Jan 25, 2018 in Nursing

Nosocomial Infections

Nosocomial Infections

Nosocomial contagions after open-heart surgery are acknowledged a most frequent cause of morbidity, mortality, prolonged hospital vacation, more intense antimicrobial treatment, and increased concomitant costs. Nosocomial contagions also reduced patients' life expectancy. Incidence rates of about 20% are attributed to nosocomial contagion after the cardiac surgery. It is expected that occurrences of nosocomial pollutions will increase unless preclusion is improved (Jonkers et al., 2003). 

Colonization of hosts by hypothetically pathogenic microorganism is a precondition for growth of nosocomial toxicities. Although pathogenic microbes can be transferred to victims from health care practitioners or contaminated equipment, patient's flora is the basic source. Considerable amount of effort have been made to lower the number of incidences of nosocomial impurities. One strategy implies utilization of selective sanitization of digestive tracts that are designed to deter nosocomial infections. Subordinate respiratory tracts infection (LRTI), through antimicrobial treatment removes pathogenic microbes from a stomach, gut, and oropharynx. Refining the oropharynx is essential since there is a direct indication of an association among pulmonary infections and oral health (Brady et al., 2009). 

Another essential strategy implies abolition of Staphylococcus aureus. This is the pathogen that is most often accountable for surgical infections (SSIs). Common basin of S aureus forms frontal nares, and abolition can be attained by using topical antimicrobials. One of them, mupirocin, is the cornerstone of treatments of the methicillin-resilient S aureus. Hospitals have to participate in a national research and abolish the policy for patients with methicillin resilient S aureus. Thus, widespread use of mupirocin for other purposes is not desired due to the anxiety of rising confrontation rates. Positive outcomes have been recorded for both discerning decontamination of peptic territory and S aureus decolonization. They are not frequently used as monotonous prevention means for several reasons including indecisive study outcome. Variability of trial design impacts antimicrobial confrontation and increases costs. Further research is important to examine antimicrobial agents, cost effectiveness, and different protocols  (Boult & Altmann, 2011).

Despite the improvements in antisepsis, antibiotic prophylaxis, asepsis as well as in surgical techniques, nosocomial contaminations continue to confuse postoperative courses in numerous patients. Developments in perioperative organization help treat older patient with complex medical conditions. Without extra infection control efforts, an escalated rate of nosocomial infections can be predicted in patients. Thus, avoiding nosocomial contaminations remains important. Research found out that decontamination of oropharynx and nasopharynx with chlorhexidine gluconate significantly reduced nosocomial infections, deep SSI, nonprophylactic antimicrobial, and LRTI utilization (Yelin & Callahan, 2005).

Overpowering patients' pathogens seems to be auspicious and logical methods of infections deterrence. It was proved that the mouth is a possible reservoir for respiratory pathogens. Reduced mortality and hypothetically pathogenic microorganisms’ colonization changes have been stated after selective decontaminations of the peptic tract. Thus, this method is utilized only in high-risk populace. It is used among patients who are expected to undergo extended intensive care stay or prolonged time of mechanical airing. Another obstacle to selective decontaminations of the peptic tract is that antimicrobial agent utilized may select resilient pathogens. General hospital inhabitants, resilient pathogens have been created in about 40% of all cultures. Discerning decontaminations of the gastric tract targets the oropharynx and the whole digestive tract (Hirano, Laurent, & Lorig, 2008).   

Intranasal application of mupirocin to reduce S aureus have been utilized in numerous studies with the aim to lower SSI after a heart surgery. Although the outcomes were promising, the study used ancient placebo clusters or produced indecisive test results for SSI. Additionally, mupirocin is the key drug used for reduction of methicillin-resilient S aureus bearing. Widespread utilization of mupirocin is not desirable due to potential escalation of mupirocin-resilient stresses of S aureus (Philbin, & Miller, 2010).

For this study, a preventive regimen is developed. It can concentrate on the devastating and prevalent nosocomial infection after the hearth surgery, SSIs, LRTIs, and select a potent antiseptic with an active antibacterial function. The solution, chlorhexidine gluconate, is an effective and inexpensive solution. It has great antibacterial function and a great empathy for the mucous and skin membranes. It squanders electrostatically to exteriors, where it endures to exert both bacteriostatic and bactericidal impacts for up to twelve hours. Adequate vulnerability of gram-negative and gram-positive bacterial strains comprising S aureus, fungi, and viruses to chlorhexidine gluconate is witnessed. Chlorhexidine gluconate is practically devoid of negative effects. An adverse impact was experienced once among the research population. Results from the long-term clinical study indicate no negative changes in microbial resistances. Various studies describe lowered susceptibility to be chlorhexidine gluconate, an escalation in the lower inhibitory. Biocide in the microbial does not result in the letdown of biocide to efficiently kill the organisms. In our experiment, LRTI was found in 119 patients. An SSI was found in 92 patients. Relative risk reductions of about 60% in a patient decontaminated with the chlorhexidine gluconate. Since the sample of the study is a big population, which includes surgical patients of all ages who underwent different surgical procedures and who face various risks. it is  believed that study findings are generalizable to other surgical disciplines. Studies showed that it is enough to decontaminate one day before the operation. The protocol is easy enough to accomplish in an ambulatory environment for hospitalized patients on the period of surgical processes. With respect to NNT analysis, one extra nosocomial infection can be prevented if sixteen patients are decontaminated with chlorhexidine gluconate. Therefore, it is an inexpensive preventive measure that amounts to about €6 daily on average in times of decontamination. Prevention cost of one nosocomial infections is only US $230. In this study, patients receive selective decontaminations of the digestive tracts. This high-hazard population could be a subject of attention for further study to compare hlorhexidine gluconate with more selective decontaminations of the digestive tract procedure that uses antibiotics and with an increased hazard of establishing microbial resilience (Boyce, 1996). 

