MRSA:"It is endemic in every hospital."

InFront

Tristrame wrote:

I'd just have the same view as those that were on the late late show a few weeks back who said it was a waste of time and money when decisions could be taken now based on for example the Holland experience.

Who represented the Beaumont study on that show? Who represented the HRB? Nobody as far as I'm aware. That's not a debate, that's the sort of low value, sensationalist, phone-in blame-ism that you can catch on Liveline any day of the week.

The benefits of molecular diagnostic procedures in health systems with such enormous patient turnover as there is here in Ireland (as nursebaz just referred to) has not been studied, and so the HSE will not commit to such projects.

If we had more facilities, we wouldn't need to establish the relative importance of human versus environmental factors, but of course that is not the case, this is not Holland, and we have to find out what can be done to use realistic meansto tackle things like MRSA and other persisting hospital bugs.

I think the HSE is a shambles, but in fairness to them, if it turned out that the diagnostic machines were a waste of money there would be even more finger-pointing from the likes of you saying "well we knew all along that wouldn't work. In reality, it is almost definitely going to be shown that rapid detection machines and enhanced sterilisation work very well, and more than likely when that starts to happen the procedures will be expanded upon at a national level. Nobody actually wants the HCAI clampdown to fail.

nurse_baz

nurse_baz wrote:

what would stop us doing whats being done on say Holland or anywhere else, is most definetly about resources, but also and maybe more so, about capacity as well. then we also have procedures too.

Oh I agree.I've said that and I've said that it's obvious that resources are part of the problem in public hospitals.Starving a hospital of resources make a difficult enough problem to solve almost impossible for the reasons you've stated.
Thats an indictment on management and the government.

I was making what I thought was a valid point regarding how private hospitals are infested with this also despite being resource rich.
Clearly they are not taking the Holland approach either and to be frank when dealing with life and death,the holland approach should be the law and the resources shouldn't be hampering things further in the public hospitals.
Frankly I think the current situation is disgracefull.

InFront wrote:

Who represented the Beaumont study on that show? Who represented the HRB? Nobody as far as I'm aware. That's not a debate, that's the sort of low value, sensationalist, phone-in blame-ism that you can catch on Liveline any day of the week.

Actually Professor Drumm was a guest.
They had an MRSA patient on the panel aswell and a lady whose husband died from the bug.The MRSA patient was discussing his group law suit.
There were also a lot of interested parties in the audience.

It wasn't the Jeremy Kyle show if thats what you are inferring.

InFront

Tristrame wrote:

Actually Professor Drumm was a guest.
They had an MRSA patient on the panel aswell and a lady whose husband died from the bug.The MRSA patient was discussing his group law suit.
There were also a lot of interested parties in the audience.

It wasn't the Jeremy Kyle show if thats what you are inferring.

That wasn't Brendan Drumm, it was a senior civil servant in the HSE.
A woman was in the audience from the NHO, speaking in her role of risk assessment and risk management for hospitals.

There were no practicing medics on the entire show, that seems to me a little imbalanced, or at least likely to give an inaccurate impression. I don't know what the Jeremy Kyle show is, but it was definitely more 'Liveline' than serious debate.

InFront

InFront wrote:

That wasn't Brendan Drumm, it was a senior civil servant in the HSE.

Ah my bad,it wasn't Drumm it was Dr Kevin Keleher from the HRB/HSE,I just remembered someone blathering that looked like Drumm (he does).I've re watched the programme now.He didn't defend the "study" at all when asked why money was being wasted on a 4 year long study...to which the answers are already known.
4 years you know,I ask you.Such codology.I'd make the píss up in a brewery comment only unnecessary death is too serious for levity.
Cleverly the man that should be talking about the study refused to talk about it.I'd suggest that was because he probably knew talking about it would expose the Ruse that it is, ie a way to push this under the carpet untill after the next election.

A woman was in the audience from the NHO, speaking in her role of risk assessment and risk management for hospitals.

I don't know what the Jeremy Kyle show is, but it was definitely more 'Liveline' than serious debate.

If you think the programme was tabloid then watch it
I'd seriously not agree with your assessment but theres nothing new there we don't seem to agree on much bar one or two things here.
I'd be a regular enough listener to liveline by the way-Joe Duffy does usually get both sides of a problem involved and he gets results.Pat Kenny's radio show is similar in it's purpose but its more documentative.

Oh and Jeremy Kyle it is not .

