We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
To compare three methods for assessing the excess nurse work load related to recommended procedures for managing nosocomial infections (NI) due to multiresistant bacteria (MRB): two activity scores, the Omega score and the Projet de Recherche en Nursing (PRN) system, and a specific evaluation based on functional analysis of nursing procedures.
Setting:
10 beds in a medical intensive care unit (MICU).
Patients:
Patients admitted from November 15,1995, to June 15, 1996, were included and divided in two groups based on presence of MRB colonization or infection (MRB+ and MRB− groups).
Methods:
Data were collected regarding length of stay (LOS) in days; Omega score for the entire stay; PRN score for the entire stay and per day; and time required to perform correctly four nursing procedures related to MRB NI, as evaluated specifically by the nursing staff, using a detailed functional analysis document that described all elementary nursing tasks in chronological order and all material needed to carry out those tasks.
Results:
The LOS and total Omega and PRN scores were higher in the MRB+ group than in the MRB− group: LOS, 23±20.6 versus 12±15.3 days, (P<.001); Omega score, 164±103.4 versus 123±93.7 points (P<.001); PRN score, 3,606±3,187 versus 1,854±2,356 points (P<.001), respectively. The daily PRN score was also higher in MRB+ group (PRN, 160±25 vs 146±34 points in the MRB− group; P<.028). Four nursing procedures made necessary by MRB acquisition were identified: isolation precautions, with two levels according to whether the risk of contamination was mild-moderate or high; bathing the patient with antiseptic solution;, bedpan management; and microbiological screening. The functional analysis indicated that the time needed to carry out these four procedures correctly was 245 minutes per patient per day, as compared to 85 minutes according to the PRN system.
Conclusions:
Our data confirm that MRB NIs are responsible for an increase in nurse work load, as estimated by LOS, Omega, and PRN scores. However, the daily excess nurse work load related directly to recommended procedures for managing MRB NIs in MICUs is underestimated by these activity scores, as compared to a specific functional analysis of nursing tasks. This may be of importance in evaluating potential links between nurse work load and MRB NIs and in determining the number of nurse hours needed to comply with infection control recommendations.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.