Sheffield NHS Trust on standby for Ebola patients.

The link the below gives report of number of cases of MRSA,in the Sheffield Teaching Hospitals for the year 2013 up to end January 2014.

 

Copy below of relevant report

 

 

http://www.sth.nhs.uk

 

---------- Post added 15-10-2014 at 15:46 ----------

 

The number of cases of MRSA,in the Sheffield Teaching Hospitals for the year 2013 up to end January 2014. there were 3 cases

 

 

2

1. INTRODUCTION

 

"This report provides the Board of Directors with information on the current performance against the

MRSA bacteraemia plan for 2013/14, the C.diff plan for 2013/14 and also the MSSA bacteraemia plan

for 2013/14. Information is also included on the number of cases of E.Coli bacteraemia. In addition,

attention is drawn to a number of key IPC issues.

 

 

2. 2013/14 MRSA PERFORMANCE

 

2.1 MRSA thresholds for 2013/14

 

Bacteraemia are either classified as Trust attributable or community acquired. For 2013/14 each case

of MRSA bacteraemia will be subject to a Post Infection Review (PIR), the purpose of which is to

determine the root cause and in doing so attribute responsibility to either the Trust, another provider

organisation such as another hospital or for it to be considered health community acquired. The

responsibility for conducting the PIR is determined by when the bacteraemia is identified; for any

bacteraemia identified on day 0 or day 1, the patient’s Clinical Commissioning Group organise the

PIR, for any case identified after that the Trust organise the PIR.

 

The NHS England approach for 2013/14 is zero tolerance to MRSA bacteraemia; as such the Trust

national target is zero. Any cases attributed to the Trust will see the payment associated with that

episode of care withheld.

 

Monitor has not retained MRSA bacteraemia as a target or indicator in the Risk Assessment

Framework which replaces the Compliance Framework from the 1st October 2013 for NHS Foundation

Trusts.

 

2.2 MRSA performance for January 2014

 

There have been 0 cases of MRSA bacteraemia recorded for the month of January.

 

It has been 65 days (up to 31 January 2014) since the last case of MRSA bacteraemia was attributed

to the Trust.

 

The full year performance is 3 cases of MRSA bacteraemia attributed to the Trust.

 

2.3 MRSA Screening

 

The January MRSA screening figures were 115%.

 

The MRSA screening figures are calculated using the number of screens processed by the laboratory

for the month divided by the number of admissions for the month. This is used as a proxy measure as

the Trust information systems are not able to reconcile individual screens with individual patients. A

figure of over 100% may indicate that the volume of screens being undertaken is in line with all

patients being screened for MRSA as per Trust policy.

 

To ensure that MRSA screening protocols are being followed at ward and department level, the

Infection Control Programme specifies how the IPC team will undertake MRSA screening compliance"

Thanks for the link

STH really does have an EXCELLENT record with regards to MRSA and all those involved in the implementation of guidelines to achieve this deserve a very big pat on the back.

Indeed, those of us who live in Sheffield really are very fortunate.

---------- Post added 15-10-2014 at 17:47 ----------

they can't even control the outbreak of mrsa in hospitals let alone ebola.

Like to make any comment mammybear ?

Thanks for the link

STH really does have an EXCELLENT record with regards to MRSA and all those involved in the implementation of guidelines to achieve this deserve a very big pat on the back.

Indeed, those of us who live in Sheffield really are very fortunate.

 

---------- Post added 15-10-2014 at 17:47 ----------

 

 

Like to make any comment mammybear ?

Would like to second that.

I cannot understand the stupidity of some people,

who fail to check the validity of their statement before posting.

If you don't agree with the official report,at least post the link to details

that backs up your view

Many people die each year in the UK of 'flu and the effects of 'flu - a highly contagious infection but very little fuss is made about this - and the number of 'at risk' people who do not take up the offer of free 'flu jabs is very worrying.

Concerns should be directed to this real problem rather than what might happen.

There are many people that do not want to have the flu vaccination. I stongly suspect that whilst most do not know why they refuse to have it there are a growing number of people that have what they hold to believe are very valid reasons for not having vaccinations generally and/or not allowing their children to have them imposed upon them.

I thought this thread was about the woefully misguided idea that setting up a centre that can deal with a handful of ebola victims at best, who may be transported from anywhere in the country as one is led to believe, was a good idea.

Setting up a number of hospital ships around our coast might make some sense, and lot more sense than the few regional centres that have been created.

The propsed method of screening travellers for ebola with what is basically a high tech multi use thermometer is a joke. It may detect the odd person with a higher temperature than normal. People with ebola that have high temperatures are laready ill with it. The screeening will not detect anyone that is infected with the virus but not developed symptoms yet.

Ebola might not come to the UK if we don't let ANYONE else in. But that's far too obvious a solution.

.

.

T

 

Ebola won't come to the UK if we don't let ANYONE in. But that's far too obvious a solution.

.

.

Do we have to ban the import of Fruit Bats too?

And other foodstuffs?

And British Nationals?

 

Ebola might not come to the UK if we don't let ANYONE else in. But that's far too obvious a solution.

 

Yes - let's close the UK down for business

Do we have to ban the import of Fruit Bats too?

 

And other foodstuffs?

 

And British Nationals?

Foodstuffs? Yes, for now.

British Nationals? No. Well not after they've spent 21 days in quarantine, anyway.

Now they're trying to play it down. I guess they'd be unable to cope with all the mass hysteria http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29640470

I thought this thread was about the woefully misguided idea that setting up a centre that can deal with a handful of ebola victims at best, who may be transported from anywhere in the country as one is led to believe, was a good idea.

 

Setting up a number of hospital ships around our coast might make some sense, and lot more sense than the few regional centres that have been created.

So caring for people in well established infectious disease units is "woefully misguided" but putting people on a hospi-boat is a good idea? How would putting people in the sea improve things and reduce the risk to the rest of the population? Unless you are suggesting that the staff are also made to stay on the boat forever....... But yes apart from that, a hospital boat makes much more sense. In fact I don't know why all hospitals aren't in the sea.

So caring for people in well established infectious disease units is "woefully misguided" but putting people on a hospi-boat is a good idea? How would putting people in the sea improve things and reduce the risk to the rest of the population? Unless you are suggesting that the staff are also made to stay on the boat forever....... But yes apart from that, a hospital boat makes much more sense. In fact I don't know why all hospitals aren't in the sea.

As you must have misinterpreted my post I will clarify the detail you appear to be having trouble with.

Originally Posted by Tommo68

I thought this thread was about the woefully misguided idea that setting up a centre that can deal with a handful of ebola victims at best, who may be transported from anywhere in the country as one is led to believe, was a good idea.

Setting up a number of hospital ships around our coast might make some sense, and lot more sense than the few regional centres that have been created.

Your suggestion that we put people in the sea is both uncaring and silly, we are talking about gravely ill people here and containing the potential threat to us all.

Of course the staff would have to remain there until all the people on the ship were infection free, the potentially affected areas sanitised and the incubation period had passed. That is just common sense.

.

.

There is no need to 'set up a centre for Ebola' or 'create' anything - E floor has been at RHH for decades and is perfectly able to deal with Ebola as they are able to deal with all sorts of virulent infections 365 days of every year - quietly and calmly and efficiently

Stop this hysteria now ! Hospitals on boats in the sea indeed !

You'll want to bring back sack cloth, ashes and the ringing of bells next !