I attended a thought-provoking session at the recent Healthcare Infection Society (HIS) conference in Liverpool on reducing GNBSI (you can download some of the speaker abstracts here). It seems that the hefty majority of E. coli BSIs are rooted in issues outwith the walls of acute hospitals. So the question is, who’s going to tackle these issues to prevent GNBSI? Who’s going to go for GNBSI (sorry, couldn’t resist another pop-culture reference to the ‘80s – who could forget ‘Going for Gold’ with Henry Kelly).
Most of those casting their vote supported Martin’s (somewhat pessimistic) view that we can’t halve Gram-negative BSI by 2021 (see the figure, below). Let me first give you my own, unspoiled opinion (written before the results of this survey were known). I was intending to vote for option 3 (the English can’t, the Dutch might) but I am not even sure of that; actually, I believe that neither the English nor the Dutch can.
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!
The Department of Health announced last week their intention to halve the rate of E. coli BSI by 2020. Whilst this is a move that should be embraced, it will be an enormous challenge to achieve. The reduction that has been delivered with MRSA BSI could be seen as a model for success (and I suspect that if you were a politician, you would see it this way). However, it is vital to recognise that E. coli BSI and, more broadly, Gram-negative BSI (GNBSI) are not the same as MRSA BSI, and will require a different reduction strategy.