In The Business of Cause Marketing: Doing Well by Doing Good by Chris Rosica (Noble Press 2012) the author outlines how smart companies can successfully execute an authentic cause-marketing program and do well by doing good. “Cause marketing is a powerful but rarely seized opportunity for a corporation to strategically associate itself with philanthropic involvement,” Rosica explains. “In turn, a business can emotionally and intellectually connect with its existing and prospective customers.”
As an outline for how a company can increase its bottom line, build brand awareness and improve employee morale through a campaign that embraces corporate social responsibility and earns consumer loyalty, The Business of Cause Marketing details strategies for:
- Creating a step by step process for selecting the best cause and executing savvy marketing campaigns that help companies survive and grow, even during an economic recession;
- Avoiding the mistakes seen in most cause-marketing partnerships;
- Bolstering employee morale;
- Executing a year-round cause-marketing program instead of a one-off tactical engagement;
Chris Rosica, author of The Authentic Brand and President of Rosica Communications, knows first-hand the power of cause marketing. His father, John Rosica, was an early pioneer of cause-related marketing. His most memorable and widely referenced cause-marketing success story was Famous Amos cookies. The cause-marketing campaign developed between Famous Amos cookies and Literacy Volunteers of America sky-rocketed the small, virtually unknown brand to the beloved household name the nation knows today.
“Chris Rosica explores one of the most underrated techniques in marketing. Well written and convincing,” says Al Ries, marketing professional and author. Walter Anderson, former Chairman and CEO of Parade Magazine, gives similar praising saying, “Rosica writes with graceful clarity, candor and authority on cause-related marketing.”
Rosica’s first book The Authentic Brand, received rave reviews in 2007 and his third book, Why Social Media? is highly anticipated.
New Clinical Study Supports Exergen Temporal Artery Thermometers As Replacements For Rectal ThermometersDecember 7th, 2012
Study Reveals Comparable Accuracy in Pediatric Emergency Settings
WATERTOWN, MA, November 27, 2012 – A recent study published by the Journal of Emergency Nursing (1) found that the accuracy of temporal artery thermometers (TAT) is comparable to that of rectal thermometers in children under four years old. The study was conducted in the pediatric emergency department (ED) of a Pacific Northwest hospital and concluded: “If properly used by the ED staff, temporal artery thermometers could be used to obtain temperature in pediatric patients younger than 4 years, thus avoiding physical and psychological discomfort for the child and parent associated with obtaining rectal thermometers.”
The purpose of the study was to determine whether there is a method for measuring temperature that is equally as accurate as rectal, yet significantly less invasive. The study tested both temporal artery and axillary thermometers and deduced that unlike the axillary thermometer, noninvasive temporal artery thermometers are an appropriate substitute for invasive temperature measurements. A total of 52 children younger than four years of age were studied over the course of a 10-month period. Temperatures were taken using all three methods in random order, in the triage area during the initial part of the patients’ hospital visit. The Exergen TemporalScanner was the temporal thermometer used in this study.
“The results of this new independent clinical study confirm the replacement of uncomfortable and invasive rectal thermometers, with gentle non-invasive temporal artery thermometers, whose accuracy and efficacy is backed by 50 medical studies, more than all other thermometers available on the market.” said Dr. Francesco Pompei, CEO of Exergen Corporation, maker of the Exergen TemporalScanner. “The use of temporal thermometers in the pediatric ED provides patients and families peace of mind knowing children will not endure uncomfortable physical and psychological experiences associated with rectal methods.”
Exergen markets two models of the TemporalScanner thermometer: a professional version for doctors' offices and hospitals, and a consumer model sold in major retailers including Wal-Mart, Target, Walgreen's, Rite Aid, Costco, Sam's Club, Babies "R" Us, Toys "R" Us, Kroger, and BJ's. More than one billion temperatures are taken each year with the TemporalScanner. It is used in thousands of hospitals, clinics, and pediatricians' offices in the country, as well as in millions of homes. For the third year in a row it is the #1 selling retail thermometer and #1 preference of pediatricians in the US. The Exergen TemporalScanner’s performance is supported by 50 peer-reviewed published studies covering all ages from preterm infants to geriatrics and all care areas from hospitals to homes. For additional information, visit www.exergen.com.
