I blogged recently about the new ESCMID guidelines on resistant Gram-negative carriage and decolonisation, which supported a “once positive, always positive” approach to CPE carriers due to the lack of effective decolonisation options. A new study suggests that a large majority (75%) of patients who were once identified as CPE carriers no longer had CPE detectable when they were readmitted. This has implications for the management of CPE carriers in hospitals.
A comprehensive and impressive cluster randomised crossover study published in Lancet ID examines whether it makes sense to use single rooms (as compared with multi-bed bays) to apply contact precautions for patients known to be carrying ESBL-Enterobacteriaceae. I need to be careful what I say, because fellow bloggers Marc and Andreas are co-authors. However, the gist seems to be: don’t bother with single rooms for ESBL-E carriers – but many hospitals don’t have capacity to do that anyway, so this may not be a practice-changing finding in many parts of the world!
Those of you who have published a scientific paper or two will recognise the following process:
By the end of this process, not only have you lost the will to live (or ever reformat a scientific paper ever again), you’ve also wasted time = money. And chances are, the money has been entrusted to you to perform research, not reformat documents! A recently study counts the cost of this process, concluding that the average scientist spends 52 hours per person per year on formatting / reformatting scientific papers, with a cost of around $500 USD per manuscript or ~$2k per year.
Today we discussed a recent paper published by our orthopedic surgeons on using powdered vancomycin in the wounds of spinal surgery to prevent surgical site infections (SSI). Two years ago I already had a post on the topic. The powder is spread deep in the wounds, on the bone and metal, before fascia and skin are closed. Yet, none of the 3 guidelines addressing prevention of surgical site infections that appeared recently recommends this intervention; WHO (2016) didn’t even include the intervention, CDC (2017) said “don’t do it”, and NICE (2019) acknowledged that the procedure is widely used without strong supporting evidence and recommended: stop doing it and do a trial. Continue reading
I’ve spent the last couple of days up in Liverpool for Infection Prevention 2019. One of the highlights was a talk by Dr Paz Aranega-Bou on the issues around contamination of sinks and drains. Paz flagged a paper just published in JHI investigating the dispersal of CPE in a sink/drain test risk at PHE, showing the CPE can make its way from contaminated drains to sink and surrounding surfaces via splashback.
This blog is usually concerned with covering the latest developments – but this post features a paper published in 1962! Have you ever wondered what would happen if you didn’t do hand hygiene? Well, this remarkable, shocking, and absolutely unrepeatable study from the 1960s gives us the answer: the result would be transmission of pathogens that can cause HCAI.