MRSA infections: Should the state act?
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), a staph infection resistant to antibiotics, has been in the news recently after a high school student in Virginia died from it. This "superbug" is usually spread in hospital and healthcare settings through direct physical contact or indirect contact with such items as contaminated towels, sheets, and wound dressings, although that is changing. But experts also say that when acquired by healthy people in the community - as opposed to those infected at hospitals - the bacterial infection only rarely causes serious illness and is treatable by other classes of antibiotics.
Arkansas, like many other states, doesn't require hospitals to notify the Department of Health of infections. We enacted Act 845 in 2007, but it only requires hospitals to collect the information. It may be submitted to the state on a voluntary basis. The state is now in the process of determining how the information will be published, although it will contain aggregate statewide numbers without identifying hospitals.
There are currently more than 18 states that have public health reporting requirements. So far, Florida, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Vermont actually produce public reports on their state hospitals’ infection rates. Proponents believe that the public deserves to know which hospitals are doing a good job preventing infections and keeping patients safe. In turn, they say, the reports will encourage hospitals to improve patient care and ultimately save lives and dollars.
So what do you think? Should the state require hospitals to notify the health department of infections? Should the state produce public reports on infection rates by hospitals?
Previous polls:
Poll No. 6: "No match" letters
Poll No. 5: Novelty lighters
Poll No. 4: 2007 Razorbacks
Poll No. 3: Governor Beebe's job performance
Poll No. 2: The severance tax
Poll No. 1: Flavored cigarettes
Arkansas, like many other states, doesn't require hospitals to notify the Department of Health of infections. We enacted Act 845 in 2007, but it only requires hospitals to collect the information. It may be submitted to the state on a voluntary basis. The state is now in the process of determining how the information will be published, although it will contain aggregate statewide numbers without identifying hospitals.
There are currently more than 18 states that have public health reporting requirements. So far, Florida, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Vermont actually produce public reports on their state hospitals’ infection rates. Proponents believe that the public deserves to know which hospitals are doing a good job preventing infections and keeping patients safe. In turn, they say, the reports will encourage hospitals to improve patient care and ultimately save lives and dollars.
So what do you think? Should the state require hospitals to notify the health department of infections? Should the state produce public reports on infection rates by hospitals?
Previous polls:
Poll No. 6: "No match" letters
Poll No. 5: Novelty lighters
Poll No. 4: 2007 Razorbacks
Poll No. 3: Governor Beebe's job performance
Poll No. 2: The severance tax
Poll No. 1: Flavored cigarettes
posted by Steve Harrelson @ 10/22/2007 10:10:00 AM | Permalink |
<< Home