A Study on Hospital Acquired Infections among Patients in a Tertiary Care Hospital of Darjeeling District, West Bengal

Abstract

Introduction
 Hospital Acquired Infections (HAI), also called ‘Nosocomial Infections’ are identified at least 48-72 hours following admission to health institution. In many hospitals, HAI appears to be a hidden, cross-cutting problem. Thus a continuous surveillance is imperative for determining the extent of the problem and its effective prevention and control. Present study determines the incidence and different types of hospital acquired infections and the bacterial pathogens responsible for those.
 Materials and Methods
 An observational longitudinal study was undertaken during January to June 2014, among 107 patients admitted in ENT wards of North Bengal Medical College and Hospital (NBMCH), selected by consecutive inclusion technique. Information was taken using a predesigned, pretested semi-structured schedule. The collected data were analyzed as frequencies, percentages and means ± standard deviations.
 Results
 The present study found incidence rate of hospital acquired infections as 19.6% and incidence density as 26.35 per 1000 patient days. Surgical site infection was commonest type (57.2%) followed by urinary tract infection (23.8%) and blood stream infection (19.0%) respectively. 15.4% of blood cultures, 100.0% of surgical wound swab cultures and 21.7% of urine cultures were positive and gram negative bacteria were most frequently occurring organisms. Most commonly found bacteria were Pseudomonas and Klebsiella.
 Discussion 
 Background characteristics of the study population; incidence rate, the different types of hospital acquired infections among those admitted patients and the bacterial pathogens responsible for those infections have been discussed along with review of literature.
 Conclusion
 Even if in a tertiary health care facility, hospital acquired infection rate could not be brought down into <10%. So implementation of stringent guidelines on prevention of HAI and continuous surveillance and monitoring system can help to diminish this problem in future.

Detection of Uropathogens and their Antimicrobial Susceptibility Pattern by VITEK2 Automated System in the Intensive Care Unit

“…20,21 Our study is nearly dissimilar to the study of De et al in India (Gram-negative (66.3%) and Grampositive (33.6%); Kanj et al in Argentina (Gramnegative (81.8) and Gram-positive (18.2%). 11,22 This study observed mixed bacterial infection in 03 (07.69%) cases. It was similar to Alam in Bangladesh (10.20%).…”

“…17,18 This finding differed from other studies like Amin et al in Bangladesh and De et al in India, which found around 22.7% and 19%, respectively. 19,11 The relatively high incidence of infections in this study may be due to poor nutritional status, poor adherence to aseptic measures, and high proportion of mechanical ventilation (Akter et al). 10…”

“…10 Our study is nearly dissimilar to the study of De et al in India; Shaikh in Pakistan, where the male and female isolation rates were 45.8%: 54.2% and 52.6%: 47.4%, respectively. 11,12 This may be due to geographical, and racial differences. 8,11 This may be due to the variation in the study population, geography, living condition, and racial factor.…”

“…11,12 This may be due to geographical, and racial differences. 8,11 This may be due to the variation in the study population, geography, living condition, and racial factor.…”

Prevalence, risk factors, causative organism and antibiotic susceptibility of catheter associated urinary tract infections

“…A prevalence survey conducted under the World Health Organization (WHO) in 55 hospitals of 14 countries representing 4 WHO Regions (Europe, Eastern Mediterranean, South-East Asia and Western Pacific) showed an average of 8.7% of hospital patients had nosocomial infections. 3 The seven hospitals in the global infection control consortium had cumulative CAUTI infection rates of 1.41 per 1000 catheter days across seven Indian cities. 4 NI is a major factor in higher rates of morbidity, mortality, and financial burden in hospitals and other healthcare facilities.…”