London hospitals are struggling to cope with deadly superbugs, despite a major hygiene drive in the NHS - reports the Evening Standard.
Figures released today by the Health Protection Agency show rising rates of the potentially fatal stomach bug Clostridium Difficile.
Almost 1,680 people contracted the bug in the first three months of this year - a rise of 14% on the previous three months.
Additionally, around 1,200 people contracted MRSA - 25% more than the target level.
The figures come only days after chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson attacked hospitals for an "unacceptable level of hygiene".
Barnet and Chase Farm NHS Hospitals Trust was issued with an improvement notice last month for serious breaches of the rules, including basic measures such as not having alcohol hand-rubs.
The highest numbers of C.Difficile cases were at Barnet and Chase Farm hospitals (Theresa Villiers MP and Joan Ryan MP), with 188 in the three months from January to March.
There were 132 cases at Whipps Cross (Harry Cohen MP), 123 cases at St George's Healthcare NHS Trust (Sadiq Kahn MP & Martin Linton MP) and 118 at Kingston Hospital (Ed Davey MP).
Other hospitals where cases of MRSA are on the increase include Newham University Hospital (Lyn Brown MP), Hillingdon Hospital (John Randall MP), and West Middlesex University Hospital (Ann Keen MP).
Many other London hospitals, while reducing the number of cases over previous years, still suffer a problem. And MPs would surely agree that even one superbug case is one too many.
So are these MPs going to vote to waste billions of pounds extra on the audit-failing EU - completely without justification - while their constituency hospital needs further investment to improve hygiene?
People are dying due to this hygiene problem. Can't the EU manage to get by on the £3.5bn a year (net) we already hand over every year? That's surely more than our fair share.
Showing posts with label mrsa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mrsa. Show all posts
Wednesday, 25 July 2007
Wednesday, 25 April 2007
Hospital failings allow superbugs to spread
Thousands of patients risk contracting potentially deadly superbugs because NHS hospitals are not taking basic steps to stop the spread of infection, the Daily Telegraph reports today.
Independent research by Dr Foster Research, an independent health information company, into the state of infection control at 167 NHS hospital trusts in England exposed chaotic monitoring systems and hospitals losing the battle against MRSA and other deadly infections.
Only 10 of the trusts surveyed could provide data showing that they had isolated more than 90% of individuals with MRSA. This is the level that infection control experts recommend as an essential safeguard in the battle against hospital-acquired bugs.
In half of the trusts surveyed, patients had to wait up to 72 hours for their screening results to be returned, putting thousands of others at risk of contracting an infection. And only five trusts could show that patients were screened and told whether they were infected in less than 24 hours.
The revelations come at a time when cases of C. difficile and MRSA are soaring and deaths linked to hospital superbugs have increased dramatically.
Office for National Statistics figures show that between 2004 and 2005, the number of deaths recorded as associated with MRSA rose 39%. Those that mentioned Clostridium difficile (C. difficile) rose by 69%. Mentions of C. difficile on death certificates rose from 2,247 in 2004 to 3,807 the following year, while mentions of MRSA rose from 1,168 to 1,629.
Patient groups have branded the revelations as "alarming". Michael Summers, of the Patients' Association, accused the Government of not taking the risk of MRSA seriously and blamed NHS cutbacks for the growing problem.
"Cuts in spending in the NHS have had a devastating impact on infection control. People phoning our helpline tell us that bed sheets aren't being washed and that beds are not being cleaned," he said.
"It's not good enough. The number of deaths from MRSA has been rising steadily since 1993 when 51 people died from the bug. In 2005, almost 1,700 people lost their lives from the infection."
Under-capacity in the health service was also blamed for exacerbating the problem. Countries with low rates of hospital-acquired infections, such as the Netherlands, are able to isolate infected patients because their hospitals are less crowded. Bed occupancy rates in the Netherlands are around 60% compared with more than 87% in Britain.
Yet billions of pounds that could be used to tackle this problem - a factor in the deaths of over 5,000 people in 2005 - by providing hospitals with more resources for cleaning, more beds and more isolation facilities, MPs instead plan to hand over to the EU.
Some MPs claim that the billions they want to pay the EU may not, if saved, necessarily be used for this purpose. But this is a feeble excuse for intending to approve obviously wasteful spending while public services clearly need more support.
More public money is required from somewhere and, until they can suggest another source, blocking vastly increased payments to a wasteful and audit-failing body like the EU is an obvious candidate for consideration.
So will MPs take the responsible course and vote against the EU budget deal? Or expose their supposed commitment to improving public services as nothing more than talk?
Independent research by Dr Foster Research, an independent health information company, into the state of infection control at 167 NHS hospital trusts in England exposed chaotic monitoring systems and hospitals losing the battle against MRSA and other deadly infections.
