Use of antiseptic hand rubs in the health and community services industry: an Australian population-based survey

BACKGROUND: The use of antiseptic hand rubs (AHRs), rather than washing with soap and water, is considered to be the gold standard for reducing the frequency of nosocomial infections, as well as being less damaging to the hands than washing with soap and water, but little is known at a population level about usage patterns for AHRs. OBJECTIVES: To describe AHR use patterns among workers in the health and community services industry in Australia. METHODS: Using data from a population-based survey of Australian workers, we focused on health and community services workers' exposure to chemicals at work, including the use of AHRs. Data regarding the frequency of hand-washing were also collected. RESULTS: Nine hundred and fifty-six health and community service workers participated in the Australian National Hazard Exposure Worker Surveillance survey. Of these, 11% reported using AHRs, and 31% reported hand-washing >20 times per shift. According to an adjusted logistic regression model, professional workers [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.29, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.40-3.72] and frequent hand washers (aOR 3.08, 95%CI: 1.92-4.93) were more likely to use AHRs. CONCLUSIONS: AHR use by health and community service workers was generally lower than expected. AHR use was most likely to be reported by professionals and frequent hand washers, suggesting that AHRs are used as an adjunct to conventional hand-washing.

Localisation and William Macewen`s early brain surgery part I: the controversy

Neurosurgery for the removal of brain tumours based on localising signs is usually dated from the 1884 operation by Bennett and Godlee. However, within weeks of that operation claims were made on behalf of William Macewen, the Glasgow surgeon, to have been the real pioneer of such surgery. According to Macewen's protagonists, he had conducted seven similar operations earlier than Bennett and Godlee and, in a notable 1888 address, Macewen described these seven pre-1884 cases and a number of others operated on after 1884. This paper, which is in two parts, contains an evaluation of the claims made for the priority of Macewen's pre-1884 operations. Part I deals mainly with Macewen's work in fields other than brain surgery that are relevant to it and sets out the facts of the controversy. It begins with a brief biography of Macewen, describes his pioneering work in antiseptic and aseptic surgery, his work on osteotomy and bone regeneration, and his use in brain surgery of the knowledge so gained. Part I concludes with an examination of the battle waged in the newspapers between Macewen's and Bennett's and Godlee's supporters, and of previously unpublished correspondence between Macewen himself, David Ferrier and Hughes Bennett. The primary records of the patients on whom Macewen operated, together with other materials relevant to the controversy, are examined in Part II.

Central venous dialysis : an Australian survey

Aim: To explore the current central venous dialysis catheter (CVDC) nursing care practices in Australia. Method: A survey of dialysis units in Australia. Results: 66% return rate (48/73) Internal jugular is the main insertion site (75%) and the majority are tunneled (85%). Insertion was performed most commonly by radiologists (34%) followed by intensivists (24%) with one center reporting insertion by nursing staff. CVDCs were most commonly inserted in radiology (54%), followed by theatre (33%). Dressings were attended weekly (55%) or on dialysis days (45%). Chlorhexidine was the antiseptic solution of choice (54%) followed by povidine-iodine (37%). In 21% of centres Mupirocin was routinely applied in addition to the antiseptic solution. Transparent dressings were overwhelmingly favoured however most centres recommended alternatives related to patient need. 21% of units reported enrolled nurses undertaking dressings. All units reported the use of sterile gloves and sterile dressing packs. 10% reported different routine care for tunneled and non-tunneled. 40% of the units collected data on infection rates per catheter days. General opinion (39%) was identified as the reason to base CVDC protocols while descriptive studies (25%), RCTs (23%) and guidelines (18%) were also reported. Conclusion: There are significant variations in the Australian nursing practice related to the care of CVDCs. Although there is still practice based on general opinion there is evidence that changes in practice in the past 8 years may be associated with knowledge derived from research.