English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Definitions and practices regarding use of contact precautions and isolation to prevent the spread of gram-positive and gram-negative multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) are not uniform.    Methods  We conducted an on-site survey during the European Congress on Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 2014 to assess specific details on contact precaution and implementation barriers.    Results  Attendants from 32 European (EU) and 24 non-EU countries participated ( n  = 213). In EU-respondents adherence to contact precautions and isolation was high for Methicillin-resistant  Staphylococcus aureus  (MRSA), carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, and MDR  A. baumannii  (84.7, 85.7, and 80%, respectively) whereas only 68% of EU-respondents considered any contact precaution measures for extended-spectrum-beta-lactamase (ESBL) producing non- E. coli . Between 30 and 45% of all EU and non-EU respondents did not require health-care workers (HCW) to wear gowns and gloves at all times when entering the room of a patient in contact isolation. Between 10 and 20% of respondents did not consider any rooming specifications or isolation for gram-positive MDRO and up to 30% of respondents abstain from such interventions in gram-negative MDRO, especially non- E. coli  ESBL. Understaffing and lack of sufficient isolation rooms were the most commonly encountered barriers amongst EU and non-EU respondents.    Conclusion  The effectiveness of contact precautions and isolation is difficult to assess due to great variation in components of the specific measures and mixed levels of implementation. The lack of uniform positive effects of contact isolation to prevent transmission may be explained by the variability of interpretation of this term. Indications for contact isolation require a global definition and further sound studies.    Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (10.1186/s13756-018-0366-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

antimicrobial resistance and infection control

Variability in contact precautions to control the nosocomial spread of multi-drug resistant organisms in the endemic setting: a multinational cross-sectional survey