Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T23:33:04.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cross-Infection in scarlet-Fever bed isolation wards

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

W. Stewart Stalker ,
Elizabeth Whatley  and
Joyce Wright
W. Stewart Stalker
Affiliation:
Hendon Isolation Hospital
Elizabeth Whatley
Affiliation:
University College Hospital Medical School, London
Joyce Wright
Affiliation:
University College Hospital Medical School, London
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. The incidence of cross-infection with Str. pyogenes during a period of four months was compared in two blocks occupied by scarlet-fever patients. One block was nursed by the bed isolation method and the other by the ordinary method in current use for multiple-bed wards. 2. The rules for the bed isolation blook are given. 3. The incidence of cross-infection with Str. pyogenes among patients in the bed isolation block was 20·3%, that among patients in the ordinary block 22·6%. 4. We concluded that the bed isolation nursing technique practised was not effective in reducing cross-infection with Str. pyogenes among scarlet-fever patients. 5. A further test of bed isolation nursing was made for six months, using the extra precaution of vacuum-cleaning the floors. We found that crossinfection was still occurring, but the incidence could not be estimated since the Str. pyogenes strains isolated had to be destroyed at the outbreak of war. At this time the serological typing had not been completed. 6. The importance of dust-borne and droplet-borne infection in addition to that of contact infection is discussed. The type of investigation required to decide whether cross-infection in multiple-bed scarlet-fever wards can be eliminated by the methods at our present disposal is outlined.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , May 1942 , pp. 231 - 237
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1942

References

REFERENCES

Allison, V. D., & Brown, W. A., (1937). Reinfection as a cause of complications in scarlet fever wards. J. Hyg., Camb., 37, 153–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glass, V., & Wright, H. D., (1938). Cross-infection in diphtheria wards. J. Hyg., Camb., 38, 248–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffith, F., (1934). Serological classification of Streptococcus pyogene J. Hyg., Camb., 34,542–84.Google Scholar
Hare, R. (1940). The expulsion of haemolytic streptococci by nasopharyngeal carriers. Canad. Publ. Hlth J. 31, 539–55.Google Scholar
Rundle, C., & Burton, A. H. G., (1912). The bed isolation of cases of infectious disease. Lancet, 1, 720–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. C., (1941). Reduction of dust-borne bacteria by oiling floors. Lancet, 2, 123–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. C., & Van Den Ende, M., (1941). The reduction of dust-borne bacteria in the air of hospital wards by liquid paraffin treatment of bedclothes, Brit. Med. J. 1, 953–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Den Ende, M., Edward, D. G. ff., & Lush, D., (1941). Reduction of dust-borne infection by treatment of bedclothes Lancet, 1, 716–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Den Ende, M., Lush, D., & Edward, D. G. ff., (1940). Reduction of dust-borne bacteria by treating floors, Lancet, 2, 133–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Den Ende, M., & Thomas, J. C., (1941). Treatment of bedclothes with dust-laying oils, Lancet, 2, 755–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, H. D, Shone, H. R., & Tucker, J. R., (1941). Cross-infection in diphtheria wards. J. Path. Bact. 52, 111–28.Google Scholar