BackgroundMDROs can spread between hospitals, nursing homes (NH), and long-term acute care facilities (LTACs) via shared patients. SHIELD OC is a regional decolonization collaborative involving 38 of 104 countywide ad...
Background
MDROs can spread between hospitals, nursing homes (NH), and long-term acute care facilities (LTACs) via shared patients. SHIELD OC is a regional decolonization collaborative involving 38 of 104 countywide adult facilities identified by their high degree of direct and indirect patient sharing with one another. We report baseline MDRO prevalence in these facilities.
Methods
Adult patients in 38 facilities (17 hospitals, 18 NHs, 3 LTACs) underwent point-prevalence screening between September 2016–April 2017 for MRSA, VRE, ESBL, and CRE using nares, skin (axilla/groin), and peri-rectal swabs. In NHs and LTACs, residents were randomly selected until 50 sets of swabs were obtained. Swabbing in hospitals involved all patients in contact precautions. An additional set of swabs were also performed for all LTAC admissions from November 2016–February 2017.
Results
The overall prevalence of any MDRO among patients was 64% (44%–88%) in NHs, 80% (range 72%–86%) in LTACs, and 64% (54–84%) in hospitals (contact precaution patients) (Table 1). Only 25%, 64%, and 81% of patients were already known to harbor an MDRO in NHs, LTACs, and hospitals, respectively. Known MDRO patients also harbored another MDRO 49%, 63%, and 34% of the time for NHs, LTACs, and hospitals, respectively. In LTACs, MDRO point prevalence was 38% higher than the usual admission prevalence (65% higher for MRSA, 34% higher for VRE, 95% higher for ESBL, and 50% higher for CRE).
Conclusion
MDRO carriage in highly inter-connected NHs and LTACs was widespread, rivaling that found in hospitalized patients on contact precautions. MRSA, VRE, and ESBL carriage far outnumbered CRE carriage. A history of MDRO was insensitive for identifying MDRO carriers, and many patients carried multiple MDROs. The extensive MDRO burden and transmission in long-term care settings suggests that regional MDRO prevention efforts must include MDRO control in long-term care facilities.
Open in a separate window
Disclosures
R. D. Sing
Objective:The objective of this quality standard is to prevent nosocomial transmission of measles by assuring universal measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination of all healthcare workers who lack immunity to measles. A...
Objective:The objective of this quality standard is to prevent nosocomial transmission of measles by assuring universal measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination of all healthcare workers who lack immunity to measles. Although the primary emphasis is on healthcare workers in hospitals, those at other sites, such as clinics, nursing homes, and schools, are also included. It will be the responsibility of designated individuals at these institutions to implement the ***:We considered advocating the use of measles vaccine rather than MMR but chose the latter because it also protects against mumps and rubella and because it is more readily ***:The desired outcome is a reduction in the nosocomial transmission of ***:Although direct comparative studies are lacking, nosocomial outbreaks of measles have been reported (as recently as 1992) in institutions where measles immunization of nonimmune healthcare workers is not universal, whereas such outbreaks have not been reported in institutions with universal *** and Validation:We consulted more than 50 infectious-disease experts in epidemiology, government, medicine, nursing, obstetrics and gynecology pediatrics, and surgery. In light of disagreement regarding the implementation of the standard, we used group discussions to reach a ***, Harms, and Cost:The consequences of the transmission of measles (and of mumps and rubella) in a healthcare institution include not only the morbidity and mortality attributable to the disease, but also the significant cost of evaluating and containing an outbreak and the serious disruption of regular hospital routines when control measures are instituted. The potential harm to healthcare workers after the implementation of the standard consists of untoward effects of MMR vaccine, although the reactions of vaccines should be minimal with adherence to recommended vaccination procedures. Implementation of the standard should enta
作者:
Osborn, Thomas R.Program Manager
Division of Acute Disease Epidemiology South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Columbia Director
Division of Infectious Disease Epidemiology Office of Epidemiology and Prevention Services Bureau for Public Health West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services Charleston
A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article 'Hepatitis B Virus Transmissions Associated With a Portable Dental Clinic, West Virginia, 2009' by Doctor Rachel Radcliffe and colleagues, which a...
