预防医疗保健相关感染：住院医师和主治医生需要在高级隔离预防措施方面接受更好的培训。

Preventing healthcare-associated infections: Residents and attending physicians need better training in advanced isolation precautions.

作者信息

Moriceau G, Gagneux-Brunon A, Gagnaire J, Mariat C, Lucht F, Berthelot P, Botelho-Nevers E

机构信息

Service de maladies infectieuses et tropicales, CHU de Saint-Étienne, 42055 Saint-Étienne cedex 02, France.

Service de maladies infectieuses et tropicales, CHU de Saint-Étienne, 42055 Saint-Étienne cedex 02, France; GIMAP (Groupe immunité des muqueuses et agents pathogènes) EA 3064, université de Lyon, 42023 Saint-Étienne, France.

出版信息

Med Mal Infect. 2016 Feb;46(1):14-9. doi: 10.1016/j.medmal.2015.11.001. Epub 2015 Dec 2.

DOI:10.1016/j.medmal.2015.11.001

PMID:26654322

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Compliance with advanced isolation precautions (IPs) is crucial to reduce healthcare-associated infections. Our aim was to evaluate physician's knowledge and attitudes related to IPs.

METHODS

An online questionnaire was sent to our hospital's physicians (attending physicians and residents).

RESULTS

A total of 111 physicians completed the questionnaire: 60 (54%) attending physicians and 51 (46%) residents. Overall, respondents had a poor knowledge of the three types of IPs, especially droplet precautions (13 correct answers, 11.7%) and airborne IP (17 correct answers, 16.3%). We observed a statistically significant difference between attending physicians and residents for the type of IP to prescribe to a patient presenting with multidrug-resistant urinary infection: 44 residents (86%) gave the correct answer vs 42 attending physicians (70%), P=0.04. Physicians (both residents and attending physicians) who were already familiar with the dedicated webpage available on the hospital's intranet (n=40) obtained a score of 4.75/10 (±2.0) compared with 4.03/10 (±1.7) for those who had never used that tool (n=71). The difference was statistically significant (P=0.04). The average score for both residents and attending physicians was 4.3/10 (±1.9, range: 1-10). Attending physicians' and residents' scores were 4/10 (±1.8) and 4.5/10 (±1.9), respectively, but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.14).

CONCLUSION

Physicians' knowledge of IPs was insufficient. Improvement in medical training is needed. The use of a dedicated webpage on hospitals' intranet could help physicians acquire better knowledge on that matter.

摘要

目的

遵守高级隔离预防措施（IPs）对于减少医疗相关感染至关重要。我们的目的是评估医生对隔离预防措施的知识和态度。

方法

向我院医生（主治医师和住院医师）发送了一份在线问卷。

结果

共有111名医生完成了问卷：60名（54%）主治医师和51名（46%）住院医师。总体而言，受访者对三种类型的隔离预防措施了解不足，尤其是飞沫预防措施（13个正确答案，11.7%）和空气传播隔离预防措施（17个正确答案，16.3%）。对于多重耐药性尿路感染患者应采取的隔离预防措施类型，我们观察到主治医师和住院医师之间存在统计学上的显著差异：44名住院医师（86%）给出了正确答案，而42名主治医师（70%）给出了正确答案，P = 0.04。已经熟悉医院内联网上专用网页的医生（包括住院医师和主治医师，n = 40）的得分为4.75/10（±2.0），而从未使用过该工具的医生（n = 71）的得分为4.03/10（±1.7）。差异具有统计学意义（P = 0.04）。住院医师和主治医师的平均得分均为4.3/10（±1.9，范围：1 - 10）。主治医师和住院医师的得分分别为4/10（±1.8）和4.5/10（±1.9），但差异无统计学意义（P = 0.14）。