ArticleGMS Krankenhaushygiene interdisziplinar2011
Refurbishment works in a hospital during normal operation.
Article in GMS Krankenhaushygiene interdisziplinar, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConstruction and renovation work in hospitals pose risks of fungal airborne infections for immunosuppressed patients. If possible, reconstruction work will be postponed to periods without patient treatment. However, in many situations urgent damage demands immediate refurbishment works before the transferring of patients to other wards or closure of wards is possible. Reported here are infection control related measures and implemented procedures after two incidents of water damage which occurred on a surgical ward and an intensive care unit at the University hospital of Essen.
methodsBetween January and April 2009 and between September and October 2009, respectively, concentration of air-borne particles and number of viable fungi were measured at two surgical wards and one ICU. Preventive Infection Control Measures included erection of protective walls and HEPA filtration of air from the renovation area.
resultsDuring the renovation work on the surgical ward concentrations of moulds and particles ≥5 µm were significantly higher on the left side of the renovation area than on the right side (p=0.036 and p<0.001). Concentrations of particles ≥1 µm and particles ≥5 µm on both sides of the renovation area were significantly increased when compared with the control ward on the same floor but not when compared with the control ward on the other floor. Particles of all size were significantly elevated on the ICU during the renovation work. Aspergillus fumigatus could neither be cultured of the air of cardiac surgery intensive care unit nor of the intermediate care unit (control ward). During renovation works there was no nosocomial mould infection of patients treated on the two wards.
conclusionProvided that the renovation area is tightly insulated from the areas of patient care on a ward, closure does not seem to be necessary during renovation works because variation of airborne fungi is similar to that of outdoor or control air. However a multidisciplinary team should be established. This team should perform risk assessment and determine necessary protective measures before starting any construction, renovation or maintenance work in health care settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.