Only 10 of the trusts surveyed could provide data showing that they had isolated more than 90% of individuals with MRSA. This is the level that infection control experts recommend as an essential safeguard in the battle against hospital-acquired bugs.
In half of the trusts surveyed, patients had to wait up to 72 hours for their screening results to be returned, putting thousands of others at risk of contracting an infection. And only five trusts could show that patients were screened and told whether they were infected in less than 24 hours.
The revelations come at a time when cases of C. difficile and MRSA are soaring and deaths linked to hospital superbugs have increased dramatically.
Office for National Statistics figures show that between 2004 and 2005, the number of deaths recorded as associated with MRSA rose 39%. Those that mentioned Clostridium difficile (C. difficile) rose by 69%. Mentions of C. difficile on death certificates rose from 2,247 in 2004 to 3,807 the following year, while mentions of MRSA rose from 1,168 to 1,629.
Patient groups have branded the revelations as "alarming". Michael Summers, of the Patients' Association, accused the Government of not taking the risk of MRSA seriously and blamed NHS cutbacks for the growing problem.
"Cuts in spending in the NHS have had a devastating impact on infection control. People phoning our helpline tell us that bed sheets aren't being washed and that beds are not being cleaned," he said.
"It's not good enough. The number of deaths from MRSA has been rising steadily since 1993 when 51 people died from the bug. In 2005, almost 1,700 people lost their lives from the infection."
Under-capacity in the health service was also blamed for exacerbating the problem. Countries with low rates of hospital-acquired infections, such as the Netherlands, are able to isolate infected patients because their hospitals are less crowded. Bed occupancy rates in the Netherlands are around 60% compared with more than 87% in Britain.
Yet billions of pounds that could be used to tackle this problem - a factor in the deaths of over 5,000 people in 2005 - by providing hospitals with more resources for cleaning, more beds and more isolation facilities, MPs instead plan to hand over to the EU.
Some MPs claim that the billions they want to pay the EU may not, if saved, necessarily be used for this purpose. But this is a feeble excuse for intending to approve obviously wasteful spending while public services clearly need more support.
More public money is required from somewhere and, until they can suggest another source, blocking vastly increased payments to a wasteful and audit-failing body like the EU is an obvious candidate for consideration.
So will MPs take the responsible course and vote against the EU budget deal? Or expose their supposed commitment to improving public services as nothing more than talk?
Tuesday, 17 April 2007
MRSA risk 'rising in crowded hospitals'
Thousands of patients risk catching MRSA and other deadly superbugs because NHS hospitals are overcrowded, according to a survey reported in the Daily Telegraph today.
Figures produced by the Royal College of Nursing suggest that in the vast majority of wards the proportion of beds occupied at any one time is substantially higher than Government estimates.
Infection control experts have warned that occupancy rates should be kept below 85% to prevent the spread of MRSA and other infections such as Clostridium difficile.
But the survey suggests the average occupancy rate earlier this year was 97%, and that more than half of wards were running at 100% to meet increased patient demand and hit waiting time targets.
Speaking at the college's annual congress in Harrogate yesterday, Howard Catton, the head of policy, said: "Our report shows we have a system running very hot, with very high bed occupancy and the average length of stay down from 12 days to only nine. The number of nurses on these wards is 14% lower than it should be."
The survey of 173 general medical and general surgical wards in 84 hospitals across the UK found that 54% were running at maximum capacity in February.
Recent figures show that in 2005, a total of 3,807 people died after contracting C difficile, an increase of 69% in 12 months, and a further 1,629 died after contracting MRSA - a rise of 39% in a single year.
Prof Barry Cookson, an MRSA and infection expert at the Health Protection Agency, warned in 2004 that occupancy rates must be lowered.
He said: "We have got to get down to 85%. Patients should realise that there is a certain safety level above which we start having problems."
A health department report leaked last year showed that in hospitals with occupancy rates above 85%, MRSA infection rates were 16% above average. Those with 90% occupancy rates had MRSA 42% above average.
The health department disputed the figures, saying that the most recent occupancy figure, for 2005/06, was 84.6%, the lowest figure since 2000/01.
Figures produced by the Royal College of Nursing suggest that in the vast majority of wards the proportion of beds occupied at any one time is substantially higher than Government estimates.
Infection control experts have warned that occupancy rates should be kept below 85% to prevent the spread of MRSA and other infections such as Clostridium difficile.
But the survey suggests the average occupancy rate earlier this year was 97%, and that more than half of wards were running at 100% to meet increased patient demand and hit waiting time targets.
Speaking at the college's annual congress in Harrogate yesterday, Howard Catton, the head of policy, said: "Our report shows we have a system running very hot, with very high bed occupancy and the average length of stay down from 12 days to only nine. The number of nurses on these wards is 14% lower than it should be."