(1) Reynolds M, et al. Are temporal artery temperatures accurate enough to replace rectal temperature measurement in pediatric ED patients? J Emerg Nurs. 2012 Nov 8. pii: S0099-1767(12)00329-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jen.2012.07.007. [Epub ahead of print]. Exergen provided no financial or other support for the study.
NEW YORK, NEW YORK, November 20, 2012 – International Beverage USA announced the release of Balblair 1969, the oldest vintage of the multi-award winning Balblair Single Malt Scotch Whisky portfolio to hit the United States market. Filled from just two casks in the distillery, Balblair 1969 is 41.4% ABV, bottled at natural strength, contains natural colors and is un-chill filtered.
At the time of its production, the whisky was made from barley grown onsite and was distilled in old coal-fired stills. It was then allowed to mature for 43 years in American Oak, ex-bourbon casks in the traditional Dunnage style warehouses at Balblair.
“There is rarely a whisky that I can say really blows me away. This is one of those occasions,” said Distillery Manager John MacDonald. “It is remarkably smooth for being aged 43 years and I’m confident whisky enthusiasts will agree when I say it has been well worth the wait.”
Balblair 1969 displays a rich golden color with amber highlights. Hints of lemons, apples, bananas and toffee are evident on the nose with slightly vanilla, leather and smoky notes. On the palate, the complexity of flavors comes through well into the long finish. It is honey sweet with hints of green apples, bananas, pears and oranges. The full bodied flavor includes a hint of smokiness, together with a suggestion of toffee and vanilla.
Packaged in an elegant black lacquered display box, the suggested retail price for the 1969 is $3,400. It will be available in limited quantities at select retailers across the United States. Balblair’s previous U.S. releases include 1989, 1991, 1997, 2000 and 1975. The award-winning portfolio recently received a Gold Medal from the San Francisco World Spirits Competition and Beverage Testing Institute for its 1989 and 2000 vintages. For more information visit Balblair on Facebook or www.balblair.com.
Balblair is the only single malt exclusively released in vintages. John MacDonald, Balblair’s Distillery Manager, handpicks each vintage and only releases them when they’re at the peak of their perfection. The Distillery, located in Edderton overlooking the Dornoch Firth, is built on a former Pictish settlement, which still features a 4,000 year old standing stone, the Clach Biorach. Each Balblair bottle is presented in a category-leading box featuring one of three atmospheric images of the view up the Dornoch Firth towards the distillery. Each image correlates to one of the vintages, beautifully portraying the distillery’s surrounding area, which was originally founded by John Ross of the Clan Ross in 1790 and is now one of the oldest working distilleries in Scotland. For more information visit Balblair on Facebook or www.balblair.com.
About International Beverage
Balblair is produced by International Beverage. (www.interbevgroup.com) IBHL was established in 2005, as the international arm of ThaiBev, one of South East Asia’s leading alcohol beverage companies. With a network of regional offices in Asia, Europe and North America, the company is responsible for the production, sales, marketing and distribution of a portfolio of premium global brands in more than 80 countries and territories. The company’s success is built on a strong understanding of local cultures and markets along with the creation of a global operational network.
Speyburn Single Malt Scotch Whisky announced the release of Speyburn 25 Year Old, the oldest and most exclusive expression in the Speyburn family which has also won the World Whiskies Award 2012 Gold-Medal. The Speyburn 25 Year Old is presented in a new premium case that is signed by the Speyburn Distillery Manager, Robert Anderson.
The Speyburn 25 Year Old is aged in American oak Fino sherry and ex-bourbon casks of the highest quality. It has a vibrant and bright aroma with rich lime, honey and lemon peel notes, accentuated by fragrant tropical fruit. The taste is sweet to start, then opens up with toffee, creamy vanilla and pink grapefruit flavors for a long and warming finish.
The packaging is presented with a new Speyburn bottle inside a silver wooden box alongside two engraved collapsible tasting cups. The bottle has a roundel logo which encompasses the salmon symbolic to the brand. The label is printed on a silver substrate, giving it a metallic look and feel.
“The Speyburn 25 Year Old forges the unique connection between elegance and the outdoors that has yet to be captured by the brand” said Pat Graney, President of International Beverage. “The sophistication of the new packaging and the flavors captured by this specialized aging process are sure to please all who try it.”