详细信息
A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article 'Hepatitis B Virus Transmissions Associated With a Portable Dental Clinic, West Virginia, 2009' by Doctor Rachel Radcliffe and colleagues, which appeared in the October 2013 issue.
Objective:The objective of this quality standard is to optimize the treatment of bacteremia in hospitalized patients by ensuring that the antibiotic given is appropriate in terms of the blood culture susceptibility of...
Objective:The objective of this quality standard is to optimize the treatment of bacteremia in hospitalized patients by ensuring that the antibiotic given is appropriate in terms of the blood culture susceptibility of the pathogen. Although this standard may appear to be minimal in scope, it is needed because appropriate antimicrobial treatment is not given in 5% to 17% of cases. To implement the standard, physicians, pharmacists, and microbiologists will need to devise a coordinated ***:We considered criteria for appropriate dosing, most cost-effective selection, proper antibiotic levels in serum, least toxicity, narrowest spectrum, specific clinical indications, and optimal duration of treatment. All these criteria were rejected as the basis for the standard because they were too controversial and too difficult to be applied by a nonphysician chart reviewer. In contrast, the selection of an antibiotic to which the pathogen is sensitive is a non-controversial criterion and easy for a chart reviewer to ***:The standard is designed to reduce the incidence of adverse outcomes of septicemia such as renal failure, prolonged hos-pitalization, and ***:Several well-designed clinical trials without randomization as well as case-controlled studies have confirmed the benefit of using an antibiotic that is appropriate in light of the susceptibility of the isolate in blood culture. Prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trials are not ***:Our premise is that the presence of bacteremia is a risk factor for serious adverse outcomes. We also believe that the administration of antibiotics must always be guided by the susceptibility report for the pathogen(s) obtained from blood cultures. This concern is more critical for pathogens from the blood than for those from most other body sites. We had evidence that susceptibility reports for pathogens from positive blood cultures were not always used properly. We used group discussion t
Objective:To study the epidemiology and preventability of blood contact with skin and mucous membranes during surgical ***:Observers present at 1,382 surgical procedures recorded information about the procedure, the p...
Objective:To study the epidemiology and preventability of blood contact with skin and mucous membranes during surgical ***:Observers present at 1,382 surgical procedures recorded information about the procedure, the personnel present, and the contacts that ***:Four US teaching hospitals during ***:Operating room personnel in five surgical *** Outcome Measures:Numbers and circumstances of contact between the patient's blood (or other infective fluids) and surgical personnel's mucous membranes (mucous membrane contacts) or skin (skin contacts, excluding percutaneous injuries).Results:A total of 1,069 skin (including 620 hand, 258 body, and 172 face) and 32 mucous membrane (all affecting eyes) contacts were observed. Surgeons sustained most contacts (19% had ≥1 skin contact and 0.5% had ≥1 mucous membrane-eye contact). Hand contacts were 72% lower among surgeons who double gloved, and face contacts were prevented reliably by face shields. Mucous membrane-eye contacts were significantly less frequent in surgeons wearing eyeglasses and were absent in surgeons wearing goggles or face shields. Among surgeons, risk factors for skin contact depended on the area of contact: hand contacts were associated most closely with procedure duration (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 9.4; ≥4 versus <1 hour); body contacts (arms, legs, and torso) with estimated blood losses (adjusted OR, 8.4; ≥1,000 versus <100 mL); and face contacts, with orthopedic service (adjusted OR, 7.5 compared with general surgery).Conclusion:Skin and mucous membrane contacts are preventable by appropriate barrier precautions, yet occur commonly during surgery. Surgeons who perform procedures similar to those included in this study should strongly consider double gloving, changing gloves routinely during surgery, or both.
暂无评论