There were no practicing medics on the entire show, that seems to me a little imbalanced

I take your point there but Yeah,if I was a hospital doctor,I'd be reluctant to run that gauntlet either-Do you know if any were invited to appear ?
I also took your point regarding visitors and I'll add passers through a hospital.
I disagreed with the weighting of responsibility though as Really and Truly,I think it should be unlawfull for visitors and the general public to be allowed to mix with patients other than whoever they are visiting when there is MRSA in the hospital.
They'd have to suit up properly if it was down to me just like when entering a piggery or an abatoir.
After all they are able to close down a hospital to visitors and even new admittances for the winter vomiting bug but not MRSA.
Thats probably because theres more visible distress immediately associated with vomitting.
You can hush hush a ward full of MRSA deadly as it is a lot quicker than a vomiting ward.
On a positive note Dr Kelleher did say that he wasn't interested in defending the past, he said it was wrong and would take the issues raised on the programme on board.

Incidently Was Primetime last november biased as well? Do you disagree with what the GP on that said? The exact same vibe as on the Late Late show programme.

Villain

What is it InFront you think that "practicing medics" would have said on the Late Late Show, how would they have excused the rise in MRSA in hospitals and what would they say is being done to make an impact on the issue?

My father went into hospital healthy over 8 years ago a healthy man and has never been able to walk unaided since he contracted MRSA in Beaumount. He was in a normal ward with other patients in beaumount he was moved to Cappagh and was put in a seperate MRSA ward, a full ward and he was the only one in it, thats the kind of resources needed to manage the infection.

Do you agree that MRSA is largely preventable?

InFront

Tristrame wrote:

I've re watched the programme now.He didn't defend the "study" at all when asked why money was being wasted on a 4 year long study...to which the answers are already known... expose the Ruse that it is, ie a way to push this under the carpet untill after the next election.

Firstly, why do you say "study"? It's a study.
It is examining something that hasn't been examined in this context before.

Do you think the researchers and staff are part of this conspiracy theory too?

we don't seem to agree on much bar one or two things here.

No, perhaps if you could maintain a coherent opinion so it was obvious what your real opinion is, things would be different.

Thats probably because theres more visible distress immediately associated with vomitting.
You can hush hush a ward full of MRSA deadly as it is a lot quicker than a vomiting ward.

When you have an acute problem with srsv, trying to cohort people and contain the spread of the infection is easier because of the sudden and relatively obvious nature of the virus.
With MRSA, that isn't the case of course. Due to the ubiquitous nature of the problem, if one day you try to isolate wards - or cut off access - you're left with nothing but the carpark to treat patients. The problem is too huge. New patients have nowhere else to go but back into 'MRSA units', be that in a private hospital or in a public one.
If you think, as the above quote suggests, that tackling MRSA or a similar HCAI is as easy as tackling the winter vomiting bug, you're wrong.

InFront

irish1 wrote:

What is it InFront you think that "practicing medics" would have said on the Late Late Show, how would they have excused the rise in MRSA in hospitals and what would they say is being done to make an impact on the issue?

I think any nurses or doctors would have made some sort of valuable contribution in demonstrating that it is completely outside their interests not tackle MRSA completely.
In fact it is completely possible that some postgraduate training programmes in our university hospitals will fail to meet European recognition analyses due to the HCAI situation and associated resource difficulties.
It is very easy for some people to blame healthcare staff, and it suits the government right down to the ground to do so.

It all depends on who you believe or who you see in the media. On the one hand you have the doctors and nurses and physios and radiographers and ambulance personnel, who daily deal with the problem; on the other hand you have administrators like Harney, with zero real experience trying to assure you that things are getting better, and if things go wrong blame the hospitals.

Do you agree that MRSA is largely preventable?

No it certainly is not preventible, not with the resources that are there. It would be very preventible if the resources were there, as was shown by that Holland link. This is not Holland, and our health service isn't going to resemble theirs anytime soon.

Villain

So with the correct political will and investment it would be possible to prevent?

InFront

In the conditional tense, it would be. If is a big word.

Villain

So do you agree that if the political will and investment had been present 8 years ago MRSA could now be preventable and the endemic we currently have could have been prevented?

Dr Galen

irish1 wrote:

So with the correct political will and investment it would be possible to prevent?

no i don't think so. all this government seems to do is jump on the lastest "joe public" bandwagon, and make fancy noises about studies, consultants and the situation getting better. political will means nothing to me if the resources aren't in place. i used an example on the previous page......how does political will help me or my patient and his family in that case.

short of rebuilding every hospital ward in the country, giving every patient a single room, we'll not get rid of MRSA or other types of hospital acquired infection any time soon.

Dr Galen

yes

i dunno about your use of the word endemic though, do you mean epidemic?

InFront

irish1 wrote:

So do you agree that if the political will and investment had been present 8 years ago MRSA could now be preventable and the endemic we currently have could have been prevented?

