scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Hugo Sax

Bio: Hugo Sax is an academic researcher from University of Zurich. The author has contributed to research in topics: Hygiene & Health care. The author has an hindex of 49, co-authored 186 publications receiving 9337 citations. Previous affiliations of Hugo Sax include Geneva College & National Patient Safety Foundation.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
01 Jan 2010
TL;DR: A conceptual model including key factors that influence participation and invite patients to contribute to error prevention is proposed, and further research is essential to establish key determinants for the success of patient participation in reducing medical errors and in improving patient safety.
Abstract: Patient participation is increasingly recognized as a key component in the redesign of health care processes and is advocated as a means to improve patient safety. The concept has been successfully applied to various areas of patient care, such as decision making and the management of chronic diseases. We review the origins of patient participation, discuss the published evidence on its efficacy, and summarize the factors influencing its implementation. Patient-related factors, such as acceptance of the new patient role, lack of medical knowledge, lack of confidence, comorbidity, and various sociodemographic parameters, all affect willingness to participate in the health care process. Among health care workers, the acceptance and promotion of patient participation are influenced by other issues, including the desire to maintain control, lack of time, personal beliefs, type of illness, and training in patient-caregiver relationships. Social status, specialty, ethnic origin, and the stakes involved also influence patient and health care worker acceptance. The London Declaration, endorsed by the World Health Organization World Alliance for Patient Safety, calls for a greater role for patients to improve the safety of health care worldwide. Patient participation in hand hygiene promotion among staff to prevent health care—associated infection is discussed as an illustrative example. A conceptual model including key factors that influence participation and invite patients to contribute to error prevention is proposed. Further research is essential to establish key determinants for the success of patient participation in reducing medical errors and in improving patient safety.

727 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A dynamic model for hand hygiene research and education strategies is proposed, together with corresponding indications forHand hygiene during patient care, and five sequential steps are reviewed.
Abstract: Hand cleansing is the primary action to reduce health-care-associated infection and cross-transmission of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens. Patient-to-patient transmission of pathogens via health-care workers' hands requires five sequential steps: (1) organisms are present on the patient's skin or have been shed onto fomites in the patient's immediate environment; (2) organisms must be transferred to health-care workers' hands; (3) organisms must be capable of surviving on health-care workers' hands for at least several minutes; (4) handwashing or hand antisepsis by the health-care worker must be inadequate or omitted entirely, or the agent used for hand hygiene inappropriate; and (5) the caregiver's contaminated hand(s) must come into direct contact with another patient or with a fomite in direct contact with the patient. We review the evidence supporting each of these steps and propose a dynamic model for hand hygiene research and education strategies, together with corresponding indications for hand hygiene during patient care.

711 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: 'My five moments for hand hygiene' describes the fundamental reference points for healthcare workers in a time-space framework and designates the moments when hand hygiene is required to effectively interrupt microbial transmission during the care sequence and provides a solid basis to understand, teach, monitor and report hand hygiene practices.

684 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
12 Mar 2008-JAMA
TL;DR: A universal, rapid MRSA admission screening strategy did not reduce nosocomial MRSA infection in a surgical department with endemic MRSA prevalence but relatively low rates of MRSA infections.
Abstract: Context Experts and policy makers have repeatedly called for universal screening at hospital admission to reduce nosocomial methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection. Objective To determine the effect of an early MRSA detection strategy on nosocomial MRSA infection rates in surgical patients. Design, Setting, and Patients Prospective, interventional cohort study conducted between July 2004 and May 2006 among 21 754 surgical patients at a Swiss teaching hospital using a crossover design to compare 2 MRSA control strategies (rapid screening on admission plus standard infection control measures vs standard infection control alone). Twelve surgical wards including different surgical specialties were enrolled according to a prespecified agenda, assigned to either the control or intervention group for a 9-month period, then switched over to the other group for a further 9 months. Interventions During the rapid screening intervention periods, patients admitted to the intervention wards for more than 24 hours were screened before or on admission by rapid, multiplex polymerase chain reaction. For both intervention (n=10 844) and control (n=10 910) periods, standard infection control measures were used for patients with MRSA in all wards and consisted of contact isolation of MRSA carriers, use of dedicated material (eg, gown, gloves, mask if indicated), adjustment of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis of MRSA carriers, computerized MRSA alert system, and topical decolonization (nasal mupirocin ointment and chlorhexidine body washing) for 5 days. Main Outcome Measures Incidence of nosocomial MRSA infection, MRSA surgical site infection, and rates of nosocomial acquisition of MRSA. Results Overall, 10 193 of 10 844 patients (94%) were screened during the intervention periods. Screening identified 515 MRSA-positive patients (5.1%), including 337 previously unknown MRSA carriers. Median time from screening to notification of test results was 22.5 hours (interquartile range, 12.2-28.2 hours). In the intervention periods, 93 patients (1.11 per 1000 patient-days) developed nosocomial MRSA infection compared with 76 in the control periods (0.91 per 1000 patient-days; adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.69; P = .29). The rate of MRSA surgical site infection and nosocomial MRSA acquisition did not change significantly. Fifty-three of 93 infected patients (57%) in the intervention wards were MRSA-free on admission and developed MRSA infection during hospitalization. Conclusion A universal, rapid MRSA admission screening strategy did not reduce nosocomial MRSA infection in a surgical department with endemic MRSA prevalence but relatively low rates of MRSA infection. Trial Registration isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN06603006

