Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Hosp Infect ; 119: 170-174, 2022 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34752802

RESUMO

This article presents and compares coronavirus disease 2019 attack rates for infection, hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death in healthcare workers (HCWs) and non-HCWs in nine European countries from 31st January 2020 to 13th January 2021. Adjusted attack rate ratios in HCWs (compared with non-HCWs) were 3.0 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2-4.0] for infection, 1.8 (95% CI 1.2-2.7) for hospitalization, 1.9 (95% CI 1.1-3.2) for ICU admission and 0.9 (95% CI 0.4-2.0) for death. Among hospitalized cases, the case-fatality ratio was 1.8% in HCWs and 8.2% in non-HCWs. Differences may be due to better/earlier access to treatment, differential underascertainment and the healthy worker effect.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Pessoal de Saúde , Hospitalização , Humanos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , SARS-CoV-2
2.
J Hosp Infect ; 108: 94-103, 2021 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33271215

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Strengthening infection prevention and control (IPC) is essential to combat healthcare-associated infections, antimicrobial resistance, and to prevent and respond to outbreaks. AIM: To assess national IPC programmes worldwide according to the World Health Organization (WHO) IPC core components. METHODS: Between June 1st, 2017 and November 30th, 2018, a multi-country, cross-sectional study was conducted, based on semi-structured interviews with national IPC focal points of countries that pledged to the WHO 'Clean Care is Safer Care' challenge. Results and differences between regions and national income levels were summarized using descriptive statistics. FINDINGS: Eighty-eight of 103 (85.4%) eligible countries participated; 22.7% were low-income, 19.3% lower-middle-income, 23.9% upper-middle-income, and 34.1% high-income economies. A national IPC programme existed in 62.5%, but only 26.1% had a dedicated budget. National guidelines were available in 67.0%, but only 36.4% and 21.6% of countries had an implementation strategy and evaluated compliance with guidelines, respectively. Undergraduate IPC curriculum and in-service and postgraduate IPC training were reported by 35.2%, 54.5%, and 42% of countries, respectively. Healthcare-associated infection surveillance was reported by 46.6% of countries, with significant differences ranging from 83.3% (high-income) to zero (low-income) (P < 0.001); monitoring and feedback of IPC indicators was reported by 65.9%. Only 12.5% of countries had all core components in place. CONCLUSION: Most countries have IPC programme and guidelines, but many less have invested adequate resources and translated them in implementation and monitoring, particularly in low-income countries. Leadership support at the national and global level is needed to achieve implementation of the core components in all countries.


Assuntos
Infecção Hospitalar/prevenção & controle , Controle de Infecções , Estudos Transversais , Monitoramento Epidemiológico , Humanos , Internacionalidade , Organização Mundial da Saúde
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...