - that, to state things bluntly, standards matter. That medical

instruments, including endoscopic devices, should always be sterilized

(rather than merely high-level disinfected) -- lest some otherwise healthy

patient become another statistic in the long catalogue of hospital errors.

Which, of course, elicits that most logical question: How should hospitals

sterilize medical equipment?

The most reliable method for the effective sterilization of medical

instruments that cannot take the heat of steam is ethylene oxide (EtO). EtO

is a proven and well-documented sterilant, whose reputation has suffered

unjustly in past years. So-called replacement methods have proliferated,

with results that have not always lived up to the hype. Cutting costs is a

high priority in hospitals, and the siren song of more loads or procedures

per day has its allure. Fortunately, recent developments in " EtO

acceleration " technology now allow two cycles per day. Virtually any gas

sterilizer can be retrofitted - at reasonable cost - to accommodate this

breakthrough. How many nonsocomial infections could be prevented if we

returned to sterilization, rather than merely high-level disinfection?

So what should patients know about these issues, and what measures can

hospitals adopt to realistically combat this problem? As emphasized

previously, people need to demand the highest yet most practical standards

from members of the medical community. To this extent, and in conjunction

with procedures already used by several prominent institutions, EtO should

become a primary agent against the rise of bacterial infections. There may

be some minor objections to the widespread use of EtO, which concern issues

of cost or long-term monitoring of this gas. These protests - no matter how

sincerely delivered - are just that, minor (and thus insignificant)

complaints. We should never allow money to be the final arbiter between life

and death. At the same time, easy-to-follow, if often ignored, standards in

aseptic technique and basic cleanliness must be implemented and enforced.

In the future, pressure from multiple sources will force hospitals to

seriously fight the rise of bacterial infections. The long-term benefits,

for patients and doctors alike, are substantial: higher survival rates,

quicker recovery times, increased admiration for hospitals within their

respective communities, and the standardization of real infection control.

No one would deny these rewards, and no one should obstruct this movement.

Hospital infections are silent killers that we can all defeat. We can truly

end this battle, but it requires the wholesale adoption of standards that

guarantee verifiable results. EtO is a big part of the solution, and it has

been here all along! We can further monitor its efficacy with sophisticated

analytical tools, hardware many medical professionals already use. But we

must never allow petty considerations to dictate profound outcomes; our

lives are too precious for such discussion. Let us win this great fight.

www.gasdetection.com

www.HealthNewsDigest.com

[Guest guest]

The Silent Killer: Hospital Infections Claim More Victims

By Shaw

Dec 13, 2004, 12:24

Email this article

Printer friendly page

The Silent Killer: Hospital Infections Claim More Victims

by Shaw

(HealthNewsDigest.com)...Hospitals are supposed to treat illnesses, not

breed them. But the epidemic of infections - an easily preventable problem,

I might add - threatens to destroy the integrity of our most acclaimed

healthcare facilities. The press reports about this outbreak are legion:

overworked medical personnel and sick patients, worsened by negligible

hygiene standards, create an environment that is a breeding ground for

bacterial infections. The Centers for Disease Control estimate that as many

as 2 million of these infections occur annually, and many sources put the

number of deaths caused by them at about 100,000 per year -- just in the US.

In Canada and the United Kingdom these issues repeatedly make headlines, and

more often than here. The death count continues to rise, despite the

existence of various options that would affordably remedy this scandal.

Instead, so-called prestige hospitals leverage their name recognition as a

popular (but wholly ineffective) means of sidestepping this public health

concern. Translation: infections do not discriminate based upon the

individual rankings of - or the Ivy League credentials enjoyed by - famous

research hospitals; and winning this battle will require personal will and

scientific fact.

Indeed, patients often mistakenly use the words " clean, " " disinfected, " and

" sterile " interchangeably, universally assigning respect to hospitals that

undoubtedly distinguish among these categories. That is, differences exist

between a medical instrument that is clean, which is absolutely necessary,

and an object that is sterile, which is a certifiably higher standard of

care. Or, put another way, all medical devices may be clean but not all

medical instruments are sterile. And therein lies one of the root causes

responsible for the exponential rise in hospital infections.

At my own company, Interscan Corp. (www.gasdetection.com), I often remind

employees and friends - particularly those who plan to undergo elective

surgery, or those for whom more immediate medical attention is an obvious

priority - that, to state things bluntly, standards matter. That medical

instruments, including endoscopic devices, should always be sterilized

(rather than merely high-level disinfected) -- lest some otherwise healthy

patient become another statistic in the long catalogue of hospital errors.

Which, of course, elicits that most logical question: How should hospitals

sterilize medical equipment?

The most reliable method for the effective sterilization of medical

instruments that cannot take the heat of steam is ethylene oxide (EtO). EtO

is a proven and well-documented sterilant, whose reputation has suffered

unjustly in past years. So-called replacement methods have proliferated,

with results that have not always lived up to the hype. Cutting costs is a

high priority in hospitals, and the siren song of more loads or procedures

per day has its allure. Fortunately, recent developments in " EtO

acceleration " technology now allow two cycles per day. Virtually any gas

sterilizer can be retrofitted - at reasonable cost - to accommodate this

breakthrough. How many nonsocomial infections could be prevented if we

returned to sterilization, rather than merely high-level disinfection?

