Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-02T04:37:05.661Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diffusion and Adoption of CDC Guidelines for the Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections in US Hospitals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

David D. Celentano ,
Laura L. Morlock  and
Faye E. Malitz
David D. Celentano*
Affiliation:
Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Baltimore, Maryland Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Hygiene and Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
Laura L. Morlock
Affiliation:
Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Baltimore, Maryland Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Hygiene and Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
Faye E. Malitz
Affiliation:
Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Baltimore, Maryland Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Hygiene and Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
*
Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, School of Hygiene and Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University, 624 North Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since 1981, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has been publishing Guidelines for the Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections as a useful reference tool in infection control. The extent to which practices recommended by CDC to reduce hospital-acquired infections have been successfully diffused and adopted were evaluated in a stratified random sample of 445 US hospitals that were sent a questionnaire in 1985. The data suggest that over 84% of infection control practitioner respondents (78% response rate) are aware of each guideline, although small hospitals (<50 beds) are least likely to be aware of the guidelines or to have reviewed them thoroughly. Adoption of the recommendations remains far from universal, ranging from 23% to 75% for 16 specific recommendations investigated. Smaller hospitals were significantly less likely than large hospitals to have adopted each suggested policy. Recommendations that carried Category I rankings were more likely to be adopted, as were those procedures that had cost-savings implications.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 8 , Issue 10 , October 1987 , pp. 415 - 423
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Haley, RW, Culver, DH, White, JW, et al: The nationwide nosocomial infection rate: A new need for vital statistics. Am J Epidemiol 1985;121:159–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Haley, RW, Schaberg, DR, Crossley, KB, et al: Extra charges and prolongation of stay attributable to nosocomial infections: A prospective interhospital comparison. Am J Med 1981;70:51–58.Google Scholar
3. Wenzel, RP, Nosocomial infections, diagnosis-related groups, and study on the efficacy of nosocomial infection control; Economic implications for hospitals under the prospective payment system. Am J Med 1985;78(suppl 6B):3–7.Google Scholar
4. Haley, RW, Quade, D, Freeman, HE, et al: Study on the efficacy of nosocomial infection control (SENIC project): Summary of study design. Am J Epidemiol 1980;111:472–485.Google Scholar
5. Haley, RW, Culver, DH, White, JW, et al: The efficacy of infection surveillance and control programs in preventing nosocomial infections in US hospitals. Am J Epidemiol 1985;121:183–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Haley, RW, Morgan, WM, Culver, DH, et al: Hospital infection control: Recent progress and opportunities under prospective payment. Am J Infect Control 1985;12:97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Haley, RW, CDC guidelines on infection control. Infect Control 1981;2:117–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Hughes, JM, Culver, DH, White, JW, et al: Nosocomial infection surveillance, 1980-1982. MMWR 1983;32:1SS–16SS.Google Scholar
9. Quade, D, Culver, DH, Haley, RW, et al: The SENIC sampling process: Design for choosing hospitals and patients and results of sample selection. Am J Epidemiol 1980;111:472–485.Google Scholar
10. Centers for Disease Control: Guideline for prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections, in Guidelines for Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections. Atlanta, Centers for Disease Control, 1981.Google Scholar
11. Emori, TG, Haley, RW, Stanley, RC, The infection control nurse in US hospitals, 1976-1977: Characteristics of the position and its occupant. Am J Epidemiol 1980;111:592–607.Google Scholar
12. Emori, TG, Haley, RW, Garner, JS, et al: Comparison of surveillance and control activities of infection control nurses and infection control laboratories in US hospitals, 1976-1977. Am J Infect Control 1982;10:3–16.Google Scholar
13. Longo, DR, Widman, DE, van Schoohoven, P, Compliance with JCAH standards: National findings from 1982 surveys. ORB 1984;10:81–86.Google Scholar