Infection Prevention in Practice最新文献

Background

Wound dressing is intended to provide a physical barrier from microorganisms. Spray dressing is convenient and can be applied to wounds of various contours. In July 2020, a cluster of four Burkholderia cepacia complex (BCC) exit site infections was identified among peritoneal dialysis patients in a regional hospital in Hong Kong. In response, our hospital infection control team conducted an epidemiologic investigation.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of peritoneal dialysis patients with culture-confirmed BCC exit site infections from January 2011 to July 2020. Outbreak investigations, including case finding, molecular typing and post-outbreak surveillance, were performed.

Discussion

A substantial increase in BCC exit site infections has been observed since 2013, rising from 0.23 in 2012 to 1.09 episodes per 100 patient-year in 2015, with the number of cases in the first half of 2020 already surpassing the total from 2019. The potential source had been traced to a spray dressing introduced to exit site care in December 2012. Burkholderia cepacia complex was isolated from both the unopened and in-use sprays from the same lot. Multilocus sequence typing analysis confirmed their genetic relatedness. The spray dressing was subsequently removed from exit site care. Post-outbreak surveillance over two years showed a marked and sustained decrease in BCC exit site infection.

Conclusion

Water-based spray dressing can be a source of BCC causing wound infections. The use of contaminated spray dressing, especially in chronic wounds with proximity to indwelling catheters, may pose an inherent risk to patients.

Klebsiella pneumoniae is among the World Health Organization's list of priority pathogens, notorious for its role in causing healthcare-associated infections and neonatal sepsis globally. Containment of K. pneumoniae transmission depends on the continued effectiveness of antimicrobials and of biocides used for topical antisepsis and surface disinfection. Klebsiella pneumoniae is known to disseminate antimicrobial resistance (AMR) through a large auxiliary genome made up of plasmids, transposons and integrons, enabling it to evade antimicrobial killing through the use of efflux systems and biofilm development. Because AMR mechanisms are also known to impart tolerance to biocides, AMR is frequently linked with biocide resistance (BR). However, despite extensive research on AMR, there is a gap in knowledge about BR and the extent to which AMR and BR mechanisms overlap remains debatable. The aim of this paper is to review and summarise the current knowledge on the determinants of BR in K. pneumoniae and highlight content areas that require further inquiry.

Aim

To determine the level of knowledge and explore the difference of hand hygiene between nursing students and nurses.

Background

Annually, 3.8 million people in Europe acquire healthcare-associated infections, highlighting the importance of hand hygiene. Despite WHO's emphasis on the fact that greater hand hygiene knowledge correlates with improved hand hygiene compliance, several studies have shown knowledge gaps among nurses and nursing students regarding hand hygiene.

Design

Descriptive cross-sectional comparative survey.

Methods

A version of the WHO “Hand Hygiene Knowledge Questionnaire”, translated into Swedish, was used for data collection among nursing students in the first and last semester, and registered nurses from a university and associated hospital. Data were analyzed by descriptive statistics, and comparison between groups with Fisher's exact test, one-way ANOVA, and post-hoc tests (Pairwise Z-Tests, Tukey HSD).

Results

The survey, conducted between December 2020 and January 2021, received responses from 201 participants, including 71 first semester students, 46 last semester students and 84 registered nurses, showing moderate (55.7% [50–74% correct answers]) to good (43.8% [75–100% correct answers]) knowledge levels. First-semester students scored lower (17.0 ± 2.1) than last-semester students (18.8 ± 1.8) and registered nurses (18.3 ± 2.1) out of 25 questions.

Discussion

It is necessary for all groups to receive proper education on hand hygiene knowledge and to have an educational program that does not separate the groups but combines them with continuing education, since the students will someday be influencing future hand hygiene knowledge as a peer, together with the nurse.

Background

In sub-Saharan Africa, the provision of infection prevention and control (IPC) measures are often limited by resource constraints.