Absolutely, of course it could. Please don't confuse me with a FF-PD voter:)

Villain

Well a consultant microbiologist called it endemic so I'll go with her description as she is a lot more informed than me.

Villain

InFront wrote:

Absolutely, of course it could. Please don't confuse me with a FF-PD voter:)

Good I just got the impression that some people thought this couldn't have been avoided, my main point in starting this thread was to highlight that the government of the past 10 years have failed the people of this nation in relation to MRSA. Their inaction has cost lives and brought pain and suffering to a large number of Irish families.

Dr Galen

did she not say it was endemic, meaning ingrained, in our hospitals. as opposed to an endemic.

anyways no need to get shirty, its fine. I'm not going to argue semantics on somethng like that

Dr Galen

irish1 wrote:

Good I just got the impression that some people thought this couldn't have been avoided, my main point in starting this thread was to highlight that the government of the past 10 years have failed the people of this nation in relation to MRSA. Their inaction has cost lives and brought pain and suffering to a large number of Irish families.

i'll agree with that.

Villain

nurse_baz wrote:

did she not say it was endemic, meaning ingrained, in our hospitals. as opposed to an endemic.

anyways no need to get shirty, its fine. I'm not going to argue semantics on somethng like that

Sorry mate I didn't mean to sound shirty at all, I just meant I was going with her term for describing the issue. You could well be right

LostinBlanch

Not wishing to jump on any bandwagon here. But this is something that is affecting many people and families throughout the country and this is something we should remember.

It is hitting people on a micro level and it's too easy to argue the point on an abstract level without seeing the effects it has on people. Sounds like Irish1 could give you more detail than I could (or would want to).

InFront

InFront wrote:

Firstly, why do you say "study"? It's a study.
It is examining something that hasn't been examined in this context before.

for 4 years...

Do you think the researchers and staff are part of this conspiracy theory too?

They're delighed with the pay I'd say.

No, perhaps if you could maintain a coherent opinion so it was obvious what your real opinion is, things would be different.

My opinion is so the same on this thread,I've had to repeat it seven or eight times at this stage to you.

When you have an acute problem with srsv, trying to cohort people and contain the spread of the infection is easier because of the sudden and relatively obvious nature of the virus.
With MRSA, that isn't the case of course. Due to the ubiquitous nature of the problem, if one day you try to isolate wards - or cut off access - you're left with nothing but the carpark to treat patients. The problem is too huge. New patients have nowhere else to go but back into 'MRSA units', be that in a private hospital or in a public one.
If you think, as the above quote suggests, that tackling MRSA or a similar HCAI is as easy as tackling the winter vomiting bug, you're wrong.

Which leads me back again to the resources point that I was making (Is this the 9th time?) and which you seem to have taken so much offence from.
I've been in two private hospitals recently with plenty of spare capacity and excelent facilities yet rife with MRSA . I put it to you that , that suggests resources are not the problem.It's there with perfect resources and isolation facilities.
I never at any point suggested that it wouldn't be worse without resources as it obviously is in most of the public wards.Yer man from Cardiff on the prime time programme has the right idea and so have the Dutch.
I've also proffered that a visibile lack of hygene in hospitals should be an enforced criminal offence.
Sometimes unpopular nettles have to be grasped.

No it certainly is not preventible, not with the resources that are there. It would be very preventible if the resources were there, as was shown by that Holland link. This is not Holland, and our health service isn't going to resemble theirs anytime soon.

Oh I disagree again,It's almost entirely preventable if its given the priority that it needs.Also for the reasons stated I don't think resources are the answer on their own.It needs a complete and total policing of the best practices both with the patient and the visitor.

As OscarBravo alluded to earlier in this thread, builders coming into a hospital to use the loo should not be allowed and the general public should be prevented from access without strict bio hazzard precautions taken.
And again that should be policed rigourously because obviously the psychology of the average visitor ,patient and medical personell is rather slipshod when it comes to this.Otherwise we'd have very little MRSA.

Sipaliwini

Tristrame wrote:

Which leads me back again to the resources point that I was making (Is this the 9th time?) and which you seem to have taken so much offence from.
I've been in two private hospitals recently with plenty of spare capacity and excelent facilities yet rife with MRSA . I put it to you that , that suggests resources are not the problem.It's there with perfect resources and isolation facilities.

InFront replied to that by explaining that the profit motive in private hospitals could have the same effect as under funding of public hospitals:
In this case, not isolating incoming patients until results are back from the lab as to the presence of MRSA. In other words the resources might have been there in the private hospital you speak of, but not the will to use them properly because it would have hurt financial returns. It doesn't contradict the point that the MRSA problem in public hospitals is a result of inadequate funding of the health service by the government, a completely political issue. It looked like pretty much everyone in this thread agreed with that.

