Infection prevention and control of epidemic
Health-care differences include wide variations ranging from patient-access, treatment facilities and even the ability to prescribe appropriate life-saving education. Health-care institutional administrative executive decisionmaking are largely responsible within conditions that are also varied across regional, State or national and international health policies. And so the control of epidemics and pandemics can become quickly complex and inconsistent when based on solutions solely targeting the victims. At De 7 Provinciën(™), we provide solutions that remove the threat to victims in the landscape of commercial enterprise, altogether - right from the monitoring and detection starting point. This represents the environment that contains and sustains the interaction of humans as part of the organization and within its boundaries, too. We believe that this is the most logical and efficient way ot prevent outbreaks, without burdening the human victim with more costs, more risks and more work.
However, it is the responsibility of executive and regional policy-makers in health administration departments and agencies to accept that human-based solution targeting is neither sustainable nor medically valid in the long-term. This is because it becomes verily more complex and difficult to identify solution strategies with increasing outbreaks over and over again.
By contrast, true cost-effectiveness ratios of the blocking of all outbreaks will have tremendous gain potential plus long term sustainability. It is the perfect union of spot-cleaning with security, so to speak and provides multidimensional shared cultural adoptability into the framework of improved social liberation - all without risk of disease outbreak. Infection prevention that is based on such freedom is important for renewed economic security. Business organizations can innovate within meaningful environments under our pandemic-free(™) compliance certification not only for their better business security but also for the rewards it gains from public awareness.
Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) for Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) principles are already deeply embedded in pandemic disease control . In host oriented approaches, it focuses only on the human victim, such as:
Patient recognition at an early stage at a rapid rate.
Standard IPC precautions applications for all patients;
Additional precautions for selected patients based on their presumptive diagnosis
building an IPC infrastructure for the health-care facility active in supporting IPC
activities.
Accordingly, it also requires all health care facilities to follow IPC strategies based on
Early detection and controlling the source,
Administrative controls,
Environmental and engineering controls, and personal
Protective equipment (PPE).
These are not sustainable in a pandemic such as COVID19 that lasts a minimum of 15 years and up to 50 because of the lack of environmental sustainable pandemic-free decisions with the virus interaction in the environment in all aspects.
Let’s look more closely at the approach that is done by the majority of health care settings to respond to infection, to-date:
1. Visible recommendation of early detection of infected humans.
Already Infected patients are considered wrongly to be the main cause of spread of infections and so the early capture and reporting of infected persons is thought to prevent other patients and health care staff from getting infection likewise. But this has not proven true. INfections that are virus based are the majority of eventual cancers. Cancers from such viruses are not contagious between humans. From this perspective, we can also see that spread has not been stopped or increased around immediate persons in close contact- except when food sources and/or toilets were shared, especially in the same location.
The method of reducing and preventing infection including promoting respiratory hygiene does not successfully prevent spread of diseases that are gastroenteric, such as SARS-CoV-2. Early detection and investigation, instant implementation of IPC measures, reporting and surveillance, and treating that infectious patient certainly helps - but not removing or isolation.
2.Administrative controls
We urge full hospital support for victims, more than prophylactic vaccination during a pandemic in particular. This is part of a good anti-contamination strategy for health-care facility management to ensure that no new strains are triggered by vaccination of mass populations. Unfortunately, this has not been done and mass vaccinations have triggered new strains accordingly. Virus infections are severe enough to be considered assaults. They are just as dramatic. And so, infections deserve all available resources for implementation of IPC symptom prevention. These resources can be
Establishing sustainable IPC infrastructures
Strict policies on early detection of ARIs
Quick access to laboratory testing for identification of the etiologic agent
Implementing appropriate IPC measures
Ensuring proper provision of regular supplies and services.
3.Environmental and engineering controls
Environmental and engineering controls targets to reduce the spread of infectious
are not necessarily by masking respiratory aerosols or biopathogens that may be mixed with airborne pollutant volatiles. Some of the common examples of primary engineering controls for infectious respiratory aerosols include
Proper environmental ventilation and
Social separation maintaining a distance of at least 1 m between two patients.
In our De 7 Provincien(™) Pandemic-Free(™) Compliance Certification, environmental ventilation is just as important as removing the sources that attract virus in the first place. Moreover the ventilation must not be downstream of infection-generating pathogens from neighbouring activities that might be located outside of the organization boundaries. Airborne routes for diseases such as pulmonary TB, measles and chickenpox serve as examples.
Other infections such as those that are communicable and spread by human oro-faecal contact can be reduced by changes in lifestyle but they do not necessarily represent sources of pandemic or epidemic spread. In fact, some of these can enable infection-resistance particularly in triggering microbial immunity responses that kill deadly food-borne pathogens . And so, human communication exposure therefore should NOT be eliminated by prolonged social distancing.
4.Personal protective equipment (PPE)
Personal protective equipment is considered effective at reducing the risk of transmission of respiratory pathogens especially for health-care workers and other people who come in contact with the patients in the health-care facility.
However, this is not true for fabric and plastic, or even rubber latex.
Personal protective equipment made from these materials do not prevent viruses from passing through.
They are also manufactured in environmentally-toxic assembly with glues and volatile chemicals that can be dangerous to humans in all-day exposure and handling. A PPE kit is generally defined for very short-term use and high disposability which is disappointingly inappropriate if the materials do not effectively represent disease prevention by mutual transmission. In fact, healthcare workers who are exposed to the same risk as hospital visitors have died, despite the PPE. This implies, once again, that the best policies and strategies are not by maintaining isolation guidelines and cover ups but rather a focus on the side of the environment and prevention of the virus source in the first place.
We believe in our strategies and our programs on behalf of the De 7 Provinciën(™) organization philosophy. Our Pandemic-Free (™) Corporate Compliance Certification focuses on principles of virus ecology which we selected to maximize evidence of outbreak prevention within 100 days. All these control strategies should be followed to work in an institution with a strict culture of safety.