Speyburn is distilled in the famous Speyside region of the Scottish Highlands using the fresh, clear waters of the Granty Burn. The Burn is connected to the River Spey, which is known for its world-class salmon fishing and the invention of the spey casting method.
Limited quantities of Speyburn 25 Year Old will be available at select fine retailers and venues at a retail price of $315.
Speyburn Highland Single Malt Scotch Whisky was first distilled on the 15th December 1897, the diamond jubilee year of Queen Victoria. To ensure that whisky was made in the jubilee year, men worked through the night in a heavy snowstorm in a still-house without windows, managing to bond one single barrel of 1897 Speyburn. Today, Speyburn continues to use the time-honored traditional distillation methods that created the single barrel of the 1897 vintage. Many of the original distillery fittings remain, and are still used, in this very traditional Malt Whisky distillery.
About International Beverage
Speyburn is produced by International Beverage Holdings, Limited. (www.interbevgroup.com) IBHL was established in 2005, as the international arm of ThaiBev, one of South East Asia’s leading alcohol beverage companies. With a network of regional offices in Asia, Europe and North America, the company is responsible for the production, sales, marketing and distribution of a portfolio of premium global brands in more than 80 countries and territories. The company’s success is built on a strong understanding of local cultures and markets along with the creation of a global operational network.
Attention to Detail: Infection Control in the Dental Setting
This responsibility requires specific training and ongoing education
J. Hudson Garrett Jr., PhD, MSN, MPH, ARNP, FNP-BC, VA-BC
Outpatient dental offices and clinics serve a unique purpose in the healthcare delivery system, providing vital basic oral care to millions of patients a year. Along with that purpose, certain challenges exist for infection control and prevention in the dental setting. Unlike the acute-care hospital setting, the dental environment does not require the presence of a dedicated infection-control officer; therefore, in most practices and clinics, this responsibility is delegated to a dental assistant, hygienist, practice manager, or even the dentist. This is an additional responsibility that requires specific training in infection control and prevention, as well as annual updates on certain topics such as bloodborne pathogens.
Because of the high risk for potential bloodborne pathogen exposure, dental healthcare workers (DHCWs) must take a number of precautions to mitigate the risk for exposure to dangerous bloodborne pathogens, including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV). In addition to the well-documented risk for bloodborne pathogen exposure, DHCWs should also be concerned with occupational exposure and the transmission of drug-resistant organisms such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).
While hand hygiene remains the single most important strategy in reducing the risk of infection transmission, the environment also plays a critical role in the transmission of infection and in microbial growth. Cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization are the three fundamental steps in the environmental hygiene process. Several factors impact the efficacy of both disinfection and sterilization, including previous cleaning of the object; the organic and inorganic load present on the object; the type and level of microbial contamination; concentration of and exposure time to germicide; the physical nature of the object (eg, crevices, hinges, and lumens); the presence of biofilms; temperature and pH level of the disinfection process; and, in some cases, the relative humidity of the sterilization process (eg, ethylene oxide).1
Step One: Cleaning
Cleaning is the removal of visible soil (eg, organic and inorganic material) from objects and surfaces, and is accomplished manually or mechanically using water with detergents or enzymatic products. Thoroughly cleaning instruments before initiating high-level disinfection and sterilization procedures is essential because organic and inorganic materials that remain on instrument surfaces interfere with the effectiveness of these processes.
Step Two: Disinfection
Disinfection, as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities, 2008, is a process that eliminates many or all pathogenic microorganisms, except bacterial spores, on inanimate objects (Table 1).2 In healthcare settings, instruments, equipment, and other objects are usually disinfected with liquid chemicals or wet pasteurization. Reducing and/or preventing infection through indirect contact requires decontamination (ie, cleaning, sanitizing, or disinfecting an object to render it safe for handling) of patient equipment, medical devices, and the environment. Alternatively, the DHCW also may consider using single-use devices. The choice of decontamination method depends on the level of infection risk to the patient coming into contact with the equipment or medical device (Figure 1 and Figure 2).
The CDC has adopted the Spaulding classification system,3 which identifies three risk levels associated with medical and surgical instruments—critical, semi-critical, and noncritical:
Critical items (eg, needles, sterile syringes, and dental instruments) are defined as items that enter sterile tissue, the vascular system, or the circulatory system, and, therefore, must have been sterilized in one of several accepted sterilization procedures before being used in patient care.
