Economics of Using Biocidal Surfaces - Use of Biocidal Surfaces for Reduction of Healthcare Acquired Infections - page 176

Table 8.4 Microbial recording before and after Cu + implementation in 15 samples
Before Cu + implementation After Cu + implementation

Answer Cfu/ml Microorganism Answer Cfu/ml Microorganism

Pseudomonas aeruginosa

1 Positive 100,000 Negative 0

Staph.
epidermidis

2 Negative 0 Positive 25,000

3 Positive 100,000 Acinetobacter baumannii Negative 0

Staph. haemolyticus

4 Positive 100,000 Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Stenotrophomonas
maltophilia

Negative 0

5 Positive 100,000 Acinetobacter baumannii Negative 0

Staph. capitis

6 Negative 0 Negative 0

7 Negative 0 Negative 0

8 Negative 0 Negative 0

9 Negative 0 Negative 0

10 Negative 0 Negative 0

11 Negative 0 Negative 0

12 Negative 0 Negative 0

13 Negative 0 Negative 0

14 Positive 50,000 Staph. epidermidis Negative 0

15 Negative 0 Negative 0

The analysis was conducted by using the statistical package SPSS 18 ( Statistical
package for Social Science ) before and after the antimicrobial copper implemen-
tation (Table 8.5 ).
There is no statistically significant difference for all epidemiological parameters
recorded for the above sample (pilot) of the research i.e. the homogeneity of the
sample in terms of age, patient's severity, gender distribution and also hospital stay
is granted.
A statistically significant difference (p

0.014, SPSS18) was observed regarding
the consumption of antimicrobials: ddp (dose - per day- per patient) (this is an
adaptation of ddd, daily defined dose, which aims to show the actual consumption
of antimicrobials in patients' treatment).
Specifically:

<

• The gender distribution between the two groups (male-female) does not show a
statistically significant difference.
• The age distribution, as shown in Fig. 8.5 does not also show a statistically
significant difference.
• The most important concerning the homogenicity of the sample regarding the
patients severity admitting in the ICU is the “score” of the incidents according to
APACHE II, and SAPS II, as it appears there is no statistically significant
difference in both evaluation systems Figs. 8.6 and 8.7 .