So what should patients know about these issues, and what measures can

hospitals adopt to realistically combat this problem? As emphasized

previously, people need to demand the highest yet most practical standards

from members of the medical community. To this extent, and in conjunction

with procedures already used by several prominent institutions, EtO should

become a primary agent against the rise of bacterial infections. There may

be some minor objections to the widespread use of EtO, which concern issues

of cost or long-term monitoring of this gas. These protests - no matter how

sincerely delivered - are just that, minor (and thus insignificant)

complaints. We should never allow money to be the final arbiter between life

and death. At the same time, easy-to-follow, if often ignored, standards in

aseptic technique and basic cleanliness must be implemented and enforced.

In the future, pressure from multiple sources will force hospitals to

seriously fight the rise of bacterial infections. The long-term benefits,

for patients and doctors alike, are substantial: higher survival rates,

quicker recovery times, increased admiration for hospitals within their

respective communities, and the standardization of real infection control.

No one would deny these rewards, and no one should obstruct this movement.

Hospital infections are silent killers that we can all defeat. We can truly

end this battle, but it requires the wholesale adoption of standards that

guarantee verifiable results. EtO is a big part of the solution, and it has

been here all along! We can further monitor its efficacy with sophisticated

analytical tools, hardware many medical professionals already use. But we

must never allow petty considerations to dictate profound outcomes; our

lives are too precious for such discussion. Let us win this great fight.

www.gasdetection.com

www.HealthNewsDigest.com

[Guest guest]

The Silent Killer: Hospital Infections Claim More Victims

By Shaw

Dec 13, 2004, 12:24

Email this article

Printer friendly page

The Silent Killer: Hospital Infections Claim More Victims

by Shaw

(HealthNewsDigest.com)...Hospitals are supposed to treat illnesses, not

breed them. But the epidemic of infections - an easily preventable problem,

I might add - threatens to destroy the integrity of our most acclaimed

healthcare facilities. The press reports about this outbreak are legion:

overworked medical personnel and sick patients, worsened by negligible

hygiene standards, create an environment that is a breeding ground for

bacterial infections. The Centers for Disease Control estimate that as many

as 2 million of these infections occur annually, and many sources put the

number of deaths caused by them at about 100,000 per year -- just in the US.

In Canada and the United Kingdom these issues repeatedly make headlines, and

more often than here. The death count continues to rise, despite the

existence of various options that would affordably remedy this scandal.

Instead, so-called prestige hospitals leverage their name recognition as a

popular (but wholly ineffective) means of sidestepping this public health

concern. Translation: infections do not discriminate based upon the

individual rankings of - or the Ivy League credentials enjoyed by - famous

research hospitals; and winning this battle will require personal will and

scientific fact.

Indeed, patients often mistakenly use the words " clean, " " disinfected, " and

" sterile " interchangeably, universally assigning respect to hospitals that

undoubtedly distinguish among these categories. That is, differences exist

between a medical instrument that is clean, which is absolutely necessary,

and an object that is sterile, which is a certifiably higher standard of

care. Or, put another way, all medical devices may be clean but not all

medical instruments are sterile. And therein lies one of the root causes

responsible for the exponential rise in hospital infections.

At my own company, Interscan Corp. (www.gasdetection.com), I often remind

employees and friends - particularly those who plan to undergo elective

surgery, or those for whom more immediate medical attention is an obvious

priority - that, to state things bluntly, standards matter. That medical

instruments, including endoscopic devices, should always be sterilized

(rather than merely high-level disinfected) -- lest some otherwise healthy

patient become another statistic in the long catalogue of hospital errors.

Which, of course, elicits that most logical question: How should hospitals

sterilize medical equipment?

The most reliable method for the effective sterilization of medical

instruments that cannot take the heat of steam is ethylene oxide (EtO). EtO

is a proven and well-documented sterilant, whose reputation has suffered

unjustly in past years. So-called replacement methods have proliferated,

with results that have not always lived up to the hype. Cutting costs is a

high priority in hospitals, and the siren song of more loads or procedures

per day has its allure. Fortunately, recent developments in " EtO

acceleration " technology now allow two cycles per day. Virtually any gas

sterilizer can be retrofitted - at reasonable cost - to accommodate this

breakthrough. How many nonsocomial infections could be prevented if we

returned to sterilization, rather than merely high-level disinfection?

So what should patients know about these issues, and what measures can

hospitals adopt to realistically combat this problem? As emphasized

previously, people need to demand the highest yet most practical standards

from members of the medical community. To this extent, and in conjunction

with procedures already used by several prominent institutions, EtO should

become a primary agent against the rise of bacterial infections. There may

be some minor objections to the widespread use of EtO, which concern issues

of cost or long-term monitoring of this gas. These protests - no matter how

sincerely delivered - are just that, minor (and thus insignificant)

complaints. We should never allow money to be the final arbiter between life

and death. At the same time, easy-to-follow, if often ignored, standards in

aseptic technique and basic cleanliness must be implemented and enforced.