Semi-critical items (eg, thermometers and dental dams) are defined as objects that touch mucous membranes or non-intact skin. These items require meticulous cleaning followed by high-level disinfection treatment using a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved chemo-sterilizer agent. They also may be sterilized.
Non-critical items (eg, pulse oximeters, procedure trays, patient chairs, countertops, operatory overhead lights, equipment processing areas, tops of autoclaves) are defined as objects that either come into contact with intact skin or do not contact the patient at all. They require low-level disinfection by cleaning periodically and after visible soiling with an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-registered
disinfectant detergent or germicide labeled for use in a healthcare setting.
Criticality of Broad-Spectrum Efficacy Claims
Manufacturers of disinfectants are required to list detailed information regarding efficacy claims and contact time for each class of microorganisms for which the product is effective; this typically includes the classes of bacteria (both Gram-positive and Gram-negative), viruses, mycobacterium (TB), and fungi.4 In accordance with the EPA’s current requirements, labels must also provide detailed information on the product’s effectiveness against bloodborne pathogens, including HIV, HBV, and HCV.2 In the dental setting, the provider will most likely not be aware of types of colonization or potential active infection that a patient may or may not have; therefore, the use of a broad-spectrum healthcare disinfectant is paramount.
When evaluating a new or existing disinfectant, the person responsible for infection control should review the full listing of efficacy claims available from the product’s manufacturer. It is also important to review other ancillary materials such as the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and instructions-for-use documents. Product labels typically list efficacy claims by class of microorganism, including bacteria, viruses, Mycobacterium (including M tuberculosis [TB]), and fungi.
The broader the spectrum of a product’s efficacy, the more effective the product will be against a wide variety of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. In addition, with the continual emergence of new—and mutations of existing—multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs), DHCWs should seek products with broad general bactericidal efficacy, but which have also demonstrated effectiveness against organisms such as multi-drug resistant Acinetobacter baumannii; extended-spectrum β-lactamases-producing organisms such as Escherichia coli; and carbapenem-resistant organisms such as Klebseilla pneumonia.3 Products with efficacy against these more resistant pathogens will assist the DHCW in combatting the daily threats of these microorganisms.
Viruses—particularly the bloodborne pathogens and those with the potential for causing outbreaks (ie, norovirus, influenza, and rotavirus)—are also of concern to users of healthcare disinfectants.5 The DHCW should require claims against bloodborne pathogens such as HIV, HBV, and HCV for any product that will be used in the healthcare environment. Also, seek products with other efficacy claims including enveloped and non-enveloped viruses where appropriate.5 Note that products may have different contact times for viruses than for bacteria.6
Products effective against Mycobacterium are minimally considered intermediate-level disinfectants.1 TB is not tested in the laboratory setting for initial product approval because of the high pathogenicity and potential transmission of this organism to the laboratory worker. Rather than put laboratory workers at risk, a surrogate organism—typically Mycobacterium bovis—is used for testing procedures.
Increasingly more prevalent in the healthcare environment are fungal organisms such as Candida albicans and Aspergillus.7 When evaluating fungal efficacy claims, seek products with efficacy against pathogenic fungal organisms that are clinically relevant based on the typical patient profile.
Overall Contact Time
Many manufacturers provide several contact times—one for bacteria, one for viruses, another for Mycobacterium, and possibly one for fungi. These contact times can vary greatly from 1 minute to 10 minutes. Because it is impossible for the user to determine the type of potential contamination that may exist on the surface to be treated, the user should disinfect the surface according to the longest contact time found on the product label to ensure full efficacy of the solution. For example, if a healthcare disinfectant has a 1-minute contact time for bacteria, a 2-minute contact time for viruses including HIV, a 5-minute contact time for TB, and a 10-minute contact time for fungi, then the total contact time for the product when used correctly is 10 minutes.6
Balancing Disinfection with Patient Comfort
As previously discussed, disinfectants used in healthcare settings must have aggressive claims against a wide variety of both community- and healthcare-associated pathogens. Because of the nature of the outpatient dental practice setting, a wide variety of both pediatric and adult patients may be treated at the site. Patients may have comorbidities such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or chronic sinusitis and bronchitis that require the use of fragrance-free disinfectant products to minimize the risk of respiratory irritation during their respective dental examination and treatment. With the recent advent of healthcare-grade, low-level disinfectants that are also fragrance-free, these sensitive patients may now experience a more customized and less irritating dental healthcare experience.
