| Literature DB >> 21129819 |
R Yam1, P L Yuen, R Yung, T Choy.
Abstract
Indoor ventilation with good air quality control minimises the spread of airborne respiratory and other infections in hospitals. This article considers the role of ventilation in preventing and controlling infection in hospital general wards and identifies a simple and cost-effective ventilation design capable of reducing the chances of cross-infection. Computational fluid dynamic (CFD) analysis is used to simulate and compare the removal of microbes using a number of different ventilation systems. Instead of the conventional corridor air return arrangement used in most general wards, air return is rearranged so that ventilation is controlled from inside the ward cubicle. In addition to boosting the air ventilation rate, the CFD results reveal that ventilation performance and the removal of microbes can be significantly improved. These improvements are capable of matching the standards maintained in a properly constructed isolation room, though at much lower cost. It is recommended that the newly identified ventilation parameters be widely adopted in the design of new hospital general wards to minimise cross-infection. The proposed ventilation system can also be retrofitted in existing hospital general wards with far less disruption and cost than a full-scale refurbishment. Copyright ÂEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 21129819 PMCID: PMC7114569 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2010.08.010
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Hosp Infect ISSN: 0195-6701 Impact factor: 3.926
Figure 1Typical hospital general ward cubicle with six patients (the corridor is immediately outside the ward entrance).
Summary of computational fluid dynamic simulation results
| Ventilation system in: | Study no. | Air changes | Exhaust location | Remark | CRE | LMAA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaust | Door | Patient | Healthcare staff | |||||
| Existing general ward | 1a | 4 | Corridor | No door | 0.8686 | 0.7848 | 758.1889 | 909.98 |
| 1b | 6 | Corridor | No door | 1.0040 | 0.8405 | 479.0828 | 586.94 | |
| Airborne isolation room | 2a | 6 | H | Door closed with pressure regulation | 0.9658 | NA | 197.5200 | 201.78 |
| 2b | 6 | L | Door closed with pressure regulation | 0.8626 | NA | 220.3350 | 219.36 | |
| 2c | 12 | H | Door closed with pressure regulation | 0.9568 | NA | 99.8930 | 100.41 | |
| 2d | 12 | L | Door closed with pressure regulation | 0.8865 | NA | 108.0360 | 107.18 | |
| Proposed general ward with ducted return | 3a | 4 | H | No door | 0.7432 | 0.9707 | 233.3984 | 304.65 |
| 3b | 6 | H | No door | 0.9792 | 0.1182 | 170.6100 | 195.76 | |
| 3c | 12 | H | No door | 0.9226 | 0.0090 | 101.0900 | 101.09 | |
CRE, contaminant (microbial) removal effectiveness; LMAA, local mean age of the air (average time in seconds for air to travel from the inlet to any particular point of concern in the room); H, exhaust grille installed at ceiling level; L, exhaust grille installed at low level near patient bed head; NA, not applicable.
Figure 2Hospital general ward cubicle with six patients and the corridor return (study no. 1a).
Figure 3Airborne isolation room with negative pressure control (study no. 2c).
Figure 4Hospital general ward cubicle with ducted air return (study no. 3c).