The survey of 173 general medical and general surgical wards in 84 hospitals across the UK found that 54% were running at maximum capacity in February.
Recent figures show that in 2005, a total of 3,807 people died after contracting C difficile, an increase of 69% in 12 months, and a further 1,629 died after contracting MRSA - a rise of 39% in a single year.
Prof Barry Cookson, an MRSA and infection expert at the Health Protection Agency, warned in 2004 that occupancy rates must be lowered.
He said: "We have got to get down to 85%. Patients should realise that there is a certain safety level above which we start having problems."
A health department report leaked last year showed that in hospitals with occupancy rates above 85%, MRSA infection rates were 16% above average. Those with 90% occupancy rates had MRSA 42% above average.
The health department disputed the figures, saying that the most recent occupancy figure, for 2005/06, was 84.6%, the lowest figure since 2000/01.
Friday, 6 April 2007
Superbug kills almost as many as die on roads
The Daily Telegraph reports today that deaths from the hospital superbug, Clostridium difficile, are fast approaching the number of road fatalities, an expert has said.
Dr John Starr, reader in geriatric medicine at the University of Edinburgh, says that cases of C difficile rose by 5.5% over a year while MRSA cases fell by 4.3%.
"With more than 2,200 deaths attributed to C difficile in death certificates in England and Wales, the mortality rate is fast approaching that for road traffic accidents and is now around half that for suicide," he says in the British Medical Journal.
Road deaths in 2004 were 2,915.
Dr Starr says that more than 50,000 patients over the age of 65 suffered C difficile infection in hospitals in England last year compared with around 7,000 who caught MRSA.
"Control of C difficile is difficult because, unlike MRSA, alcohol hand scrubs are ineffective and its spores are resistant to routine hospital cleaning."
He says that patients on waiting lists should be screened before they are admitted to see if they are carrying the bacterium.
Dr John Starr, reader in geriatric medicine at the University of Edinburgh, says that cases of C difficile rose by 5.5% over a year while MRSA cases fell by 4.3%.
"With more than 2,200 deaths attributed to C difficile in death certificates in England and Wales, the mortality rate is fast approaching that for road traffic accidents and is now around half that for suicide," he says in the British Medical Journal.
Road deaths in 2004 were 2,915.
Dr Starr says that more than 50,000 patients over the age of 65 suffered C difficile infection in hospitals in England last year compared with around 7,000 who caught MRSA.
"Control of C difficile is difficult because, unlike MRSA, alcohol hand scrubs are ineffective and its spores are resistant to routine hospital cleaning."
He says that patients on waiting lists should be screened before they are admitted to see if they are carrying the bacterium.
Tuesday, 13 March 2007
'Screen all for MRSA' experts say
Researchers at Nottingham University have recommended that all patients coming in to hospitals for operations should be tested for the MRSA superbug, according to the BBC.
Experts say that this could cut MRSA rates to the Scandinavian levels of 2% within six years, compared to the UK's current rate of 44%.
They have also developed a test which would identify MRSA in all its forms within hours. The test currently used by NHS trusts to check if someone has basic MRSA takes up to three days.
The Department of Health has itself acknowledged that there should be "universal screening" of patients going into hospital, also saying "Tackling health care acquired infections is a top priority for the government and the health service."
So why isn't this happening? The reason is that universal screening for MRSA means higher costs, and the choice has been left to individual NHS trusts to "determine the most appropriate initial approach to screening for their patient population."
Though with many NHS trusts struggling to recover debts and having to make cuts to services, taking on extra costs - no matter how much the outcome may help patients - is a remote possibility.
Of course, we have a helpful suggestion for where vast amounts of wasted money could be diverted from, to pay for universal MRSA testing and saving unnecessary loss of life.
Bizarrely some MPs seem to think that the audit-failing EU deserves those billions more.
Experts say that this could cut MRSA rates to the Scandinavian levels of 2% within six years, compared to the UK's current rate of 44%.
They have also developed a test which would identify MRSA in all its forms within hours. The test currently used by NHS trusts to check if someone has basic MRSA takes up to three days.
The Department of Health has itself acknowledged that there should be "universal screening" of patients going into hospital, also saying "Tackling health care acquired infections is a top priority for the government and the health service."
So why isn't this happening? The reason is that universal screening for MRSA means higher costs, and the choice has been left to individual NHS trusts to "determine the most appropriate initial approach to screening for their patient population."
Though with many NHS trusts struggling to recover debts and having to make cuts to services, taking on extra costs - no matter how much the outcome may help patients - is a remote possibility.
Of course, we have a helpful suggestion for where vast amounts of wasted money could be diverted from, to pay for universal MRSA testing and saving unnecessary loss of life.
Bizarrely some MPs seem to think that the audit-failing EU deserves those billions more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
