Background: Hospital-associated infections are the major cause of patient morbidity and mortality. Environmental monitoring by the microbiological testing of surfaces and equipments is useful to detect changing trends of types and counts of microbial flora. The aims of the study were to count CFU (colony forming unit) rate of indoor air, to identify bacterial colonization of surface and equipments isolated from Operation theatres, ICUs and Labor room of a teaching hospital in Telangana, India. Methods: Air sampling of 10 OT's, 4 ICU's and 1 LR were done by settle plate method. Swabs were taken from different sites and equipments and bacterial species were isolated and identified from them. Results: Gynaecology OT-2 and 3 showed less bacterial CFU rate of air (6 CFU/m 3) followed by Opthamology OT (16 CFU/m 3) and highest in Orthopaedics minor OT (72 CFU/m 3) and Dental OT (42 CFU/m 3 with 1 fungal CFU/m 3). Pediatric ICU showed less bacterial CFU rate (28 CFU/m 3) followed by Surgery ICU (40 CFU/m 3) and highest in Medical ICU (100 CFU/m 3 and 5 fungal CFU/m 3). Labor room showed 65 CFU/m3. Bacterial species were isolated from 48 (43%) out of total 111 swab samples taken from all OTs and ICUs. The most common isolate was Bacillus species 36 (75%) followed by micrococcus (54%). Pathogenic organisms isolated were 12 Gram negative bacilli and 6 gram positive cocci, the common isolate was Klebsiella spp (7 of 12). Conclusions: The study shows that OTs were having bacterial CFU rate of air varying from 6-72 CFU/m 3 and colonized by contaminants like Bacillus sp and pathogens like Klebsiella sp. ICUs were having bacterial CFU rate of air varying from 28-100 CFU/m 3 and colonized with contaminant like Bacillus sp., as well as potential pathogens like Klebsiella, Pseudomonas etc. Fungal CFU were also seen both in OTs and ICUs. High level of microbial contamination indicates the needs for periodic surveillance aimed at early detection of bacterial contamination levels and prevention of hospital acquired infections.
BACK GROUND:To study and compare the efficacy and safety of intra vaginal misoprostol versus intra cervical dinoprostone gel for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Objectives: 1. To study and compare efficacy and safety of misoprostol and dinoprostone gel. 2. To study the success rate and outcome of induction 3. To Study the average induction -delivery interval 4. To study the side effects during induction with these drugs. DESIGN: It is a prospective study. STUDY AREA: Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Government General Hospital, Guntur, affiliated to Guntur Medical College. STUDY SUBJECT: Antenatal Women. SAMPLE SIZE: 100 Antenatal women who were admitted in Antenatal ward in Department of Obstetrics. STUDY PERIOD: September 2013 to September 2014. RESULTS: 100 antenatal women requiring induction of labour were followed 50 received 25 g misoprostol 4 th hourly, 0.5 mg of intracervical dinoprostol gel 12 hourly. The result of the study shows induction delivery interval was significantly shorter in misoprostol group than dinoprostone group. Caesarean section rate is low in misprostol group compared to dinoprostone group. With the lower dosage of misoprostol, no maternal complications were observed and foetal complication i.e., meconium stained liquor was seen in 8% of misoprostol group, but Apgar score was good in both group. CONCLUSION: On basis of our study misoprostol is an effective and safe drug to mother and foetus, easy to administer, and stable at room temperature, and misoprostol is a cheaper drug better and effective alternate to dinoprostone gel in a women belonging to resource constrained developing countries.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.