Skip to main content

Hygiene and MRSA

MRSA and C difficile are only two of a number of infections that can be caught in hospital.

Gordon Brown talked about a "deep clean" once a year. To some extent that should demonstrate his disqualification for the role he is in. He proposes as a solution something that basically would have no effect.

I have linked to the BritMeds a collection of blog entries by people in the medical profession. Note that they generally support a return to providing facilities and clean clothing for medics to change into. The shortage of empty beds also has an effect relating specifically to MRSA.

for example This brings us back to the over stretched NHS front line and the shrinking number of beds available, as this has rather significant knock on effects on our ability to 'isolate high risk groups' and to 'isolate carriers'. Most people working on the front line will tell you that it is routine in many hospitals for known MRSA carriers to be nursed in open wards with patients who are known not to be MRSA carriers, it is therefore no wonder that MRSA is not being contained in the UK. The excessive pressure to move patients from ward to ward far too quickly without infection control being respected is arguably the biggest reason for MRSA's success in the UK, and the government continues to make this situation worse with more and more targets.

see also
Who took away the ready provision of clean white coats? Surely contaminated clothes should stay in the hospital and be washed there and not taken out into the community? And who forced doctors to do safari ward rounds trekking from ward to ward because there was never enough flexibility to accommodate patients on the right ward? And who shoehorned extra beds into already crowded wards? And who is responsible for there being too few side rooms so that patently infectious cases cannot be easily isolated? And who is responsible for Dr Davey having to change in the toilet and wearing his suit trousers while dealing with faeces? And who is responsible for beds occupancy being so high that many beds have more than one occupant in 24 hours? If you were looking for a way to spread infection you couldn't find a better one. Skimping and cost cutting is costing us and our patients dear.


Matt said…
ptI must start by saying that I have a vested interest in infection control both as a tax paying citizen, a past and no doubt future NHS patient and not least someone who has been trying to promote a laundry additive that kills MRSA at low temperatures and continues to kill it after the wash, DURING WORK AND ON THE WAY HOME!
I must move that "CAPS LOCK" key somewhere else!
I have tried to figure out why the DoH and NHS continue to deny/refute/ignore the obvious fact that uniforms, bedding and nightwear harbour bacteria ( specifically mrsa )and that this can lead to cross-infection.
Recent reports from the Official Journal of Infection Control clearly says that garments do not pose a significant risk, but a few days later it is announced that doctors must not wear ties and everyone else must have "short" sleeves. Why, if there is no evidence based risk?
If there is a risk, which this move seems to endorse, then why do the NHS continually refuse to accept my offer of "FREE" trial product to conduct tests with.
I am wishing to promote this product on this forum, but simply to beg the question WHY? When a time proven, safe, long lasting and effective natural biocide is available that will significantly help reduce the presence and therefore risk of bacteria on is not used, not accepted and even dismissed as unecessary.
It is beyond me to reason why.......

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).


R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…