
doi: 10.1136/bmj.e8330
pmid: 23249669
Left to their own devices, doctors don’t always do the right thing Obstetricians were outraged when, in 1846, Ignaz Semmelweis reduced mortality from puerperal fever in Viennese women from 16% to 3% by making doctors and medical students disinfect their hands between performing postmortems and delivering babies: they could not accept any criticism of their professional practice. Semmelweis lost his job and died in a lunatic asylum, while his dirty, deluded, and dangerous colleagues abandoned his policies, continued with their distinguished careers, and returned puerperal mortality to its previous appalling level. Of course they did not know then, as we do now, that puerperal fever is caused by group A streptococcus, or that normal human skin is colonised by high concentrations of bacteria that transfer to the hands of staff during routine patient care and then on to other patients.1 2 They would have been shocked to discover that we now have incontrovertible evidence that hand decontamination significantly reduces the transfer of pathogens and the incidence of hospital and healthcare associated infections,2 and that Semmelweis has been vindicated. Between the 1890s and the 1950s, the epidemiology of common bacterial pathogens was elucidated. This led to the universal introduction of standard hygiene measures, such as handwashing, no touch technique, gloving and gowning, instrument sterilisation, environmental …
Obstetrics, Cross Infection, Infection Control, Humans, Puerperal Infection, Female, History, 19th Century, Hygiene, History, 20th Century
Obstetrics, Cross Infection, Infection Control, Humans, Puerperal Infection, Female, History, 19th Century, Hygiene, History, 20th Century
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 1 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
