PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
Background Hospital waiting areas are overlooked from the airborne infection control viewpoint as they are not classified as critical for infection control. This is the area where undiagnosed and potentially infected patients gather with susceptible and vulnerable patients, and there is no mechanism to segregate the two, especially when the potentially infected visitors/patients themselves are unaware of the infection or may be asymptomatic. It is important to know whether hospitals in Delhi, a populated, low-resource setting having community transmission/occurrence of airborne diseases such as tuberculosis, consider waiting areas as critical. Hence, this study aims to determine whether hospitals in Delhi consider waiting areas as critical areas from the airborne infection control viewpoint. Methodology The Right to Information Act, 2005, was used to request information from 11 hospitals included in this study. Results After compiling the results, it was found that five out of the 11 hospitals did not consider waiting areas as critical from the infection spread point of view. Two of the 11 hospitals acknowledged the criticality of waiting areas but did not include the same in the list of critical areas. Only three out of the 11 considered waiting areas as critical and included these in the list of critical areas in a hospital. Conclusions This study provided evidence that most hospitals in Delhi do not include waiting areas in the list of critical areas in a hospital.
摘要：
背景技术从空气传播感染控制的观点来看,医院等候区被忽视,因为它们没有被归类为感染控制的关键。这是未诊断和潜在感染的患者与易感和脆弱患者聚集的区域，没有机制将两者分开，特别是当潜在感染的访客/患者自己不知道感染或可能无症状时。重要的是要知道德里的医院，一个人口稠密的，低资源环境具有社区传播/发生的空气传播疾病，如结核病，将等待区域视为关键。因此，本研究旨在确定德里的医院是否从空气传播感染控制的角度将等候区视为关键区域.信息权法案的方法论，2005年，用于要求本研究中包括的11家医院提供信息。结果汇总结果后，结果发现，从感染传播的角度来看，11家医院中有5家认为等候区不重要。11家医院中有两家承认等候区的重要性，但在关键区域列表中并未包括相同的等候区。11个中只有3个被认为是关键的等待区域，并将这些区域包括在医院的关键区域列表中。结论这项研究提供了证据，表明德里的大多数医院在医院的关键区域列表中没有包括等候区。
