WOCN Society Position Paper: Avoidable Versus Unavoidable Pressure Ulcers/Injuries.

The issue of whether pressure injuries are avoidable or preventable has been and continues to be an issue of great debate and discussion for many years, and it has significant legal and regulatory implications related to prevention of wounds due to pressure. The following position paper outlines the position of the Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society (WOCN) on avoidable versus unavoidable pressure injuries. It includes the following information: statement of position, purpose/rationale for the position, definitions of avoidable versus unavoidable pressure injuries, alternative definitions, historical overview, supportive statements from expert opinion and research in the literature, and recommendations for research.

Distribution of mef(A) in gram-positive bacteria from healthy Portuguese children.

We screened 615 gram-positive isolates from 150 healthy children for the presence of the erm(A), erm(B), erm(C), erm(F), and mef(A) genes. The mef(A) genes were found in 20 (9%) of the macrolide-resistant isolates, including Enterococcus spp., Staphylococcus spp., and Streptococcus spp. Sixteen of the 19 gram-positive isolates tested carried the other seven open reading frames (ORFs) described in Tn1207.1, a genetic element carrying mef(A) recently described in Streptococcus pneumoniae. The three Staphylococcus spp. did not carry orf1 to orf3. A gram-negative Acinetobacter junii isolate also carried the other seven ORFs described in Tn1207.1. A Staphylococcus aureus isolate, a Streptococcus intermedius isolate, a Streptococcus sp. isolate, and an Enterococcus sp. isolate had their mef(A) genes completely sequenced and showed 100% identity at the DNA and amino acid levels with the mef(A) gene from S. pneumoniae.

How xylitol-containing products affect cariogenic bacteria.

BACKGROUND: The authors examined the effect of xylitol, a naturally occurring sweetener, on levels of Streptococcus mutans and S. sobrinus. They also investigated xylitol's mechanism of action. METHODS: The authors compared cariogenic bacteria levels before and after exposure to xylitol products in children and adults. In the first study, 187 children received xylitol-containing snacks in school for four weeks. In the second study, two adults received xylitol candy for four weeks. Unstimulated saliva samples were taken from all subjects. Gingival samples also were taken from the adults. The authors plated the samples on selective microbiological media. Individual isolates were plated on media with varying concentrations of xylitol, and were identified using specific DNA probes. Genetic relatedness was determined via pulse-field gel electrophoresis. RESULTS: The children's salivary S. mutans levels remained stable before and after xylitol exposure. Further analysis of the S. mutans isolates was conducted for seven children. Bacteria from five of these children grew with 10 percent or less xylitol at baseline, while the bacteria from all seven children grew with 15 percent xylitol after exposure to the xylitol-containing snacks, suggesting that the S. mutans increased in tolerance to xylitol during exposure. Six children had isolates with the same genotype at both time points. S. mutans and S. sobrinus levels were reduced in one of the adults as a result of xylitol exposure, and the bacterial isolates became more xylitol tolerant. In the second adult, S. mutans and S. sobrinus levels increased, while the subject maintained the same proportion of susceptible and tolerant strains as that at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, consumption of xylitol-containing snacks and candy did not reduce S. mutans levels. However, bacteria from five children and one adult became more xylitol tolerant. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: These results provide a basis on which xylitol-containing products can be recommended and xylitol's mechanism of action can be explained to patients.