Aim

To determine the association of supportive supervision activities with the availability of the WHO core components for IPC at health facilities in Southwestern Uganda.

Methods

We employed a before and after quality improvement study design. We conducted a baseline assessment of the availability of the WHO IPC core components and provided supportive supervision activities, which was followed by a second IPC assessment. We included health centers II-IV, which have increasing clinical care capacity, and regional hospitals.

Findings

Of 244 regional health facilities, baseline assessment occurred at 111 (45%) of which 23 (21%) were reassessed. The number of facilities in the Red (<70%) category for each core component stayed the same or decreased at each facility type, but there was an increase from five to six health center III facilities scoring Red (<70%) for PPE. The number of facilities in the Green (>85%) category for each core component stayed the same or was increased at each facility type, but there was a decrease from four to two health center III facilities scoring Green (>85%) for instrument processing. There was an increase in the median (interquartile range [IQR]) overall score for all facilities (65 [54–72] vs 75 [68–83], P=0.0001).

Conclusion

Supportive supervision activities were associated with improved availability of the core components of IPC at health facilities in Southwestern Uganda. PPE should be prioritized in health care facilities in Southwestern Uganda.

Introduction

Historically, antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) has considered the judicious use of antibiotics. AMS is widely adopted across Europe and the US; recently antifungal AMS is gaining momentum but antiviral AMS has been little described. Here we describe the introduction of AMS virology reviews at University Hospitals Birmingham (UHBFT); a novel concept and an opportunity to broaden the beneficial aspects of AMS to virology, termed anti-viral stewardship (AVS).

Method

In June 2022, a UK supply issue with aciclovir injection (ACV IV) was announced. In order to review and preserve parenteral ACV for those in greatest need, UHBFT pharmacist and virologists implemented a specialist review for patients prescribed more than 48 hours of treatment. This review initially lasted 10 weeks and data was collected on the advice offered, whether it was accepted, and time required completing the review.

Results

AVS rounds halved IV ACV consumption, compared to pre or post intervention levels, with more than half of patients advised to stop or switch to oral therapy. Diagnostics and sampling guidance was offered in one quarter of reviews, whilst the remaining interventions were more stewardship focused. In almost all cases stewardship advice was readily accepted by clinical teams. Due to positive feedback from clinicians and its effective management of supply, the anti-viral stewardship (AVS) programme was re-introduced in June 2023.

Conclusions

Antiviral AMS rounds provide an opportunity to optimise sampling, diagnosis and improve patient management. Introduction of regular AVS at UHBFT are now well established and plan to be implemented in other hospitals.

Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) was recognized many decades ago as an important occupational hazard for Health Care Workers (HCWs) globally. HCWs who are directly involved in patient care and are in continuous contact with blood or body fluids have an increased risk of occupationally acquiring the virus. The risk of HCWs in highly endemic areas is greater due to the greater prevalence of infection in the general population. Recommendations are available to guide HBV prevention activities or practices among HCWs. These include the use of the hepatitis B vaccine as a preexposure prophylaxis and the use of hepatitis B immunoglobulin alone or hepatitis B immunoglobulin plus the vaccine as postexposure prophylaxis. The uptake of preexposure prophylaxis has been observed to be low in resource-poor settings where the disease is highly endemic. Postexposure prophylaxis has become the remedy for preventing occupational transmission of HBV in these settings.

This review aimed to summarize the available evidence on the risk of transmission of HBV infection, the burden of infection and recommendations for pre- and postexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of occupational acquisition of HBV among HCWs. We conducted a narrative review to summarize the evidence available on the recommended steps of HBV exposure management and the utilization of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for HBV. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and Africa Journals Online (AJOL) databases. The keywords used were hepatitis B, hepatitis B virus postexposure prophylaxis, occupational exposures, and recommendations for postexposure to hepatitis B virus. We gleaned evidence from the literature sources and summarized the concepts related to exposure forms, postexposure prophylaxis management pathways and recommendations for the utilization of postexposure prophylaxis among exposed healthcare workers.

