JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition · 2013
A comparison of the surface contaminants of handwritten recycled and printed electronic parenteral nutrition prescriptions and their transfer to bag surfaces during delivery to hospital wards.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Austin Peter David, Hand Kieran Sean, Elia Marinos
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Handwritten recycled paper prescription for parenteral nutrition (PN) may become a concentrated source of viable contaminants, including pathogens. This study examined the effect of using fresh printouts of electronic prescriptions on these contaminants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cellulose sponge stick swabs with neutralizing buffer were used to sample the surfaces of PN prescriptions (n = 32 handwritten recycled; n = 32 printed electronic) on arrival to the pharmacy or following printing and PN prescriptions and bags packaged together during delivery (n = 38 handwritten recycled; n = 34 printed electronic) on arrival to hospital wards. Different media plates and standard microbiological procedures identified the type and number of contaminants.
RESULTS: Staphylococcus aureus, fungi, and mold were infrequent contaminants. nonspecific aerobes more frequently contaminated handwritten recycled than printed electronic prescriptions (into pharmacy, 94% vs 44%, fisher exact test P .001; onto wards, 76% vs 50%, p = .028), with greater numbers of colony-forming units (CFU) (into pharmacy, median 130 [interquartile range (IQR), 65260] VS 0 [075], Mann-Whitney U test, P .001; onto wards, median 120 [15320] vs 10 [040], P = .001). packaging with handwritten recycled prescriptions led to more frequent nonspecific aerobic bag surface contamination (63% vs 41%, fisher exact test P = .097), with greater numbers of CFU (median 40 [IQR, 080] VS 0 [040], Mann-Whitney U test, P = .036).
CONCLUSION: The use of printed electronic PN prescriptions can reduce microbial loads for contamination of surfaces that compromises aseptic techniques.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cellulose sponge stick swabs with neutralizing buffer were used to sample the surfaces of PN prescriptions (n = 32 handwritten recycled; n = 32 printed electronic) on arrival to the pharmacy or following printing and PN prescriptions and bags packaged together during delivery (n = 38 handwritten recycled; n = 34 printed electronic) on arrival to hospital wards. Different media plates and standard microbiological procedures identified the type and number of contaminants.
RESULTS: Staphylococcus aureus, fungi, and mold were infrequent contaminants. nonspecific aerobes more frequently contaminated handwritten recycled than printed electronic prescriptions (into pharmacy, 94% vs 44%, fisher exact test P .001; onto wards, 76% vs 50%, p = .028), with greater numbers of colony-forming units (CFU) (into pharmacy, median 130 [interquartile range (IQR), 65260] VS 0 [075], Mann-Whitney U test, P .001; onto wards, median 120 [15320] vs 10 [040], P = .001). packaging with handwritten recycled prescriptions led to more frequent nonspecific aerobic bag surface contamination (63% vs 41%, fisher exact test P = .097), with greater numbers of CFU (median 40 [IQR, 080] VS 0 [040], Mann-Whitney U test, P = .036).
CONCLUSION: The use of printed electronic PN prescriptions can reduce microbial loads for contamination of surfaces that compromises aseptic techniques.