比较养老院环境中的多种感染控制措施:模拟研究。

IF 3 4区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-15 DOI:10.1017/ice.2024.43
Haomin Li, Daniel K Sewell, Ted Herman, Sriram V Pemmeraju, Alberto M Segre, Aaron C Miller, Philip M Polgreen
{"title":"比较养老院环境中的多种感染控制措施:模拟研究。","authors":"Haomin Li, Daniel K Sewell, Ted Herman, Sriram V Pemmeraju, Alberto M Segre, Aaron C Miller, Philip M Polgreen","doi":"10.1017/ice.2024.43","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Compare the effectiveness of multiple mitigation measures designed to protect nursing home residents from infectious disease outbreaks.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Agent-based simulation study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Simulation environment of a small nursing home.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We collected temporally detailed and spatially fine-grained location information from nursing home healthcare workers (HCWs) using sensor motes. We used these data to power an agent-based simulation of a COVID-19 outbreak using realistic time-varying estimates of infectivity and diagnostic sensitivity. Under varying community prevalence and transmissibility, we compared the mitigating effects of (i) regular screening and isolation, (ii) inter-resident contact restrictions, (iii) reduced HCW presenteeism, and (iv) modified HCW scheduling.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across all configurations tested, screening every other day and isolating positive cases decreased the attack rate by an average of 27% to 0.501 on average, while contact restrictions decreased the attack rate by an average of 35%, resulting in an attack rate of only 0.240, approximately half that of screening/isolation. Combining both interventions impressively produced an attack rate of only 0.029. Halving the observed presenteeism rate led to an 18% decrease in the attack rate, but if combined with screening every 6 days, the effect of reducing presenteeism was negligible. Altering work schedules had negligible effects on the attack rate.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Universal contact restrictions are highly effective for protecting vulnerable nursing home residents, yet adversely affect physical and mental health. In high transmission and/or high community prevalence situations, restricting inter-resident contact to groups of 4 was effective and made highly effective when paired with weekly testing.</p>","PeriodicalId":13663,"journal":{"name":"Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11439596/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing multiple infection control measures in a nursing home setting: a simulation study.\",\"authors\":\"Haomin Li, Daniel K Sewell, Ted Herman, Sriram V Pemmeraju, Alberto M Segre, Aaron C Miller, Philip M Polgreen\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/ice.2024.43\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Compare the effectiveness of multiple mitigation measures designed to protect nursing home residents from infectious disease outbreaks.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Agent-based simulation study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Simulation environment of a small nursing home.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We collected temporally detailed and spatially fine-grained location information from nursing home healthcare workers (HCWs) using sensor motes. We used these data to power an agent-based simulation of a COVID-19 outbreak using realistic time-varying estimates of infectivity and diagnostic sensitivity. Under varying community prevalence and transmissibility, we compared the mitigating effects of (i) regular screening and isolation, (ii) inter-resident contact restrictions, (iii) reduced HCW presenteeism, and (iv) modified HCW scheduling.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across all configurations tested, screening every other day and isolating positive cases decreased the attack rate by an average of 27% to 0.501 on average, while contact restrictions decreased the attack rate by an average of 35%, resulting in an attack rate of only 0.240, approximately half that of screening/isolation. Combining both interventions impressively produced an attack rate of only 0.029. Halving the observed presenteeism rate led to an 18% decrease in the attack rate, but if combined with screening every 6 days, the effect of reducing presenteeism was negligible. Altering work schedules had negligible effects on the attack rate.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Universal contact restrictions are highly effective for protecting vulnerable nursing home residents, yet adversely affect physical and mental health. In high transmission and/or high community prevalence situations, restricting inter-resident contact to groups of 4 was effective and made highly effective when paired with weekly testing.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13663,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11439596/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2024.43\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2024.43","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:比较旨在保护疗养院居民免受传染病爆发影响的多种缓解措施的有效性:比较旨在保护疗养院居民免受传染病爆发影响的多种缓解措施的有效性:设计:基于代理的模拟研究:环境:小型疗养院的模拟环境:方法:我们使用传感器马达从养老院医护人员(HCWs)那里收集了时间上详细、空间上精细的位置信息。我们利用这些数据对 COVID-19 的爆发进行了基于代理的模拟,并对感染率和诊断灵敏度进行了现实的时变估计。在不同的社区流行率和传播性条件下,我们比较了以下措施的缓解效果:(i) 定期筛查和隔离;(ii) 居民间接触限制;(iii) 减少高危工人在岗时间;(iv) 修改高危工人的工作安排:在测试的所有配置中,隔天筛查和隔离阳性病例可将发病率平均降低 27%,平均为 0.501;而限制接触可将发病率平均降低 35%,使发病率仅为 0.240,约为筛查/隔离的一半。将这两种干预措施结合起来,发病率仅为 0.029,令人印象深刻。将观察到的缺勤率减半可使发病率降低 18%,但如果结合每 6 天一次的筛查,降低缺勤率的效果则微乎其微。改变工作时间对发病率的影响可以忽略不计:结论:普遍接触限制对保护易受感染的疗养院居民非常有效,但会对身心健康造成不利影响。在传播率高和/或社区流行率高的情况下,将居民之间的接触限制在 4 人一组是有效的,如果配合每周检测,效果会更好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparing multiple infection control measures in a nursing home setting: a simulation study.

Objective: Compare the effectiveness of multiple mitigation measures designed to protect nursing home residents from infectious disease outbreaks.

Design: Agent-based simulation study.

Setting: Simulation environment of a small nursing home.

Methods: We collected temporally detailed and spatially fine-grained location information from nursing home healthcare workers (HCWs) using sensor motes. We used these data to power an agent-based simulation of a COVID-19 outbreak using realistic time-varying estimates of infectivity and diagnostic sensitivity. Under varying community prevalence and transmissibility, we compared the mitigating effects of (i) regular screening and isolation, (ii) inter-resident contact restrictions, (iii) reduced HCW presenteeism, and (iv) modified HCW scheduling.

Results: Across all configurations tested, screening every other day and isolating positive cases decreased the attack rate by an average of 27% to 0.501 on average, while contact restrictions decreased the attack rate by an average of 35%, resulting in an attack rate of only 0.240, approximately half that of screening/isolation. Combining both interventions impressively produced an attack rate of only 0.029. Halving the observed presenteeism rate led to an 18% decrease in the attack rate, but if combined with screening every 6 days, the effect of reducing presenteeism was negligible. Altering work schedules had negligible effects on the attack rate.

Conclusions: Universal contact restrictions are highly effective for protecting vulnerable nursing home residents, yet adversely affect physical and mental health. In high transmission and/or high community prevalence situations, restricting inter-resident contact to groups of 4 was effective and made highly effective when paired with weekly testing.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
289
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology provides original, peer-reviewed scientific articles for anyone involved with an infection control or epidemiology program in a hospital or healthcare facility. Written by infection control practitioners and epidemiologists and guided by an editorial board composed of the nation''s leaders in the field, ICHE provides a critical forum for this vital information.
期刊最新文献
Multiplexed gastrointestinal PCR panels for the evaluation of diarrhea in patients with acute leukemia. A pilot intervention trial to reduce the use of post-procedural antimicrobials after common endourologic surgeries. Antimicrobial-resistant central line-associated bloodstream infections in adult intensive care units: findings from an Australian surveillance network, 2011-2022. Empiric antibiotic prescribing practices for gram-positive coverage of late-onset sepsis in neonatal intensive care units in North America. Integrating an industrial hygienist into the infection prevention and control program.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1