From the synthesis of evidence, we conclude that HBV infection is a life-threatening condition. However, the disease is preventable by using the HBV vaccine as a preexposure prophylaxis measure. An effective postexposure prophylaxis management program is also available, and the last resort to preventing occupational transmission of HBV among HCWs who non-responders are, or who fail to vaccinate completely against HBV. Irrespective of the availability of these lifesaving interventions, the use of pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis among HCWs in highly endemic regions is suboptimal. Many barriers operating at the individual HCW and health facility levels have been identified as impacting the successful use of HBV preventive measures.

Background

Laboratory experiments are crucial in understanding efficacy of disinfectant products, but without compliance and appropriate application, the effectiveness of products is compromised. This study aims to understand current perceptions and knowledge of healthcare professionals (HCPs) to common cleaning and disinfection routines and microbial contamination, including biofilms, in healthcare environments.

Methods

An online survey, including open and closed questions, was developed. Non-probability convenience and purposive sampling were used: those currently or previously in a healthcare profession were eligible. Survey responses were taken over 24 months, including the COVID-19 pandemic.

Discussion

137 participants completed the survey; over 50% were nurses. Surface cleaning frequency increased post COVID-19 from ‘twice a day’ to ‘three/more times a day’. Disinfection frequency reduced from ‘between every patient’ before COVID-19 to ‘twice a day’ afterwards. A multimethod approach to cleaning and disinfection (70.8%) was predominant when considering the best method to deliver infection control. Most areas of clinical settings were identified as high risk (13/19). Most (87.6%) participants had heard the term ‘biofilm’, mainly at conference/study days (60%). 39.1% said they were aware of dry surface biofilms (DSB) in the healthcare environment.

Conclusions

There remain mixed views on surface cleaning and disinfection within healthcare. Education is important for understanding microbial contamination and tackling problems. More people than expected had heard the term DSB. Infection control practices seemed consistent across responses, however whether this is reality is unknown. This study provides an initial insight into current opinions/knowledge of HCPs and can form basis for further in-depth investigation.

Background

Taurolidine containing lock solutions (TL) are a promising method for the prevention of central line associated bloodstream infections. Per accident, the TL may not always be aspirated from the central venous catheter (CVC) before blood cultures are obtained. The TL could, unintentionally, end up in a blood culture vial, possibly altering the results. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of the TLs on the detection of microbial growth in blood culture vials.

Methods

Different lock solutions (taurolidine-citrate-heparin (TCHL), taurolidine, heparin, citrate or NaCl) were added to BD BACTEC^TM blood culture vials (Plus Aerobic/F, Lytic/10 Anaerobic/F or Peds Plus/F) before spiking with Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 29213 or a clinical strain) or Escherichia coli (ATCC 25922 or a clinical strain) in the presence and absence of blood. Subsequently, blood culture vials were incubated in the BD BACTEC FX instrument with Time-to-positivity (TTP) as primary outcome. In addition, the effect of the TCHL on a variety of other micro-organisms was tested.

Discussion

In the presence of taurolidine, the TTP was considerably delayed or vials even remained negative as compared to vials containing heparin, citrate or NaCl. This effect was dose-dependent. The delayed TTP was much less pronounced in the presence of blood, but still notable.

Conclusion

This study stresses the clinical importance of discarding TLs from the CVC before obtaining a blood culture.

Healthcare settings have a high prevalence of infectious agents. This narrative review examines the existing evidence regarding infection prevention and control (IPC) using the WHO Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF) tool in healthcare facilities. A total of 13 full length papers from Africa, Asia and Europe were considered for this review. The findings showed that there are discrepancies in the IPCAF values from insufficient to advanced level. The current review shows an advanced IPCAF level in middle income and high income countries. Low income countries showed a lower IPCAF score. There is a need to enhance the IPC capacity building and to supply infection prevention resources to prevent healthcare associated infection (HAI) with a focus on low income countries.