Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages PL
Thanks for the information.
JAMA Network | JAMA Surgery | Timing of Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis and the Risk of Surgical Site Infection
The following statement, from the above link, got my attention:
"Numerous studies have failed to demonstrate that adherence to the Surgical Care Improvement Project prophylactic antibiotic timely administration measure is associated with decreased surgical site infection (SSI)."
Therefore it seems if The Villages hospital is making progress with this problem it's not because of prophylactic antibiotics. We still don't know the extent of the problem, like what is their infection rate and how does it compare with previous years. Or: How many people die each year from infections? There's no substitute for them being straight-forward with the public. |
If numerous studies have failed to demonstrate any positive outcome for the use of prophylactic antibiotics in a hospital setting, then I doubt The Villages Hospital has anything other than that same result. If they do have a positive result, then they should shout it from the rooftops and let other hospitals learn from their experience. At the same time we Villagers would be proud of their accomplishment. Let's here about it!
As far as how many people die each year from hospital infections, I'm not assuming anything. It might be zero. Wikipedia: Zero is a number. So again I ask, "How many people die each year from infections?"
If prophylactic antibiotics have no positive outcome, should patients be needlessly exposed to them?