Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to T S J Elliott.
This review suggests an evidence-based algorithm for sequential testing in infective endocarditis. It discusses blood culture and the merits and drawbacks of serology in making the diagnosis. Newer techniques are briefly reviewed. The proposed algorithm will complement the Duke criteria in clinical practice.
Exposure to bloodborne pathogens from sharps injuries continues to pose a significant risk to healthcare workers (HCW). The number of sharps injuries sustained by HCW is still unclear, primarily due to under-reporting. In this review a mean rate of 4.0% (range 1.0-6.2%) sharps injuries per 10000 HCW was calculated from eight studies involving more than 7000 HCW. Nurses and doctors were most at risk of sharps injuries, frequently from hollow-bore needles. Approaches to reduce this risk have included education and training on the safe handling and disposal of sharp devices, awareness campaigns and legislative action. More recently, preventative strategies have focused on needle protective devices, which may reduce the rate of sharps injuries. Introducing needle protective devices should be considered particularly in high-risk areas, after training, education, evaluation and cost-benefit analysis.
We report a case of prosthetic, aortic valve, infective endocarditis caused by Haemophilus paraphrophilus. There are no other cases described in the available literature where this microorganism has caused prosthetic valve endocarditis and no other case reported involving only the aortic valve.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
AIM: To develop and evaluate a rapid enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the diagnosis of intravascular catheter related sepsis caused by coagulase negative staphylococci. METHODS: Forty patients with a clinical and microbiological diagnosis of intravascular catheter related sepsis and positive blood cultures, caused by coagulase negative staphylococci, and 40 control patients requiring a central venous catheter as part of their clinical management were recruited into the study. Serum IgG responses to a previously undetected exocellular antigen produced by coagulase negative staphylococci, termed lipid S, were determined in the patient groups by a rapid ELISA. RESULTS: There was a significant difference (p = < 0.0001) in serum IgG to lipid S between patients with catheter related sepsis and controls. The mean antibody titre in patients with sepsis caused by coagulase negative staphylococci was 10 429 (range, no detectable serum IgG antibody to 99 939), whereas serum IgG was not detected in the control group of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid ELISA offers a simple, economical, and rapid diagnostic test for suspected intravascular catheter related sepsis caused by coagulase negative staphylococci, which can be difficult to diagnose clinically. This may facilitate treatment with appropriate antimicrobials and may help prevent the unnecessary removal of intravascular catheters.
Healthcare workers' (HCWs') occupational risk of exposure to blood-borne pathogens has been well documented. Subsequent educational programmes, awareness campaigns and policy implementation made limited impact on HCWs' level of knowledge of these risks and compliance with universal precautions. Two hundred HCWs completed a questionnaire to evaluate their level of knowledge. Results demonstrated that despite a comprehensive educational programme for nurses and training for medical staff, knowledge of inoculation injuries and associated issues remained inadequate. Indeed, policies and procedures were not followed. Furthermore, gloves were not routinely worn in the clinical setting. Educational programmes ware essential to inform HCWs of occupational risk of exposure to blood-borne pathogens and guide practice following an inoculation injury. However, efficacy of such programmes must be reviewed, alternative strategies evaluated, and the cause of HCWs' limited knowledge determined.
Needlestick injuries (NSI) can result in healthcare workers being exposed to blood-borne viruses. Between 1997 and 2002, three healthcare workers in the UK have seroconverted to hepatitis C and one to human immunodeficiency virus (Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS), 2003). Experience both in the UK and the USA suggests that even robust educational strategies may be insufficient to reduce the number of occupationally acquired NSI (Jagger et al, 1988). Needle-protective devices have now become more widely available and several studies have demonstrated an associated reduced risk of NSK. It is, however, essential that the devices are appropriately evaluated before introduction to ensure that they meet user requirements, do not interfere with function and reduce NSI risk. This article describes an evaluation programme carried out at the University Hospital Birmingham, UK. The programme focused on three key areas: safety, usability and compatibility. Results demonstrated that nurses rapidly adapt their practices to use the new safety devices and the study highlighted key education requirements that would be required before implementation. In addition, without this evaluation, it would not have been identified that attachment of the safety needles to the syringes requires a push-and-twist method or the use of LuerLok syringes to prevent detachment on activation of the safety procedure