A study just published in ICHE investigates tweeting activity at several IPC / ID / AMR conferences (the 2016 editions of IPS, ID Week, FIS/HIS, and ACIPC). Perhaps the most interesting finding is that including a weblink or tweeting on certain topics (including C. difficile and the media) increase the chances of a tweet being retweeted, whereas, surprisingly, including a picture reduces the changes of a tweet being retweeted.
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.
I came to ECCMID 2017 with a very specific question: do we need to think beyond ‘same-bug-same-gene’ horizontal transmission from a practical IPC view point in order to address the threat of IPC? The answer, unfortuantely, is yes!
The World Health Organisation has updated its 2009 Guidelines on Core Components of Infection Prevention and Control Programmes. The report highlights eight ‘core components’ for 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
The Review on AMR published their final instalment today: a report on Infection Prevention and Control, and Surveillance. A report on IPC was not planned at the start of the Review, so the existence of this report illustrates the responsiveness of the Review team. Also, having been peripherally involved in reviewing this report, I am aware that it was written within an extremely short timeframe but it does not show: it is comprehensive and thought-provoking (as it should be) with some useful recommendations.