PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11434529

Infection control practice: global preparedness for future challenges.

Abstract

The modern infection control profession emerged in the 1960s in England and the US in response to a pandemic of infections in hospitalized patients from a virulent strain of Staphylococcus aureus. The need for better patient care practices to prevent infections in this setting was evident, and the nursing, medical and microbiology professions responded. Both governmental and non-governmental agencies and professional organizations supported their efforts. During the past 3 decades infection control programs and professionals have multiplied and flourished throughout the world. At first, each country worked primarily within its own borders. In recent years collaboration among countries has increased dramatically, especially as related to education and training, research, and publishing. This article describes two examples of these partnerships. In the US, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc (APIC) have joined with the King Fahad National Guard Hospital (KFNGH), a center-of-excellence for infection control in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia for educational meetings and infection control certification. The information exchanged and relationships developed through these activities will further efforts of both countries toward meeting infection prevention and control challenges of the future.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

B Soule, Z Memish. 2001. Infection control practice: global preparedness for future challenges.. https://doi.org/10.1080/1120009x.2001.11782328

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Evaluation of two commercially available portal monitors for emergency response.

The Human Monitoring Laboratory has compared two types (the P3 and the MiniSentry) of portal monitors that can be field deployed in response to an emergency. They can be used to screen persons for internal or external radioactive contamination by fission activation products (neither unit is capable of detecting alpha or beta radiation, and the amount of material required to alarm the monitors is unacceptably high for low energy x rays or gamma rays) following an incident involving the release of radioactive material (accidental or intentional). It was found that the P3 benefits from simplicity but requires slightly more activity to alarm than the MiniSentry, although for emergency response, the amount of activity that can be detected is far below a level where significant health effects will occur. The MiniSentry was found to have more capability than the P3, but these benefits also bring their own disadvantages. It was also found that the MiniSentry would be difficult to deploy in an outdoor setting whereas the P3 is well designed for a field setting. Despite the differences found, the HML has concluded that both have a distinct place in emergency monitoring. In the future, the HML plans to have both instruments ready for field deployment.

Disaster Planning↗