PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9675735

Minor surgery in general practice--setting the standards.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A self-assessment tool was trialled to set a baseline for control of infection in general practice and to assess the nature and adequacy of infection control precautions in primary care settings with particular reference to minor surgery. METHODS: A request for volunteers was included in a flier sent out periodically by the Communicable Disease Unit to all general practices in the county (n = 114). Eleven practices (9.6 per cent) volunteered to take part and an audit of infection control precautions was undertaken with the practice nurse and/or manager. RESULTS: Of the 11 general practices audited, nine did not have a written policy for control of infection, did not have a separate, dedicated room for minor surgery, did not use protective clothing appropriately, used terry towels for hand-drying and reprocessed single-use only items. Ten used inappropriate methods to decontaminate heat labile items, seven did not record sterilizer processing cycles and five did not comply with HTM 2010 with regard to sterilizer maintenance. Following the survey, minimum infection control requirements have been developed for future applications to provide extended minor surgery within general practice and these will be monitored at subsequent surgery inspection visits and through audit. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that there is little room for complacency with regard to standards of infection control in general practice. In view of the increasing shift towards primary care based minor surgery it would be helpful if minimum standards were to be agreed nationally.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L Finn, S Crook. 1998. Minor surgery in general practice--setting the standards.. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a024738

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Health inequalities in Scotland and England: the contrasting journeys of ideas from research into policy.

Both the UK's Labour Government and Scotland's devolved Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition Executive have committed themselves to reducing health inequalities. Furthermore, both institutions have emphasised the importance of using evidence to inform policy responses. In light of such political commitments, a significant amount of work has been undertaken in the field of health inequalities in order to: (i) review the available research evidence; (ii) assess the extent to which policies have been based on this research evidence; and (iii) evaluate the success (or failure) of policies to tackle health inequalities. Yet so far only limited attention has been given to exploring how key actors involved in research-policy dialogues understand the processes involved. In an attempt to address this gap, this article draws on data from semi-structured interviews with 58 key actors in the field of health inequalities research and policymaking in the UK to argue that it is ideas, rather than research evidence, which have travelled from research into policy. The descriptions of the varying journeys of these ideas fit three types--successful, partial and fractured--each of which is outlined with reference to one example. The paper then employs existing theories about research-policy relations and the movement of ideas in an attempt to illuminate and better understand the contrasting journeys. In the concluding discussion, it is argued that the third approach, which focuses on the entrepreneurial processes involved in the marketing of ideas, is most helpful in understanding the research findings, but that this needs to be discussed in relation to the political context within which negotiations take place.

England↗