In the future, pressure from multiple sources will force hospitals to

seriously fight the rise of bacterial infections. The long-term benefits,

for patients and doctors alike, are substantial: higher survival rates,

quicker recovery times, increased admiration for hospitals within their

respective communities, and the standardization of real infection control.

No one would deny these rewards, and no one should obstruct this movement.

Hospital infections are silent killers that we can all defeat. We can truly

end this battle, but it requires the wholesale adoption of standards that

guarantee verifiable results. EtO is a big part of the solution, and it has

been here all along! We can further monitor its efficacy with sophisticated

analytical tools, hardware many medical professionals already use. But we

must never allow petty considerations to dictate profound outcomes; our

lives are too precious for such discussion. Let us win this great fight.

www.gasdetection.com

www.HealthNewsDigest.com

[Guest guest]

The Silent Killer: Hospital Infections Claim More Victims

By Shaw

Dec 13, 2004, 12:24

Email this article

Printer friendly page

The Silent Killer: Hospital Infections Claim More Victims

by Shaw

(HealthNewsDigest.com)...Hospitals are supposed to treat illnesses, not

breed them. But the epidemic of infections - an easily preventable problem,

I might add - threatens to destroy the integrity of our most acclaimed

healthcare facilities. The press reports about this outbreak are legion:

overworked medical personnel and sick patients, worsened by negligible

hygiene standards, create an environment that is a breeding ground for

bacterial infections. The Centers for Disease Control estimate that as many

as 2 million of these infections occur annually, and many sources put the

number of deaths caused by them at about 100,000 per year -- just in the US.

In Canada and the United Kingdom these issues repeatedly make headlines, and

more often than here. The death count continues to rise, despite the

existence of various options that would affordably remedy this scandal.

Instead, so-called prestige hospitals leverage their name recognition as a

popular (but wholly ineffective) means of sidestepping this public health

concern. Translation: infections do not discriminate based upon the

individual rankings of - or the Ivy League credentials enjoyed by - famous

research hospitals; and winning this battle will require personal will and

scientific fact.

Indeed, patients often mistakenly use the words " clean, " " disinfected, " and

" sterile " interchangeably, universally assigning respect to hospitals that

undoubtedly distinguish among these categories. That is, differences exist

between a medical instrument that is clean, which is absolutely necessary,

and an object that is sterile, which is a certifiably higher standard of

care. Or, put another way, all medical devices may be clean but not all

medical instruments are sterile. And therein lies one of the root causes

responsible for the exponential rise in hospital infections.

At my own company, Interscan Corp. (www.gasdetection.com), I often remind

employees and friends - particularly those who plan to undergo elective

surgery, or those for whom more immediate medical attention is an obvious

priority - that, to state things bluntly, standards matter. That medical

instruments, including endoscopic devices, should always be sterilized

(rather than merely high-level disinfected) -- lest some otherwise healthy

patient become another statistic in the long catalogue of hospital errors.

Which, of course, elicits that most logical question: How should hospitals

sterilize medical equipment?

The most reliable method for the effective sterilization of medical

instruments that cannot take the heat of steam is ethylene oxide (EtO). EtO

is a proven and well-documented sterilant, whose reputation has suffered

unjustly in past years. So-called replacement methods have proliferated,

with results that have not always lived up to the hype. Cutting costs is a

high priority in hospitals, and the siren song of more loads or procedures

per day has its allure. Fortunately, recent developments in " EtO

acceleration " technology now allow two cycles per day. Virtually any gas

sterilizer can be retrofitted - at reasonable cost - to accommodate this

breakthrough. How many nonsocomial infections could be prevented if we

returned to sterilization, rather than merely high-level disinfection?

So what should patients know about these issues, and what measures can

hospitals adopt to realistically combat this problem? As emphasized

previously, people need to demand the highest yet most practical standards

from members of the medical community. To this extent, and in conjunction

with procedures already used by several prominent institutions, EtO should

become a primary agent against the rise of bacterial infections. There may

be some minor objections to the widespread use of EtO, which concern issues

of cost or long-term monitoring of this gas. These protests - no matter how

sincerely delivered - are just that, minor (and thus insignificant)

complaints. We should never allow money to be the final arbiter between life

and death. At the same time, easy-to-follow, if often ignored, standards in

aseptic technique and basic cleanliness must be implemented and enforced.

In the future, pressure from multiple sources will force hospitals to

seriously fight the rise of bacterial infections. The long-term benefits,

for patients and doctors alike, are substantial: higher survival rates,

quicker recovery times, increased admiration for hospitals within their

respective communities, and the standardization of real infection control.

No one would deny these rewards, and no one should obstruct this movement.

Hospital infections are silent killers that we can all defeat. We can truly

end this battle, but it requires the wholesale adoption of standards that

guarantee verifiable results. EtO is a big part of the solution, and it has

been here all along! We can further monitor its efficacy with sophisticated

analytical tools, hardware many medical professionals already use. But we

must never allow petty considerations to dictate profound outcomes; our

lives are too precious for such discussion. Let us win this great fight.

www.gasdetection.com

www.HealthNewsDigest.com