Year: 2016

Review on AMR: final report

Jon Otter (@jonotter) Antibiotic resistance , , ,

AMR review - ipc

The final report from Jim O’Neill’s Review on AMR is published today. The report summarises the key findings of the reports published by The Review. The key interventions outlined in the report are:

  • A global public awareness campaign
  • Preventing the spread of infection
  • Reducing unnecessary use of antibiotics, and controlling their environmental dissemination
  • Improving surveillance of resistance and consumption
  • Improving diagnostics
  • Explore vaccines
  • Improve remuneration for people working in ID (here here)
  • Develop a global innovation fund for anti-infective drug development
  • Incentivise anti-infective drug development

Not a great deal on infection prevention in the report – but this was covered in detail in a previous report. Some more excellent infographics, and an impressive Review. Well worth a read.

Urine – not to be sniffed at – or is it?

Martin Kiernan (@emrsa15) Urinary Tract Infection , ,

crotchjpgDogs are recognised to have the keenest of noses and have been used for detecting illicit drugs, early stage cancer and even C. difficile including an outbreak (possibly a cheaper option than PCR for screening – I should have used this in my debate with Jon). Now a new study finds that trained dogs can reliably detect significant bacteriuria.

Continue reading →

Survey: infection prevention practices for VRE

Guest Blogger VRE , , ,

Vancomycin-Resistant_Enterococcus_01

Guest post from Prof Dale Fisher (bio below). Please help Dale out by completing this survey. I found it interesting (and more importantly, quick)…

Continue reading →

HIS Spring Meeting: ‘Contaminated surfaces: the missing link’

Jon Otter (@jonotter) Conferences , , , , , ,

HIS_Spring_Meeting_2016

Thought I’d share some key points from the 2016 HIS Spring Meeting.

Outlining the problem(s)

Prof Gary French kicked off the meeting with a (sic) historical perspective, describing how the perceived importance of the environment in transmission has oscillated from important (in the 40s and 40s) to unimportant in the 70s and 80s to important again in the 2000s. Gary cited a report from the American Hospital Association Committee on Infections Within Hospitals from 1974 to prove the point: ‘The occurrence of nosocomial infection has not been related to levels of microbial contamination of air, surfaces and fomites … meaningful standards for permissible levels of such contamination do not exist.’ Gary covered compelling data that contaminated environmental surfaces make an important contribution to the transmission of Gram-positive bacteria and spores, highlighting that C. difficile in particular is a tricky customer, not helped by the fact that many ‘sporicides’ are not sporicidal!

Continue reading →

Do we need new models of hand hygiene for anaesthetists?

Jon Otter (@jonotter) Hand hygiene , , ,

anaesthetists

In honour of #safesurgicalhands day, I thought I would highlight a shocking fairly recent study of hand hygiene compliance among anaesthetists. The study identified a huge number of hand hygiene opportunities during the delivery of anaesthesia (149 per hour on average) – in fact, it would have consumed more than an hour of each anaesthetists time! Importantly, the observation was done via video camera, so is probably a better reflection of actual compliance. It is little surprise then that the hand hygiene compliance rate was so low (a dire 2.9%). So, before berating our anaesthetic colleagues, we may need to think of some new models of defining critical control points related to hand hygiene for this specialist group. And then berate them (with love and support) for failing to meet them!

Image credit: youtube.

Course in Healthcare Epidemiology and Infection Control

Andreas Voss (@AVIPNL) Uncategorized

Schermafbeelding 2016-04-30 om 22.13.56

In the mood to up your epi skills?  This is the new ESCMID-SHEA course that was given for the first time in Australia last year (at least the first two tracks). It consists of a plenary part and 3 separate tracks. The first track is a practical exercise how to analyze a high rate of surgical site infections. Based on the results you have to draw conclusions and decide on an intervention. Finally you will determine if this has been effective.

The second track is a practical exercise how to analyze a possible outbreak with Clostridium difficile. Based on the results you will identify possible risk factors and routes of transmission. Finally you will take control measures and determine the effects.

The first two parts will require the use of a laptop with SPSS (for at least some of the participants) as participants will actually solve the problems. Don’t worry help is around, data-sets cleaned and the syntax is (just in case) written. It is actually a great way to get back into SPSS use.

The third track consists of four interactive master-classes. Faculty members will show some practical situations, which they have encountered during their careers. It will include outbreaks, high endemic rates of healthcare related infections, infections in the operating theatre and other topics.

