Infection prevention and control practices for CPE in Ontario, Canada – are we doing enough?

We’re delighted to have this guest post from Dr Alainna Jamal (bio below)…

Hello from Canada! In this blog post, I’ll reflect on findings from a study by our group (the Toronto Invasive Bacterial Diseases Network), published in this month’s issue of Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.

Continue reading

Using “health outcomes” as the basis for developing effective and sustainable hygiene interventions – is 2019 the time for a rethink?

This is a guest post by Prof Sally Bloomfield…

For many years, “5 log reduction” (LR) has been the gold standard for disinfectant efficacy despite absence of dose:response data linking it to clinical outcomes.  The family of EN tests now used to support claims for disinfectant products has its origins in the European Suspension Test (5LR, 5 mins, 5 test organisms) where 5 LR was probably chosen because it is the limit of sensitivity in an assay where, traditionally, the initial bioburden is 108 colony forming units.  For soap, detergent or dry wiping procedures, until recently their effectiveness has been assumed – possibly on the basis that they produce visible cleanliness? It is only recently that we have had access to efficacy data based on lab models.  A trial of EN 1699 handwashing test showed a mean 2.76 LR when hands contaminated with E .coli are washed with soap.

Continue reading

ID Week 2018 as seen by an Infection Preventionist

Guest Blogger Barley Chironda (bio below) writes…

IDWeek was held this year from Oct 3 to 7, 2018 in beautiful San Francisco. This was my fourth year in a row attending; having first attended and blogged about my first experience here in 2014. The pressure to offer IDWeek attendees a stellar conference was palpable. A week before, the city of San Francisco had hosted Dream Force. Dream Force is one of the world’s largest tech conventions with over 150,000 attendees. I’m glad to say IDWeek did not disappoint; boasting it’s highest ever attendance of over 8,000 people from over 85 countries. Given its wide and diverse audience, there are many targeted streams that allow a range of topics.

Continue reading

Novel strategies in science communication: Fiction or future?

Guest blogger, Tjitske van Engelen (details below) writes…

It is Friday night eight ‘o clock. Everybody tunes in via online podcasts, live feed webpages or plain old television. And there he is; the man of the hour. Respected by fellow man for his charismatic behavior and loved by women for his enchanting smiles. The well-known jingle introduces the vibrant young show host whilst he enters the stage. Tonight will be a night to remember. It is one of these shows that everybody will talk about during the Monday morning coffee break. No way you are not watching. It is the quarter-finals: ‘thrombosis in neonates’ versus ‘fluid resuscitation in the critically ill’. A Norwegian versus a South-African researcher. The jury consists of one hundred participants with no prior knowledge of the fields of research. The contestants are scored as usual based on the three pillars of the show. First, did I learn something new? Secondly, can I repeat what I have learned? And thirdly, does it make me want to learn more? In the beginning, many contestants made a rookie mistake: too much information squeezed in the set three-minute-pitch. It was rather funny, to hear them stumble over their difficult words. Who has ever heard of macrophages before? Well, only two of the jury members, as it turned out. However, after last week’s show (‘antibiotic resistance’ versus ‘genetics and infection’) the number of Google hits for meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus were sky high, adding to the third pillar of the show. Apparently people wanted to learn more after the engaging talk of the young scientist who explained her strategies to reduce the use of antibiotics. She has won an additional 30 seconds of pitch time for her semi-finals, kindly donated by Google. Fiction or future?

Continue reading

Genetic susceptibility for rotavirus infection

Each week our PhD students have their own Journal Club. Apparently they recently developed an interest in http://www.reflectionsipc and asked whether I was interested in getting their input. What a great idea, I thought, and here is the first one. Josephine van Dongen discussed a Scientific Reports paper on acute gastroenteritis (AGE) due to rotavirus. A global burden among children, but it can be prevented effectively by vaccination (still not recommended in our country!). Rotavirus discriminates: if your genes encode your cells to have a “secretor status” or being “Lewis positive” your infection risk increases (there even is a meta-analysis, for those still in doubt). And you are more likely to have these genotypes (at least secretor) if you’re Asian. Whether genotypes also predispose for more severe infection is unknown, and that’s what the study was about. Continue reading

Effective stewardship: less antibiotic use and more hand hygiene

Rossana Rosa (bio below) writes a guest post, reflecting on this recent review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes…

The first reports on the effects of Antimicrobial Stewardship Programmess date back to the mid-90s, and the interest in them has taken off in the past decade.

Continue reading

A health economist’s guide to the AMS galaxy

Guest blogger Nikki Naylor (bio below) has written this post about a recent review on the cost-effectiveness of antimicrobial stewardship…

I’ll start this blog post off with a promise – I promise not to use any equations or unnecessarily complex terms that just describe logical concepts (something us economists do like to do on occasion). In return, I hope that you will see past the standard and not-to-exhilarating conclusion of “more evidence is needed” and see some of the more useful messages that sit within this recent review that we have published.

Continue reading