Step Three: Sterilization
The CDC’s Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities, 2008,2 defines sterilization as any process that effectively kills or eliminates transmissible agents from surfaces, equipment, articles of food or medication, or biological culture medium. Sterilization does not, however, remove prions. Sterilization can be achieved through a variety of methods.1,8
Sterilization is ineffective without proper prior cleaning. The amount of bioburden and the number, type, and inherent resistance of microorganisms—including biofilms—on items negatively affects the sterilization process. According to the Association for periOperative Registered Nurses’ Recommended Practices,9 one of the most critical measures for preventing surgical site infections (SSI) is to provide surgical items that are free of contamination at the time of use. This can be accomplished by subjecting them to cleaning and decontamination, followed by a sterilization process. Steam, ethylene oxide, low-temperature hydrogen-peroxide gas plasma, peracetic acid, ozone, and dry heat are the sterilization methods that are most commonly used in the healthcare environment.9 Sterilization provides the highest level of assurance that surgical items are free of viable microbes.
Specific pieces of medical equipment, such as oral endoscopes, may require specialized processes in order to effectively eliminate all microorganisms from the components of the equipment. As a specific example, endoscopes require several key steps for efficacious disinfection and/or sterilization, including cleaning (physical cleaning of the lumen, all channels, brushing both the internal and external surfaces, and rinsing); disinfection with a high-level disinfectant per the manufacturer’s instructions; rinsing with sterile or filtered water; drying; and storing properly to ensure prevention of contamination prior to the next use. During any type of sterilization process, it is paramount to follow established protocols and manufacturer instructions during every step.2
The role of infection prevention in the dental clinic is constantly expanding, and with the addition of new requirements from various regulatory bodies this position will only increase in importance. Now is the time for dental practices and clinics to develop a comprehensive infection prevention program. Outpatient dental facilities must comply with many requirements from regulatory bodies such as the CDC and the Occupational Health and Safety Administration. These various infection-prevention regulations are continually evolving; therefore, the DHCW must participate in routine continuing educational activities in order to maintain a complete knowledge of these requirements. Many organizations, such as the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology and the CDC, offer webinars and other online continuing education opportunities on hot topics such as MRSA and Clostridium difficile (c-diff), among others.
Click Here to View Inside Dental Assisting's October 2012 Digital Issue
1. Rutala WA, Weber DJ. Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities, 2008. http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/Disinfection_Sterilization/toc.html. Accessed February 10, 2012.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities, 2008. http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/pdf/guidelines/disinfection_nov_2008.pdf. Accessed February 13, 2012.
3. Spaulding EH. Chemical disinfection and antisepsis in the hospital. J Hosp Res. 1972;9:5-31.
4. US Environmental Protection Agency. Label Review Manual. http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/labeling/lrm/label-review-manual.pdf. Accessed February 13, 2012.
5. OSHA Bloodborne Pathogens Standard. OSHA FactSheet. http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data_BloodborneFacts/bbfact01.pdf. Accessed February 10, 2012.
6. US Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 29 CFR Part 1910.1030. Occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens, needlesticks and other sharps injuries; final rule. Federal Register 2001;66:5317-25. [As amended from and includes 29 CFR Part 1910:1030. Federal Register 1991;56:64174-82.]
7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN), 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/cms-welcome.html. Accessed February 10, 2012.
8. Favero MS, Bond WW. Chemical disinfection of medical and surgical material [Chapter 43]. In: Block SS, ed. Disinfection, Sterilization and Preservation. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001:881-917.
9. Association for periOperative Registered Nurses (AORN). Blanchard J, Burlingame B, eds. Perioperative Standards and Recommended Practices, 2011. Denver, Colorado: AORN, Inc., 2011.
About the Author
J. Hudson Garrett Jr., PhD, MSN, MPH, ARNP, FNP-BC, VA-BC
Senior Director, Clinical Affairs
Orangeburg, New York