power point

How Biofilm Affects the Patient Recovery at the Hospital

Jani Mesa Gil

Barry University

How Biofilm Affects the Patient Recovery at the Hospital

Regulating biofilms for injury and insertion can have various adverse effects on patient well-being,

including delayed recovery and implant evacuation. Currently, Biofilm drugs do not destroy or prevent

microbial colonization, indicating the need for further research. The final review of drugs for biofilms

focuses on components of nanotechnology-based drug delivery, combination therapy, and coupling repair.

Ultrasonic cleaning and hydrogels and recent improvements in incorporation have great potential for use

in discrete trauma and medicine applications. This study analyzes the impacts of Biofilms on patient

recovery in hospitals by providing various literature reviews on the development of microorganisms in

biofilms and how it affects patient recovery at the hospital, as well as methodologies applied during the

research study.

Problem statement

Patients with biofilms wounds excrete various microbes from their skin and current state. If they

receive hospitalization for treatment, they are likely to receive MRE and HAI from surfaces, patients,

staff, and emergency department equipment (Wu et al., 2018). Since biofilms no longer destroy or prevent

microbial colonization, there is a need for medical researchers to carry out further research to establish

how biofilms can affect or impact patient recovery in hospitals.

Research question

What is a biofilm, and how is it treated?

How do biofilms affect patient recovery at the hospital?

Purpose of the study

The purpose of this study is to understand how biofilms can impact the process of recovery among

patients in hospitals.

Significance of the study

This study is significant because it provides researchers with further understanding of the impacts

of biofilms on patient recovery. Furthermore, it helps researchers develop an alternative drug to

administer to patients to protect them against microbial colonization.

Hypothesis

i. Microbial biofilms cause prolonged healing and recovery in patients ii. The host can lead to an extended healing process because the body treats microbial biofilms as a

logical consequence of the inability to rebuild skin integrity.

Description of published literature on the topic

According to Wu and his colleagues, patients with biofilms wounds excrete various microbes from

their skin and current state. If they receive hospitalization for treatment, they are likely to receive MRE

and HAI from surfaces, patients, staff, and emergency department equipment (Wu et al., 2018). This

literature states that such patients have high levels of biofilm contamination for biofilm reduction

applications in consuming patients, including silver and various metals. Other elements indicating this

condition include disinfectants, hydrogels, and light and sonic treatments to initiate atomic sensitization to

deliver dynamic oxygen (Wu et al., 2018). Small particles of these contaminants allow penetration into

the dividing layer of cells, glycans, lactobacilli, and treatment with phages.

Other scholars such as Muhammad et al. (2020) and Barzegari et al. (2020) assert that the

accumulation of microorganisms can be immobile and live and attached to the surface. The regimen of

this group of people is not the same as that of planktonic development, where microorganisms are isolated

and flexible in the environment (Muhammad et al., 2020). Cecillus cells differ from planktonic cells in

morphology, physiology, and qualitative articulation. The ability to adhere to and thrive on surfaces such

as biofilms is a gradual survival process that allows microorganisms to colonize the zone (Muhammad et

al., 2020). Microbes are constantly changing from planktonic aggregates to passive ones. This variety of

conditions is key for cells as they allow rapid changes in their natural state.

Wound swelling can be characterized as the ability of microorganisms to thrive when antimicrobial

compounds are present in the climate. The obstructive component is hereditary and prevents the antitoxin

from working for its purpose (Barzegari et al., 2020). This literature indicates that the term resistance

should be used for microbes that may be caused by high-class antibiotics but whose development is

delayed. This element, which explicitly describes the life of sessile bacteria, is reversible, phenotypic, and

non-obtainable. Biofilm bacterial cells re-suspended in liquid media will regain them in vitro

susceptibility to antimicrobial agents.

The journal by Thi et al. (2020) shows that the size of bacterial biofilm is a major break in the

phagocytic cycle. During internal immune reactions, macrophages and neutrophils are rapidly activated

upon direct contact with microorganisms (Thi et al., 2020). Here, the rapid, safe response leads to

significant neutrophil accumulation around the biofilm structure associated with oxygen exhaustion due to

functional stimulation of oxidative digestion when subatomic oxygen is reduced to superoxide.

Phagocytic cells infiltrate with extracellular tissue problems. Thi et al. (2020) assert that these cells

recover and are more susceptible to inactivation by bacterial chemicals. In addition, prolonged neutrophil

lysis causes the flux to a noxious mixed environment responsible for subsequent tissue damage. Resistant

host response is the main reason behind hard tissue damage by bacterial contamination.

Regarding the memory of resistant scaffold reactions, it has been reported that CF patients emit

specific antibodies against bacterial mixtures such as elastase, LPS, or flagella. This information indicates

that the antigenic determinant has been killed by continued lung contamination (Magana et al., 2018).

