Objective To understand the current situation of nosocomial infection management quality control centers at the municipal and county levels in Guizhou, so as to provide measures for promoting the construction of nosocomial infections management quality control centers at all levels in Guizhou. Methods From September 26th to October 12th 2023, based on the mobile network platform survey questionnaire of the infection prevention and control workshop, a survey was conducted on the establishment, personnel, information technology level, management, and quality control work of the nosocomial infection management quality control centers at the municipal and county levels in Guizhou. Results Nine prefecture-level cities/autonomous prefectures in Guizhou had established municipal-level nosocomial infection management quality control centers. The professional background of the staff at the municipal and county-level quality control centers was mainly nursing (accounting for 36.4% and 58.4%, respectively), and their educational background was mainly undergraduate (accounting for 70.5% and 83.3%, respectively). No quality control center at the municipal or county level had established an information-based quality control platform for nosocomial infection management within the region. Most county-level quality control centers did not have special funds (87.5%), and there were still 16 (25.0%) county-level quality control centers that had not established relevant systems for work and management. The main forms of quality control work carried out by each center were organizing training, on-site inspections, guidance and evaluation, and most of them were conducted irregularly. Conclusions Guizhou has basically formed a quality control system for nosocomial infection management at the provincial, municipal, and county levels. However, the nosocomial infection management quality control network has not fully covered all districts, and policies, funding support, and personnel allocation are still insufficient. Health administrative departments and quality control centers at all levels need to unify monitoring standards and quality control norms, strengthen supervision, improve quality control capabilities, and improve training systems to achieve standardization and normalization of quality control work throughout the province and improve quality control efficiency.
ObjectiveTo study the method of rapid and accurate measurement of body temperature in dense population during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.MethodsFrom January 27th to February 8th, 2020, subjects were respectively measured with two kinds of non-contact infrared thermometers (blue thermometer and red one) to measure the temperature of forehead, neck, and inner side of forearm under the conditions of 4–6℃ (n=152), 7–10℃ (n=103), and 11–25℃ (n=209), while the temperature of axillary was measured with mercury thermometer under the same conditions. Taking the mercury thermometer temperature as the gold standard, the measurement results with non-contact infrared thermometers were compared.ResultsAt 7–10℃, there was no statistical difference among the forehead temperatures measured by the two non-contact infrared thermometers and the axillary temperature (P>0.05); there was no difference among the temperature measured by blue thermometer on forehead, neck, and inner side of forearm (P>0.05); no difference was found between the temperature measured by the red thermometer on forehead and inner side of forearm (P>0.05), while there was statistical difference between the temperatures measured by the red thermometer on forehead and neck (P<0.05). Under the environment of 11−25℃, there was no statistical difference among the forehead temperatures measured by the two infrared thermometers and the axillary temperature (P>0.05); the difference between the temperatures of forehead and inner side of forearm measured by the blue thermometer was statistically significant (P<0.05), while no difference appeared between the forehead and neck temperatures measured by the blue thermometer (P>0.05); there was no statistical difference among the temperatures of three body regions mentioned above measured by the red thermometer (P>0.05). According to the manual, the allowable fluctuation range of the blue thermometer was 0.3℃, and that of the red one was 0.2℃. The mean differences in measured values between different measured sites of the two products were within the allowable fluctuation range. Therefore, the differences had no clinical significance in the environment of 7–25℃. Under the environment of 4–6℃, the detection rate of blue thermometer was 2.2% and that of the red one was 19.1%.ConclusionsThere is no clinical difference between the temperature measured by mercury thermometer and the temperature measured by temperature guns at 7–10 or 11–25℃, so temperature guns can be widely used. In order to maintain the maximum distance between the measuring and the measured persons and reduce the infection risk, it is recommended to choose the inner forearm for temperature measurement. Under the environment of ambient temperature 4–6℃, the detection rate of non-contact electronic temperature gun is low, requiring taking thermal measures for the instrument.