PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16141774

Implementing evidence-based practice findings to decrease postoperative sternal wound infections following open heart surgery.

Camille Haycock·Craig Laser·Jennifer Keuth·Kerry Montefour·Melissa Wilson·Kerry Austin·Charmaine Coulen·Deborah Boyle
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Sternal wound infections following open heart surgery are an infrequent occurrence but can have significant impact on patient morbidity, length of stay, and cost of care. The objective of this project initiative was to decrease the incidence of sternal wound infections by examining and changing current practice in the preoperative and postoperative management of patients undergoing open heart surgery. Following a literature review of interdisciplinary best practices, process teams were formed to evaluate our own patient cohort with documented infection. Five key areas were addressed: (1) preoperative skin preparation, (2) antibiotic prophylaxis, (3) blood glucose control, (4) wound care management, and (5) hand hygiene. A retrospective chart review of patients with documented sternal wound infections status post-mediastinal open heart surgery revealed that the average postoperative glucose was 201 mg/dL. An inquiry of practice variations determined the absence of a common provider and causative organism. A change model guided project initiatives and sustainability of new behaviors and practice. Each element of the project initiative had defined outcome measures. Staff nurses participated in peer education and outcome data collection. Following the implementation of evidence based practice changes, a linear decrease in sternal wound infections was documented. Nurses play a critical role in identifying, orchestrating, and evaluating change efforts in clinical practice. Outcomes are enhanced when nurses collaborate with all stakeholders in the practice improvement initiative.

Explore related subjects

Antibiotic ProphylaxisArizonaBenchmarkingBlood GlucoseCardiac Surgical ProceduresCross InfectionEvidence-Based MedicineHand DisinfectionHospital CostsHumansIncidenceInfection ControlLength of StayModels, OrganizationalMorbidityNurse's RoleOrganizational InnovationOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePostoperative CarePreoperative CareRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsSkin CareSternumSurgical Wound InfectionJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Camille Haycock, Craig Laser, Jennifer Keuth, Kerry Montefour, Melissa Wilson, Kerry Austin, Charmaine Coulen, Deborah Boyle. Implementing evidence-based practice findings to decrease postoperative sternal wound infections following open heart surgery.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005082-200509000-00003

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

The prevention and treatment of bacterial infections in children with asplenia or hyposplenia: practice considerations at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto.

Children born without a spleen or who have impaired splenic function, due to disease or splenectomy, are at significantly increased risk of life-threatening bacterial sepsis. The mainstays of prevention are education, immunization, and prophylactic antibiotics. The availability of conjugate 7-valent pneumococcal vaccines for use in children to age 9 years at least, as well as conjugate meningococcal C vaccine in some countries, for use beginning in infancy, appear to represent beneficial additions, but not substitutions, to previous recommendations for the use of polysaccharide 23-valent pneumococcal and quadrivalent A, C, Y, W-135 vaccines. Routine immunization against H. influenzae type b should continue with non-immunized children older than age 5 years receiving two doses 2 months apart, similar to children who have not previously received conjugate pneumococcal vaccine in infancy. Annual influenza immunization, which reduces the risk of secondary bacterial infection, is also recommended for asplenic children and their household contacts. Many experts continue prophylaxis indefinitely although prophylaxis of the penicillin allergic child remains suboptimal.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis↗
PubMed2006

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in prevention of wound infection after mesh repair of abdominal wall hernia.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to determine whether systemic antibiotic prophylaxis prevented wound infection after repair of abdominal wall hernia with mesh. METHODS: This was a systematic review of the available literature identified from multiple databases using the terms 'hernia' and 'antibiotic prophylaxis'. Randomized placebo-controlled trials of antibiotic prophylaxis in abdominal wall mesh hernia repair with explicitly defined wound infection criteria and a minimum follow-up of 1 month were included. After independent quality assessment and data extraction, data were pooled for meta-analysis using a random-effects model. RESULTS: The search process identified eight relevant trials. Two papers on umbilical, incisional or laparoscopic hernias, and six concerning inguinal and femoral (groin) hernias were suitable for meta-analysis. The incidence of infection after groin hernia repair was 38 (3.0 per cent) of 1277 in the placebo group and 18 (1.5 per cent) of 1230 in the antibiotic group. Antibiotic prophylaxis did not significantly reduce the incidence of infection: odds ratio 0.54 (95 per cent confidence interval 0.24 to 1.21); number needed to treat was 74. The number of deep infections was six (0.6 per cent) in the placebo group and three (0.3 per cent) in the antibiotic prophylaxis group: odds ratio 0.50 (95 per cent c.i. 0.12 to 2.09). CONCLUSION: Antibiotic prophylaxis did not prevent the occurrence of wound infection after groin hernia surgery. More trials are needed for complete evidence in other areas of abdominal wall hernia.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis↗
PubMed2006

Infection control guidelines for the cardiac catheterization laboratory: society guidelines revisited.

In the early years of diagnostic cardiac catheterization, strict sterile precautions were required for cutdown procedures. Thirteen years ago, when the original guidelines were written, the brachial arteriotomy was still frequently utilized, femoral closure devices were uncommon, "implantables," such as intracoronary stents and PFO/ASD closure devices, were in their infancy, and percutaneous valve replacement was not a consideration. In 2005, the cardiac catheterization laboratory is a complex interventional suite with percutaneous access routine and device implantation standard. Despite frequent device implantation, strict sterile precautions are often not observed. Reasons for this include a decline in brachial artery cutdown, limited postprocedure follow-up with few reported infections, limited use of hats and masks in televised cases, and lack of current guidelines. Proper sterile technique has the potential to decrease the patient infection rate. Hand washing remains the most important procedure for preventing infections. Caps, masks, gowns, and gloves help to protect the patient by maintaining a sterile field. Protection of personnel may be accomplished by proper gowning, gloving, and eye wear, disposal of contaminated equipment, and prevention and care of puncture wounds and lacerations. With the potential for acquired disease from blood-borne pathogens, the need for protective measures is as essential in the cardiac catheterization laboratory as is the standard Universal Precautions, which are applied throughout the hospital. All personnel should strongly consider vaccination for hepatitis B. Maintenance of the cardiac catheterization laboratory environment includes appropriate cleaning, limitation of traffic, and adequate ventilation. In an SCAI survey, members recommended an update on guidelines for infection control in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. The following revision of the original 1992 guidelines is written specifically to address the increased utilization of the catheterization laboratory as an interventional suite with device implantation. In this update, infection protection is divided into sections on the patient, the laboratory personnel, and the laboratory environment. Additionally, specific CDC recommendation sections highlight recommendations from other published guidelines.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis↗