Unfortunately, these antibodies have been shown to contribute to the accelerated assembly of immune

structures in the parenchyma and result in extreme tissue damage through complementary initiation and

opsonization of neutrophils, particularly bypass. This literature postulate that the resistance of biofilms to

external influences, especially antitoxin drugs, is an unusual element. According to this research, the

MICs of antimicrobial formulations that were successful against sessile microbes were ten times greater

than those dynamic in their planktonic presentation (Magana et al., 2018). This decrease in antimicrobial

resistance can have several causes. Usually inherent in biofilms, but can also be acquired through the

inheritance of opposing factors.

Magana et al. (2018) state that the extracellular lattice provides a mechanical barrier that limits the

spread of infection within the biofilm and its access to microorganisms. The electrostatic charge or part of

the lattice binds and traps the antimicrobial atoms. The overall high consistency of the polymer network

may also prevent the anti-infective from reaching its focus in the deeper layers of the local area of the

bacteria (Magana et al., 2018). Thus, microscopic organisms in the outer layers of the biofilm pass after

antimicrobial treatment, while those in the deeper layers have a chance to react. This study shows that the

polymer binds to antimicrobial compounds in the periplasm, causing the antitoxin to diffuse into the cell

and preventing it from reaching its activity site.

Methodology

Design

In this research study, the researcher will use repeated measures experimental research design as a

methodology. Repeated measures are an experimental design where the same participants take part in

every condition of the independent variable. Therefore, every condition in the experiment will use a

similar set of participants. This type of experimental design is also known as the within-group or subject

design with the advantage of reduced participant variables and time-saving.

Variables

This research study has both independent and dependent variables. The independent variable is the

impacts or effects of biofilms, while the dependent variable is patient recovery.

Participants

The research will select its participants from one of the nearby hospitals. The participants are

supposed to be patients recovering from surgical wounds. More so, these patients must be facing

challenges with biofilms during their recovery period.

Controls

The control group in this experiment will be patients recovering from surgery but not infected with

biofilms. This will help in understanding how biofilms impact the recovery process among patients.

Sampling

The researcher in this study will utilize the random sampling method in selecting participants. This

sampling method is time-saving, requires few resources, and is reliable. The researcher intends to use at

least 30 experimental samples and 15 control samples to maximize the results.

Validity and Reliability

Throughout this study, the researcher will ensure that the research experiments and findings are

valid and drawn from existing knowledge. The researcher will ensure that the study is reliable through the

tools and methods he will use in carrying out the experiment, collecting data, and analyzing the collected

data.

Data Collection Technique

Observation and interviews will be utilized as data collection techniques in this research. The

researcher will observe the participants and not down their recovery duration in the presence of biofilms.

More so, the researcher will interview the participants to get their first-hand reactions to their recovery

process.

Research ethics

Throughout this research, the researcher will assure the participants that the research is voluntary

and they can opt out of it without any form of punishment. There will be no reward for the participants;

however, their information will remain confidential throughout the study and after the study since the

researcher intends to lock up the findings in his private study room for three years. There are minimal

risks associated with this research, including emotional discomfort, anxiety, and fear to open up about the

kinds of surgery.

References

Barzegari, A., Kheyrolahzadeh, K., Hosseiniyan Khatibi, S. M., Sharifi, S., Memar, M. Y., & Zununi

Vahed, S. (2020). The Battle of probiotics and their derivatives against Biofilms. Infection and

Drug Resistance, 13, 659-672. https://doi.org/10.2147/idr.s232982

Magana, M., Sereti, C., Ioannidis, A., Mitchell, C. A., Ball, A. R., Magiorkinis, E.,Chatzipanagiotou, S.,

Hamblin, M. R., Hadjifrangiskou, M., & Tegos, G. P. (2018). Options and limitations in clinical

investigation of bacterial Biofilms. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 31(3).

https://doi.org/10.1128/cmr.00084-16

Muhammad, M. H., Idris, A. L., Fan, X., Guo, Y., Yu, Y., Jin, X., Qiu, J., Guan, X., & Huang, T. (2020).

Beyond risk: Bacterial Biofilms and their regulating approaches. Frontiers in Microbiology, 11.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.00928

Thi, M. T., Wibowo, D., & Rehm, B. H. (2020). Pseudomonas aeruginosa Biofilms. International Journal

of Molecular Sciences, 21(22),8671. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21228671

Wu, Y., Cheng, N., & Cheng, C. (2018). Biofilms in chronic wounds: Pathogenesis and diagnosis. Trends

in Biotechnology, 37(5), 505-517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.10.011