HEALTH boards have stepped up their war against superbugs in recent years but are failing to monitor what their efforts achieve, a report has said.
NHS Quality Improvement Scotland found that all NHS boards had improved the management of healthcare-associated infections (HAI) between 2002 and 2004.
Clear lines of responsibility for tackling HAI were identified in 80-per cent of all NHS bodies, up from 57-per cent, and compliance with control standards had risen from 52-per cent to 68-per cent.
However, only 28-per cent of NHS boards showed they could adequately monitor the effects of change.
Around 33,000 people contract infections in hospital each year in Scotland.
HAI is a factor in the deaths of around 450 patients per year and a contributory factor in a further 1370 deaths.
The problem also costs the NHS nearly pounds-190m in closed wards and cancelled operations, and results in 338,000 lost bed days.
Andy Kerr, the health minister, said: "There is still much to be done, and I will be expecting to see evidence of further improvements when I chair the NHS Board accountability reviews.
"We have to start driving down healthcare associated infections, including MRSA."
He said the Scottish Executive was investing pounds-15m in developments such as alcoholbased hand gels at every bedside for use by staff and visitors, and more power for sisters over ward cleanliness.
Jan Warner, NHS QIS director of performance assessment, said: "There is real significant progress but we also need to see more work on monitoring, reviewing and auditing the number of infections and in ensuring that hand hygiene best practice is being adopted on every ward in Scotland."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article