Savage Emma J, Nash Stephen, McGuinness Anne, Crowcroft Natasha S
Immunisation Department, Centre for Infections, Health Protection Agency, 61 Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5EQ, UK.
Emerg Med J. 2007 Jun;24(6):417-21. doi: 10.1136/emj.2007.047399.
To assess the knowledge and current tetanus prevention practices of various staff members in accident and emergency (A&E) departments.
DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A structured questionnaire containing 16 questions on tetanus guidance, anti-tetanus practice, vaccination preparations and information on the population served by the department was sent to medical and nursing staff in A&E departments across England.
366 completed questionnaires from 67 hospitals were returned. 48.9% of the questionnaires were completed by the medical staff and 39.9% by the nursing staff at various grades. 75% of respondents said that their department had a local tetanus guideline, but only 29% stated that the tetanus guidelines were always followed. 31.4% of respondents said that injecting drug users were managed as a high-risk group in their department. Many respondents did not follow the national policy; they tended to err on the side of caution when it came to defining and treating tetanus-prone wounds, with 22.1% stating that they would consider any wound tetanus prone. Contrary to current Department of Health guidelines, 46.2% of respondents said that they would give a booster dose if the fifth dose had been given >10 years ago.
There are clear differences between the recommended guidelines for tetanus prevention and current practice in A&E departments. The changes announced in 2002 do not seem to have been widely implemented. As a result, the apparent success of the national tetanus vaccination programme may be the result of more cautious clinical practice than would be expected from the UK policy. If national recommendations for tetanus are implemented in clinical practice, then the impact on control of the disease should be monitored closely.
评估急症室各工作人员对破伤风预防的知识及当前破伤风预防措施。
设计、地点与参与者:向英格兰各地急症室的医护人员发送了一份包含16个关于破伤风指南、破伤风预防措施、疫苗接种准备情况及该科室服务人群信息问题的结构化问卷。
共收回来自67家医院的366份完整问卷。48.9%的问卷由医务人员填写,39.9%由各级护理人员填写。75%的受访者表示其科室有当地破伤风指南,但只有29%的人表示始终遵循破伤风指南。31.4%的受访者称其科室将注射吸毒者作为高危人群管理。许多受访者未遵循国家政策;在定义和处理易患破伤风伤口时,他们往往倾向于谨慎行事,22.1%的人表示会将任何伤口都视为易患破伤风伤口。与当前卫生部指南相反,46.2%的受访者表示,如果第五剂破伤风疫苗接种时间超过10年,他们会给予加强剂量。
破伤风预防的推荐指南与急症室当前的做法存在明显差异。2002年宣布的变化似乎并未得到广泛实施。因此,国家破伤风疫苗接种计划表面上的成功可能是由于临床实践比英国政策预期的更为谨慎。如果在临床实践中实施国家破伤风预防建议,那么应密切监测其对疾病控制的影响。