InFront

Originally posted by Tristrame
I've been in two private hospitals recently with plenty of spare capacity and excelent facilities yet rife with MRSA . I put it to you that , that suggests resources are not the problem.It's there with perfect resources and isolation facilities.

Perfect resources? Perfect isolation facilities? That isn't the same as saying that resources aren't part of the solution. If MRSA is still "Rife", as you suggest, even with these perfect resources, that completely rules out resources! Do you not understand that?

That is the same as saying that resources have nothing to do with it. Can't you see what complete rubbish you're posting?

When you come back, after such a stupid post, and say again that 'oh no, resources are a problem', this is why I say you are incoherent. Why don't you pick a position, and stick to it?

As a matter of fact, private hospitals in the UK seem to have got it right about MRSA
http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/private-hospitals/mrsa-infection#below, even though one might expect their 'selfish' profit focus combined with duty for care to have created a slightly higher incidence than occured.
If you click on the link at the bottom of the page on the link, you will see how they managed this. The one word that screams out at the reader is "resources".

*
For hip replacements the UK independent sector infection rates range from 0.98 per cent for low risk patients to 1.99 per cent for high risk patients. Comparable rates from elsewhere (UK and internationally) range to over 5 per cent.
*
UK independent sector knee replacement infection rates are in line with those found elsewhere ranging from 0.56 per cent to 1.24 per cent.
*
For hysterectomies, the independent sector rates ranged from 0.74 per cent to 2.8 per cent. Elsewhere rates ranged from 1.4 per cent to 11 per cent.

Originally posted by Tristrame
Yer man from Cardiff on the prime time programme has the right idea and so have the Dutch.

"Yer man from Cardiff" as you refer to him, or Dr Ian Hosein as other people might say, talked of changing attitudes to MRSA and Staff Management/ Recruitment.
Most people seem quite happy that this attitude-change on behalf of healthcare staff has come about already. The Hospital Audits say so, people who are familiar with hospitals say so.
What most people would have taken from his contribution was his belief in efficient staffing in controlling HCAI incidence. That is a resources issue.

It would be very preventible if the resources were there, as was shown by that Holland link. This is not Holland, and our health service isn't going to resemble theirs anytime soon.

Oh I disagree again,It's almost entirely preventable if its given the priority that it needs

This is why I say you are arguing for the sake of arrogance. What exactly is the difference between giving priority to MRSA and giving hospitals more resources? There is none, but no doubt you will now come back and try to re-phrase yourself so it looks as though you were saying something else all along.

InFront

InFront wrote:

Perfect resources? Perfect isolation facilities? That isn't the same as saying that resources aren't part of the solution. If MRSA is still "Rife", as you suggest, even with these perfect resources, that completely rules out resources! Do you not understand that?

Did you read the bit at all earlier where I said it's obvious that the lack of resources in public hospitals make a bad situation worse? Or the bit where I said whatever chance you have with the proper resources,you've practically none without them.
My whole point being that resources aren't the anser.
I'm seriously thinking you are trolling now.

That is the same as saying that resources have nothing to do with it. Can't you see what complete rubbish you're posting?

When you come back, after such a stupid post, and say again that 'oh no, resources are a problem', this is why I say you are incoherent. Why don't you pick a position, and stick to it?

Will I go and say the same thing a 12th time?
No I'll call a halt to the trolling.

As a matter of fact, private hospitals in the UK seem to have got it right about MRSA
http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/private-hospitals/mrsa-infection#below, even though one might expect their 'selfish' profit focus combined with duty for care to have created a slightly higher incidence than occured.
If you click on the link at the bottom of the page on the link, you will see how they managed this. The one word that screams out at the reader is "resources".

"Yer man from Cardiff" as you refer to him, or Dr Ian Hosein as other people might say, talked of changing attitudes to MRSA and Staff Management/ Recruitment.
Most people seem quite happy that this attitude-change on behalf of healthcare staff has come about already. The Hospital Audits say so, people who are familiar with hospitals say so.
What most people would have taken from his contribution was his belief in efficient staffing in controlling HCAI incidence. That is a resources issue.

Ok 13th time-(1st time,I think it was on the first page) and I've repeated in I think every reply to your trolling responses.
Here it is in simple terms once again.
I made the point that the MRSA problem hasnt gone away in Private hospitals here despite their more than adequate Resources.

This is why I say you are arguing for the sake of arrogance. What exactly is the difference between giving priority to MRSA and giving hospitals more resources? There is none, but no doubt you will now come back and try to re-phrase yourself so it looks as though you were saying something else all along.

You keep doing this,saying that I am saying something different each time when I'm repeating the exact same thing every time because the point I've made is as plain as day.

I'll say the following only once-thread locked.