This paper examines the prevalence and management of hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) in long-term care facilities, with particular focus on ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Using a case study of a 150-bed Chicago hospital, the paper describes an oral care regimen that reduced VAP cases from 41 to 10 annually while saving $1.1 million. The paper compares this facility's prevention-focused approach with international practices documented in Norwegian long-term care settings, highlighting the cost-effectiveness and clinical benefits of proactive infection control strategies. The analysis emphasizes hand hygiene, environmental sanitation, and antimicrobial stewardship as essential components of comprehensive HAI management.
The major risk management issue confronting hospitals and long-term care facilities is the spread of nosocomial infections, more commonly known in the medical field as hospital-acquired infections (HAIs). These infections are illnesses a patient develops or contracts in addition to the condition for which they were admitted (Duel et al., 2002). Hospital-acquired infections include those that surface after discharge as well as occupational infections affecting facility staff. These infections are widespread globally and have strong impacts on both patients and healthcare facility workforces.
The most common sites for hospital-acquired infections include the urinary tract, catheter insertion sites, respiratory tract, bloodstream (bacteremia), skin and soft tissue, lower respiratory system, surgical sites, and eyes (Duel et al., 2002). In a 150-bed facility in Chicago that is part of one of the largest medical care networks in Illinois, pneumonia emerged as a critical respiratory concern. Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) became particularly problematic, with cases increasing from 32 to 41 over a single year, resulting in losses approaching $2 million. This trajectory prompted facility leadership to develop a comprehensive clinical and operational improvement plan focused specifically on preventing ventilator-associated infections.
Management implemented a prevention strategy based on research from a study titled "The Benefits of a Comprehensive Oral Care Regimen for Patients at-Risk for Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia." The plan advocated for placing swabs and suction equipment in patients' rooms as visual reminders for continuous oral care on a 24-hour basis. The cost savings from these interventions justified the expense of more sophisticated suction equipment introduced later in the implementation.
The comprehensive oral care protocol consists of several specific interventions. A registered nurse must assess the oral cavity every twelve hours. Oral cleansing agents are provided for intubated and unconscious patients every two to four hours. Staff brush patients' teeth every twelve hours, perform deep oropharyngeal suctioning every twelve hours, and change suction canisters, tubing, and Yankauer catheters daily. These detailed protocols ensure consistent, evidence-based preventive care across all shifts.
The results were significant: the oral care plan reduced VAP incidence from 41 cases to 10 cases annually and generated $1.1 million in cost savings. This outcome demonstrated that targeted, prevention-focused interventions could address complex infection problems more effectively than either environmental restructuring or increased antimicrobial investment alone.
The success of the Chicago facility's approach is reinforced by examination of infection control practices in similar settings internationally. Recent shifts in healthcare funding and delivery models have increased both the prevalence and severity of nosocomial infections, particularly in critical care settings (Conly & Johnston, 2001; Anderson & Rasch, 2000). Institutions facing these pressures have adopted different strategies, providing instructive comparisons.
The Norwegian Institute of Public Health surveyed 42,900 beds in long-term care facilities for elderly patients in 2000 and identified four most common nosocomial infections (Eriksen et al., 2004). These infections were highest in rehabilitation and short-term wards where antibiotic use was lowest—a counterintuitive finding that highlighted the importance of infection prevention over treatment. The surveyed facility recognized the need for stronger infection control initiatives, including comprehensive infection control programs and more rigorous monitoring of nosocomial infections.
Another long-term nursing facility in Oslo, Norway serving elderly patients experienced hospital-acquired infections in 6.5 percent of its 13,762 patients during a survey period, with particularly high rates among long-term psychiatric patients (Andersen & Rasch, 2000). The facility was significantly understaffed and overcrowded, with structural inadequacies including few private rooms, insufficient bathrooms and toilets, no isolation rooms, and defective ventilation systems. These deficiencies contributed directly to infection spread. The facility incurred costs of approximately 157,500 Norwegian Krone (approximately $22,500) per day in additional medical and nursing care and antibacterial medications to manage resulting infections—a stark illustration that treatment costs far exceed prevention investments.
One Norwegian facility responded by implementing stronger nosocomial control through enhanced control programs and more rigorous monitoring (Eriksen et al., 2004). Another facility, initially inclined to invest in more effective antimicrobial medicines, was advised instead to prioritize prevention efforts rather than pursuing more expensive treatment options (Andersen & Rasch, 2000).
"Contrasting facility strategies for infection management"
"Three-part prevention framework and infection control priorities"
You’re 61% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.