511 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The evaluation of 30 reports suggests that great potential exists to decrease nosocomial infection rates, from a minimum reduction effect of 10% to a maximum effect of 70%, depending on the setting, study design, baseline infection rates and type of infection.

463 citations


Cited by
More filters
01 Sep 2008
TL;DR: The Methodology used to Prepare the Guideline Epidemiology Incidence Etiology and Recommendations for Assessing Response to Therapy Suggested Performance Indicators is summarized.
Abstract: Executive Summary Introduction Methodology Used to Prepare the Guideline Epidemiology Incidence Etiology Major Epidemiologic Points Pathogenesis Major Points for Pathogenesis Modifiable Risk Factors Intubation and Mechanical Ventilation Aspiration, Body Position, and Enteral Feeding Modulation of Colonization: Oral Antiseptics and Antibiotics Stress Bleeding Prophylaxis, Transfusion, and Glucose Control Major Points and Recommendations for Modifiable Risk Factors Diagnostic Testing Major Points and Recommendations for Diagnosis Diagnostic Strategies and Approaches Clinical Strategy Bacteriologic Strategy Recommended Diagnostic Strategy Major Points and Recommendations for Comparing Diagnostic Strategies Antibiotic Treatment of Hospital-acquired Pneumonia General Approach Initial Empiric Antibiotic Therapy Appropriate Antibiotic Selection and Adequate Dosing Local Instillation and Aerosolized Antibiotics Combination versus Monotherapy Duration of Therapy Major Points and Recommendations for Optimal Antibiotic Therapy Specific Antibiotic Regimens Antibiotic Heterogeneity and Antibiotic Cycling Response to Therapy Modification of Empiric Antibiotic Regimens Defining the Normal Pattern of Resolution Reasons for Deterioration or Nonresolution Evaluation of the Nonresponding Patient Major Points and Recommendations for Assessing Response to Therapy Suggested Performance Indicators

2,961 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This guideline updates recommendations regarding epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, and infection control and environmental management of Clostridium difficile.
Abstract: Since publication of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America position paper on Clostridium difficile infection in 1995, significant changes have occurred in the epidemiology and treatment of this infection. C. difficile remains the most important cause of healthcareassociated diarrhea and is increasingly important as a community pathogen. A more virulent strain of C. difficile has been identified and has been responsible for more-severe cases of disease worldwide. Data reporting the decreased effectiveness of metronidazole in the treatment of severe disease have been published. Despite the increasing quantity of data available, areas of controversy still exist. This guideline updates recommendations regarding epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, and infection control and environmental management.

2,872 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: An enhanced understanding of the skin microbiome is necessary to gain insight into microbial involvement in human skin disorders and to enable novel promicrobial and antimicrobial therapeutic approaches for their treatment.
Abstract: The skin is the human body's largest organ, colonized by a diverse milieu of microorganisms, most of which are harmless or even beneficial to their host. Colonization is driven by the ecology of the skin surface, which is highly variable depending on topographical location, endogenous host factors and exogenous environmental factors. The cutaneous innate and adaptive immune responses can modulate the skin microbiota, but the microbiota also functions in educating the immune system. The development of molecular methods to identify microorganisms has led to an emerging view of the resident skin bacteria as highly diverse and variable. An enhanced understanding of the skin microbiome is necessary to gain insight into microbial involvement in human skin disorders and to enable novel promicrobial and antimicrobial therapeutic approaches for their treatment.

2,279 citations