Literature review Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Literature suss out - Research Paper ExampleStudies where thither was no MRSA screening were also excluded because these studies did not offer the information needed to address the major aspiration of this review. In addition, studies where MRSA infection was not substantiate by microbiologic techniques were excluded because this review was designed to study only patients that were confirmed to carry the infection after both screening and microbiologic techniques. Based on the findings from the cases in the literature, the broad caper was that too many patients are transmitting Methicillin resistant Staph aureus in intensive care unit. Specifically, the literature aimed to provide attest for the question, Would the high transmission rate decrease if screening in adult patients was conducted upon admittance to the ICU unit of measurement as opposed to not screening? This problem is important to pursue because it affected patient outcomes including the space of stay and complica tions from other illnesses. This problem also had a potential impact on the quality of discourse due to overcrowding and understaffing. The costs were also affected since the hospital was forced to use more money for testing, medicine, and living accommodations patients. Finally, the access to needed medications was limited, and ordering caused further delays. For the purposes of this study, the patients in each case study were limited to adults who were admitted to the ICU section. Children were not included in any of the studies regarding MRSA, and patients in other sections of the facility were also excluded. The following review placed el point case studies into discussion, focusing on the interventions, comparisons, and outcomes of the studies. Each study included a notify on the interventions used for that study, with interesting results from each case study. Clancy, Grepler, Wilson, Douglas, Johnson, and Price (2006), used mop samples which were obtained upon admission to ICUs and hebdomadal on that pointafter patients who tested tyrannical from nasal or clinical specimens were placed in wholesaler isolation, even after readmission DNA fragments were analyzed for similarity of banding PFGE patterns. Dalla Valle, Pasca, De Vitis, Marzani, Emmi, and Marone (2009), also gathered swab samples, although they obtained the samples upon admission and twice- every week thereafter. Patients who screened positive degree received isolation and/or antibiotic or colonization therapy. Honda, Krauss, Coopersmith, Kollef, Richmond, Fraser, and Warren (2010), conducted nasal screening, and had the patients who screened positive had contact precautions implemented with no antibiotic or colonization therapy. Clancy and Dalla Valle would eat up probably described Hondas do as irresponsible since antibiotics were not administered and patients were not relocated to a secluded area. This made the study ineffective, because there was no way to prevent the spread of MR SA between patients in the ICU. Other case studies that used the swab method included Lucet, Paoletti, Lolom, Paugam-Burtz, Trouillet, Timsit, Deblangy, Andremont, and Regnier (2005) used nasal swabs to obtain within 24 hours at admission and weekly thereafter. Although once a week was a consistent testing window, the case study probably would have generated far stronger results if testing had been conducted at lease twice a week. Contact precautions were implemented in MRSA positive patients. Another method used to determine MRSA was the standard culture method. Cunningham, Jenks, Northwood,