In honour of Infection Prevention and Control Week (#IIPW) 2021, I thought I put up a quick post based on a talk I did on Friday last week about the ‘Future of Healthcare and of Infection Prevention and Control’ (you can download my slides here). I used it as an opportunity to put across my strategic priorities for the next 3-5 years. And COVID-19 is bottom of the list – keep reading to find out why…Continue reading
I participated in another pro-con debate recently up against fellow Reflections blogger Martin Kiernan during a Webber Teleclass. The question for the debate was “Can we halve Gram-negative BSI?” (I was arguing that we can). We ran a live Twitter poll and the outcome: 59% of the 22 respondents voted that no, we can’t halve GNBSI.
The slides from my talk are here.
My argument had two main themes: that there is a sizeable preventable portion of GNBSI and we have a lot to go for, and that we need a new approach to preventing GNBSI that will require new models of collaborative working across acute and non-acute health and social case.
The image below maps out the drivers of GNBSI. Some of these are modifiable (e.g. hydration and UTI, devices, antimicrobial stewardship), and some are not (e.g. deprivation [ok technically modifiable but beyond the scope of most IPC teams!], seasonal variation). The aim here is to identify those drivers of GNBSI that are modifiable and come up with practical interventions that could make a big difference.
Hydration is a good example. The most common source of E. coli BSI (which accounts for most GNBSI) is UTIs. We know that poor hydration is an important risk factor for UTI. So if we can improve hydration – in hospitals and outside – then there’s a good chance we’ll reduce UTI and in doing so reduce E. coli BSI.
Antimicrobial stewardship is another. If we can improve the management of Gram-negative infections in the community through appropriate therapy outside of hospital admissions, then you reduce the chance that they’ll progress to a GNBSI.
I can’t tell you for sure that we can halve GNBSI. But we must try to prevent the preventable GNBSIs!
A couple of new studies provide insight into determinants of antibiotic prescribing using qualitative methodology. A systematic review in the Journal of Hospital Infection highlights the tension between the immediate need of the sick patient (“give ‘em broad spectrum antibiotics and keep ‘em on them for as long as I can get away with” [my caricature]) and the societal needs related to AMR (“we need to balance the individual needs of the patient with the bigger picture of AMR” [again, my caricature]). Also, a clever study by Esmita Charani and colleagues from Imperial College London provides new insight into antibiotic prescribing practice by “going native” and joining ward rounds – effectively becoming a fly on the wall to understand poor antibiotic prescribing practice. The study identified a contrast between antibiotic prescribing in Medicine, where decisions were generally multidisciplinary and policy-informed, and Surgery, where decisions were often ‘defensive’, resulting in prolonged and inappropriate antibiotic use.
I recently posted on the WHO CPE guidelines. A couple of people have alerted me to two other recently published guidelines, one from ECDC, and the other from Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare. So, we now have a wealth of guidelines to prevent and control CPE. But how to they compare?
In a recent BMJ article, Llewelyn et al. argue that the old dogma of completing a prescribed course of antibiotics to prevent antibiotic-resistance is a myth, not based on evidence. Actually the opposite, namely taking antibiotics for longer than necessary, increases the risk of resistance.
While I love breaking down old dogmas (we actually had a poll on this topic some time back), many of today’s papers in the Netherlands (and I am pretty sure elsewhere, too) misinterpret the study, by slaughtering the message to patients to “always complete the full prescription”. One of the Netherlands most influential newspapers the Volkskrant, already wrote: “Finishing antibiotic course? Nonsense.”
ICHE recently published an unusual article (which other article has ‘the world wide web’ as their setting) on blogging in ID and clinical micro. The article reviewed around 100 blogs and rated them using a multifaceted tool. The article has some useful qualitative feedback from bloggers and readers, and identifies some gaps in the blogosphere (especially around antimicrobial stewardship). Rachael Troughton, one of the study authors, recently published a post on the article – and here’s my take on it.
A new Lancet ID study suggests that restriction of fluoroquinolone usage has been the main driver of the national reduction in C. difficile infection in England. This paper is challenging in terms of some of the accepted approaches to controlling the transmission of C. difficile: if it’s all about reducing fluoroquinolones (and antimicrobials in general) and nothing to do with these measures, then why invest so much time and energy in isolation of symptomatic cases, cleaning and disinfection etc?
I am just getting around to reading (well detail-scanning the exec summary) of the ESPAUR report. My main reflection is what a fantastic resource this reporting stream offers us: to have freely accessible, regular, accurate, national data on antimicrobial resistance and usage, and other related indicators is pretty unique!
Nurses are usually non-prescribers, so that means that anti-infective stewardship is the domain of the prescribing doctors and pharmacists, right? Wrong! Nurses have an enormous and enormously under-estimated role in anti-infective stewardship! Continue reading
I found out about a new free online antimicrobial stewardship course yesterday. The course is a collaboration between the the University of Dundee and the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, and comes highly recommended. The course is designed for healthcare professionals.
If anybody completes the course, I’d be interested to hear your feedback.