FUTURE OF THE SEPTIC ISOLATION WARDS IN ORTHOPAEDICS AND TRAUMATOLOGY UNITS

Abstract

Purpose: With the growing risk of nosocomial infections, one might expect to see a reinforcement of septic isolation wards in orthopaedics and traumatology units. The question is however being revisited because of several factors. 1st: General Orthopaedics Units are practically the only hospital units caring for a minority of septic patients with often resistant germs and a majority of non-septic patients in the same setting. 2nd: The growing number of single-patient rooms procures confidence (whether justified or not). 3rd: Hygiene specialists are particularly wary of occult carriers of resistant bacteria and apply a single set of protective measures for all patients. 4th: Economic performance is given priority.

Material and methods: We studied 1) the current situation in Orthopaedic units in University Hospitals in France and 2) the statistics from the Besançon University Hospital Hygiene Unit and from data in the literature.

Results: 1) Interrogation of the 71 University Orthopaedics Units in France revealed that: 11 units have strict isolation wards; 40 have incomplete isolation wards; 20 make no distinction between septic and non-septic patients. 2) According to the Hygiene Unit statistics, the epidemiological load of S. aureus meti-R (SAMR), strains often implicated in orthopaedic infection, is much higher in the University Hospital polyvalent wards than in the Orthopaedic septic ward. Contamination between septic patients is low. Furthermore, hand-borne and airborne contamination are not controlled in wards other than septic wards. Data in the literature are not in agreement concerning this new trend in prevention by isolation.

Discussion: a) One argument retained by all is that septic wards have an advantage in terms of efficacy and concentration of preventive measures. b) The growing workload in mixed units hinders strict application of preventive measures. c) A large number of temporary personnel (trainees, temporary employees, personnel untrained in sepsis prevention) are present in polyvalent units. d) Standardisation of preventive measures leads to an average level of prevention which lengthens the duration of care for non-septic patients and simplifies care for septic patients. e) The financial argument is impertinent compared with the consequences of contamination. Furthermore, a departmental structure would allow common use of the septic ward.

Conclusion : Septic isolation wards (or a septic department) should be preserved. The orthopaedic surgeon, as a responsible actor in the fight against nosocomial infections, should in concert with the consulting hygienist, oppose purely administrative decisions.