Infection Control about Vascular Access Device - Coursework Example

The NICE definition of Clinical Audit could be given as ‘a quality improvement process that seeks to improve patient care and outcomes through a systematic review of care against explicit criteria and the implementation of change’ (NICE, 2002). Thus a clinical audit is a review and evaluation process that is done to improve clinical services and patient care by highlighting the difference between the best standards of clinical practice and standards followed in actual practice to suggest areas of change and recommendations for implementation of healthcare policies. The clinical audit examines whether the best possible type of treatment has been provided with the best services and whether the patients gained considerably from treatment leading to improvement. The rationale for this particular clinical audit is based on the fact that infection control is one of the primary areas of study, research, and analysis.
Several studies have focused on the importance of a clinical audit and evaluation process in infection control following surgery. Reilly et al (2001) investigated the importance and value of a full-time audit process from admission to 30 days during the postoperative stage which seems to be the most effective tool for obtaining information on the surgical infection rates. The use of the audit process could be identified as early identification of problem areas in practice which could facilitate the adoption of evidence-based practice. Reilly et al suggest that the audit process is generally effective in bringing about a significant reduction in the wound infection rate which according to them could go down by 56% in less than three years (Reilly et al, 2001).
Davey and Nathwani (1995) focus on the importance of postoperative infection control suggesting that it is necessary to monitor the frequency with which infection occurs and also estimate the additional cost per patient with the infection. The additional cost per patient with infection would vary depending on the type of operation or surgical conditions and the nature of the illness. Davey and Nathwani give an example showing the difference in costs on infection control for patients with hernia and patients following colon surgery. In the first case, the cost was only $600 per patient whereas for colon surgery the cost was $2,106 per patient. However, the total excess cost due to infections was similar for both cases with infection control for all hernia surgery cases amounting to $44,800 and that for colon surgery estimated at $48,440. This suggests that infection due to hernia surgery is much more common than due to colon surgery. The example points out the fact that infections may be more common for certain surgical conditions than for certain others.