Over time, three patterns of the S aureus nasal bearing become clear. Approximately 20% of the population chronically transports S aureus in their nares. About 60% are sporadic carriers. Among the rest, 20% of S aureus is not isolated. The population is a mean carriage degree of 37% reported. In the trial, S aureus nasal bearing of 33% was witnessed. After the decontamination of noses with chlorhexidine gluconate, a positive culture for S aureus was lowered by 57.5%. In placebo groups, prevalence of optimistic cultures endured at a similar level (Do et al., 2011).

Although significant decrease in deep SSI was achieved, deterrence of superficial SSI was not attained. Possibly, deterrence of superficial SSI would be consummate if nasal decontaminations with chlorhexidine gluconate endured for a longer period. An alternative description for the absence of impact on SSI in the tendency of S aureus separates in more than apparent SSI.

This research has several limitations. A mean that was able to decontaminate the oropharynx and the nose simultaneously was utilized. It can be concluded that it is not possible to recognize reasons for fighting nosocomial infections. This is because it is not possible to discriminate among the decontaminated areas. However, it can be concluded that probable pathogenic bacteria located in noses are linked with SSI. However, oral healthcare is linked with LRTI (Eggimann & Pittet, 2001). 


Nosocomial infections refer to open-heart surgery infections. They are perceived to be an important cause of mortality and different complications. Nosocomial infections include over 100 conditions that put the lives of cardiovascular disease patients at risk. Nosocomial infections remain a serious predicament among patients undergoing open-heart surgery. It is a common condition among the old people since they are the ones at higher risk of heart surgery. Nosocomial infections cause disability and has affected daily activities of over 7,000,000 people in the country. There are several myths about nosocomial infections and the ways the affect the old people. However, nosocomial infections are multi-generational conditions affecting people of all ages and sexes. Nosocomial infections affected patients and make them suffer pain and disability. Additionally, they also affect caregivers and family members who use a lot of time and resources to cater for the treatment (Philbin & Miller, 2010). About $86 billion is spent annually in the country on treatment and care of patient with nosocomial infections. This affects social and economic status of the country. The challenge is to ensure the delivery of underutilized and effective interventions that are significant in the reduction and prevention of heart-surgery-related disability and pain (Neuberger et al., 2012). Despite the fact that there is a lot of public programs and information concerning Nosocomial infections, the effort to address the needs of patients living with nosocomial infections is inadequate. Several organizations and foundations have responded to this challenge (Goeppinger & Lorig, 2009).  It is important to educate the public care community about the nosocomial infections as they affect people of all ages and sexes. Therefore, initiating and implementing a Community Prevention Project in Nosocomial infections Prevention, Cure and Control is a necessary intervention that will reduce suffering of patients living with nosocomial infections.

 Importance of Implementing a Quality Improvement Process to Nosocomial Infections

  1. The process will initiate and nurture a nation-wide program that will increase and promote knowledge about nosocomial infections, their causes, prevention, early diagnosis, appropriate management, and pain management and prevention;
  1. It will enhance understanding and develop knowledge about nosocomial infections by publishing educational resources and information on services provided and research results;
  1. It will provide knowledge about the control and prevention of nosocomial infections through research, epidemiology, and surveillance;
  2. The program will use training and educational services and resources developed by experts; 
  3. It will help assess the importance of increasing accessibility and quality of community-based services for patients with cardiovascular diseases and nosocomial infections;
  4. It will increase awareness about causes, prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and management of Nosocomial infections among states, policy makers, health providers, and professionals and all citizens;
  5. It will improve coordination and implementation of  local and state services and programs to reduce nosocomial infections' burden on the health of public;
  6. The process will also fund the nosocomial infections prevention program on a national level;
  7. It will provide permanent developments in the provision of health care to patients with nosocomial infections.

Nosocomial Infections Control, Cure, and Prevention Project

The Department of Public Health should establish, maintain, and promote Nosocomial Infections Control, Cure, and Prevention Project to educate people, increase public awareness, and educate service providers, teachers, and health professionals (Brady et al, 2009). The program should have the following elements.   