Have a look at the folder:  Training Course in Healthcare Epidemiology and Infection Control. While part of the faculty, Eli and I will probably not be around this year, as we transfer the old course (October 2016, Vietnam) to a new faculty of (even) younger colleagues.

PPE for preventing highly infectious diseases

Andreas Voss (@AVIPNL) Infection Prevention and Control, Uncategorized , , , , , , , ,

Schermafbeelding 2016-04-27 om 15.32.54

The use of PPE and the protection of HCWs against highly infectious diseases was (and is) a topic of major importance, around the globe. The recent Cochrane review by Verbeek et al. was probably hoping to offer this “vital” information.

Unfortunately, they found no studies on the effects of goggles, face shields, long-sleeved gloves or taping on the risk of contamination. All they found was very low quality evidence, with high risk of bias and uncertain estimates of effect, that:

  • More breathable types of PPE offer more comfort without increasing the risk of contamination
  • Double gloving and CDC doffing guidance appear to decrease the risk of contamination, and
  • Active more than passive training in PPE use may reduce PPE and doffing errors.

Their conclusions are obvious: we need high-quality studies of the materials, their use and protective effects, safe ways of doffing, and the most adequate training to achieve safe use of PPE for HCWs in the presence of highly infectious diseases or those (even less infectious) that may cause severe harm to HCWs.

But what to do until than? My personal opinion is that we should only use PPE, we are used to and know how to use. First-time users, even if supplied with the best available products, will inevitably fail to remove the PPE without error. Consequently, institutions should have a stable selection of PPE, and in the case of preventing highly infectious diseases, a selected group of HCWs with continuous active training, as it is too late to start when the next epidemic is hitting our healthcare centers.

Schermafbeelding 2016-04-27 om 14.47.06

Should we start admission screening for C. difficile carriage? A Kiernan vs. Otter pro-con debate!

Jon Otter (@jonotter) C. difficile , , , ,

debate

Both Martin and Jon wanted to post a blog about the same article, so thought we’d put our hands together, so to speak, into a pro-con format! We hope you find it useful.

Continue reading →

Hand hygiene – social norms and compassion

Andreas Voss (@AVIPNL) Hand hygiene, Uncategorized , , ,

Schermafbeelding 2016-04-26 om 21.00.15

I just saw Sanjay Saint’s TEDx UofM-talk and have to say that I was impressed. The message is clear, the characters portrayed recognizable, and the conclusion something we all have to agree with. I “love” his final thoughts (and if you watch the talk to the end you know why I used “love”) and I share his views on compassion. Intentionally we branded our campaign for better infection control as “iCare”.Schermafbeelding 2016-04-26 om 21.02.03

Hope you enjoy Sanjay’s talk as much as I did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3MtvvNjUR4&sns=em

LA-MRSA: The Never-ending Sequel

Andreas Voss (@AVIPNL) MRSA, Uncategorized , , ,

Over the last years, we have been getting used to the fact, that commercial pig, veal, and chicken farms, as well as horse breeding, is associated with a risk of animal to human transmission of livestock-associated Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (LA-MRSA). In the line of suspects, chicken were the last to be conformed as true source of LA-MRSA. Van Duijkeren et al (J Antimicrob Chemother 2016;71:58-62) investigated addition feathered suspects, namely dugs and turkeys.

Schermafbeelding 2016-04-23 om 16.20.16First of all lets get Donald & friends of the list of suspects. In only one of 10 duck farms that were investigated, MRSA was found in the samples from the animals and duck houses. None of the humans living or working on duck farms, nor any part of their residence, was MRSA-positive. It therefore seems save to conclude that ducks pose no danger for transmission of LA-MRSA.

 

Schermafbeelding 2016-04-23 om 16.16.27Unfortunately, the story about turkeys seems to be different. Overall, 3 of the 10 turkey farms harbored MRSA. In addition, MRSA was found in 16% of the humans and 31% of the farmhouse samples. The highest risk was seen among the turkey farmers themselves (45.5% MRSA-positive), but employees and family members (6.3%) weren’t free of risk, either. Significant risk factors found by the investigators were: having physical contact with the animals and visiting poultry houses.

In 2 out of 3 frams in which MRSA was found among the animals and the humans, whole genome mapping showed >95% homology, corroborating the strong evidence for animal-to-human transmission of MRSA on turkey farms.