1. Needs assessment. Assessment should be conducted to recognize the following:

a) Epidemiological researches conducted in the nation;

b) Accessible educational programs and materials and technical assistance nationwide;

c) Nosocomial infections public and professional awareness.

2. Advisory Association on Nosocomial infections: this council should offer a non-governmental contribution concerning the Nosocomial infections cure, control, and prevention program (Boult & Altmann, 2011).  

3. Public Awareness: this department should spread the knowledge and public awareness about nosocomial infections;

4. Technical assistance: this should organize a pilot program that will fund the project in the following activities: physical activity, screenings, professional education, public education, awareness campaigns, and surveillance programs (Hirano, 2012).


In coordination with the selected grantees, the Department of Public Health should assess the achievements of the community health project and its consequences. The department should perform the following activities during the evaluation: 

  1. Provide sufficient personnel to implement and manage the Nosocomial Infections Cure, Control, Prevention and Program. >Provide suitable training to the personnel of the Arthritis Control, Cure, and Prevention Program.
  2. Distinguish suitable organizations to manage and carry out the programs.   
  3. Base performance on the most contemporary scientific findings and information.
  4. Work to improve and increase community-based amenities available to patients with nosocomial infections as well as to their family members (Yelin & Callahan, 2005).
  5. Operate with national voluntary and governmental health organizations, their local divisions, community organizations, business leaders, community, human services, and health care providers to maximize and coordinate efforts of state properties in the areas of education, detection, prevention, treatment, and pain management of nosocomial infections (Do et al., 2011).
  6. Classify and use proof-based nosocomial infections systems and obtain interconnected services and materials from companies with appropriate knowledge and expertise of post-cardiovascular surgery.

In conclusion, the study found significant risk decline of nosocomial infections among patients undergoing cardiac surgery and preserved with the chlorhexidine gluconate. This inexpensive and safe disinfectant is active in decontaminating oropharynx and nasopharynx, resulting in little SSI and LRTI, and must be reflected in preoperative training of patients undergoing a heart surgery.


  1. Boult, G., & Altmann, N. (2011). Decreasing inability in the 21st century: The future impacts of regulating six critical and noncritical conditions. Journal of Public Health, 87: 1322-1393.
  2. Boyce, J. (1996). Preventing Staphylococcal infections by eradicating nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus: Proceeding with caution. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol, 17: 775-779.
  3. Brady et al. (2009). Arthritis public health interventions: Expanding toolbox of proof-based interventions. Women’s Health Journal 18(12): 1905-1917.
  4. De Jonge et al. (2003). Effects of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on mortality and acquisition of resistant bacteria in intensive care: A randomized trial. Lancet 362: 1011-1016.
  5. Do, B. et al. (2011). Monitoring healthy people 2010 arthritis management objectives: Self-management education and clinician counseling for weight loss and exercise. Ann Fam Med. 9: 136-141.
  6. Eggimann, P., & Pittet, D. (2001). Infection control in the ICU.  Chest.; 120: 2059-2093.
  7. El Oakley, R., & Wright, J. (1996). Postoperative mediastinitis: Classification and management. Ann Thorac Surg, 6: 1030-1036.
  8. Fourrier et al. (2000). Effects of dental plaque antiseptic decontamination on bacterial colonization and nosocomial infections in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med. 26: 1239-1247.
  9. Goeppinger, J., & Lorig H. (2009). Interventions to lower the effects of chronic diseases: Society grounded arthritis patients education. Journal of Ann Review Nursing, 15: 201-222.
  10. Hirano, C., Laurent, S., & Lorig L. (2008). Arthritis patients education study. Journal of Patient Education Counsel, 29: 3-34.
  11. Houston et al. (2002). Effectiveness of 0.12% chlorhexidine oral rinse in reducing the prevalence of nosocomial pneumonia in patients undergoing heart surgery. Am J Crit Care. 11: 567-570.
  12. Jonkers et al. (2003). Prevalence of 90-days postoperative wound infections after cardiac surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 23: 97-102.
  13. Kluytmans, J., & Wertheim, H. (2005). Nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus and prevention of nosocomial infections. Infection. 33: 3-8.
  14. Kollef, M. et al. (1997). The impact of nosocomial infections on patient outcomes following cardiac surgery. Chest. 112: 666-675.
  15. Mangram et al. (1999). Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 20: 250-278.
  16. Neuberger, E., Smith V., & Hassanein L. (2012). Determinants of aerobic and exercise strength in outpatient with arthritis. Journal of Nursing 33: 1-17.
  17. Philbin, E., & Miller, T. (2010). Cardiovascular strength and health in patients and osteoarthritis. Journal of Arthritis Rheum 28: 99-105.
  18. Silvestri et al (2000). Selective decontamination of the digestive tract: A life saver. J Hosp Infect. 45: 185-190.
  19. Yelin, H., & Callahan F. (2005). The social, psychological and economic cost effects of musculoskeletal condition. Arthritis Rheum 11: 1251-12362.

Related essays