Reflections from Infection Prevention 2015 Part I: Beating the bugs

time person of the year

Infection Prevention 2015, the annual conference of IPS, was held in Liverpool this year. I’m delighted to say that the abstracts from the submitted science are published Open Access in the Journal of Infection Prevention. This first instalment of my report will be “bug-focussed”, followed by another two on different themes:

Part I: Beating the bugs

Part II: Improving the systems

Part III: Thinking outside the box

Opening lectures

The conference kicked off with fellow ‘Reflections’ blogger Prof Andreas Voss. By Andreas’ own admission, he was given a curve-ball of a title: ‘CRE, VRE, C. difficle or MRSA: what should be the priority of infection prevention?’ [No idea where that could have come from…] Andreas developed a framework for grading the priority of our microbial threats, accounting for transmissibility, virulence, antibiotic resistance, at-risk patients, feasibility of decolonisation, cost, and impact of uncontrolled spread. And the result? Any and all microbes that cause HCAI should be a priority of infection prevention. Even those that seem to have less clinical impact (such as VRE) are good indicators of system failure. If we focus too much on one threat, we risk losing sight of the bigger picture.

Continue reading

Are contaminated hands more important than contaminated surfaces?

Cast your minds back to the 2010 HIS conference in Liverpool and Drs Stephanie Dancer and Stephan Harbarth debating the relative importance of contaminated hands vs. surfaces in the transmission of MDROs. I don’t remember the details of the debate, but I do remember the surprising lack of evidence on both sides. Back then, we had no real way to quantify the contribution of the environment to the transmission of MDROs, or to measure the relative importance of contaminated hands vs surfaces. The evidence has evolved to the extent that a group of US researchers have published a paper modeling the relative contribution of contaminated hands vs surfaces to the transmission of MDROs. I like the paper very much, and the authors should be congratulated for breaking new ground in understanding transmission routes of MDROs.

The model simulates patient-to-patient transmission in a 20-bed ICU. The values of the parameters that were used to build the model were sensible on the whole, although baseline hand hygiene compliance was set at 57-85% (depending on staff type and whether at room entry or exit), which seems rather generous when baseline environmental cleaning compliance was set at 40%. Also, the increased risk from the prior room occupant for MRSA and VRE was set at 1.4 (odds ratio) for both, whereas it probably should be higher for VRE (at least >2) based on a number of studies.

100 simulations were run for each pathogen, evaluating the impact of step-wise changes in hand hygiene or terminal cleaning compliance. The key finding is that improvements in hand hygiene compliance are more or less twice as effective in preventing the transmission of MDR A. baumannii, MRSA or VRE, i.e. a 20% improvement in terminal cleaning is required to ‘match’ a 10% improvement in hand hygiene compliance. Also, the relationship between improved terminal cleaning and transmission is more or less linear, whereas the relationship with hand hygiene shows relatively more impact from lower levels of hand hygiene compliance (see Figure, below). Thus, the line for improving hand hygiene or terminal cleaning would intercept and indeed cross over at around 40 or 50% improvement. The implication here is that hand hygiene is more important at low levels of compliance, whereas terminal cleaning is more important at high levels of compliance (although don’t forget the difference in the baseline compliance ‘setpoint’.

hand v env Figure. The impact of percentage improvement in hand hygiene or terminal cleaning on the transmission of MDROs. Dotted line represents my not-very-scientific extrapolation from eyeballing the data.

The study raises some important issues for discussion:

  • It had not struck me before that the level of compliance with hand hygiene and environmental cleaning are nearly identical, on average, with only around 40% of hand hygiene opportunities met and 40% of environmental surfaces cleaned if human beings are left to their own devices. Both of these figures can be improved considerably with concerted effort, but the sustainability of these improvements without continued effort is rather disappointing.
  • The models address MRSA, VRE and MDR A. baumannii transmission. It’s a little strange that C. difficile was not included, since most consider this to be the ‘most environmental’ hospital pathogen.
  • The study only modeled the impact of terminal cleaning, whereas daily cleaning seems likely to also be an important factor (which is acknowledged as a limitation in the discussion). This seems especially important in light of data that touching a contaminated surface carries approximately the same risk of hand contamination as touching an infected or colonized patient.
  • I am not certain that this assumption makes logical sense: ‘thoroughness of cleaning of 40% implies that, given a single cleaning opportunity, there is a 40% probability that the room will be cleaned sufficiently well to remove all additional risk for the next admitted patient’. This would be true if cleaning was performed to perfection 4 times out of 10, whereas it is actually performed with 40% efficacy 10 times out of ten! To this end, it would be interesting to insert the various automated room disinfection systems into the model to evaluate and compare their impact. Indeed, hydrogen peroxide vapour has been shown to mitigate and perhaps even reverse the increased risk from the prior room occupant (for VRE at least).
  • In the introduction, the authors comment that ‘A randomized trial comparing improvements in hand hygiene and environmental cleaning would be unethical and infeasible.’ I see what they’re saying here, in that it would be unethical by modern standards to investigate the impact of no hand hygiene or no environmental cleaning (although this has been done for hand hygiene), but it would be useful, feasible and ethical to perform a cluster RCT of improving hand hygiene and environmental cleaning. It would look something like the classic Hayden et al VRE study, but with an RCT design.
  • How useful is mathematical modeling in informing decisions about infection prevention and control practices? This is not the first mathematical model to consider the role of the environment. For example, researchers have used models to evaluate the relative importance of various transmission routes including fomites for influenza. But a model is only as good as the accuracy of its parameters.
  • Does this study help us to decide whether to invest in increasing hand hygiene or terminal cleaning? To an extent yes. If you have awful compliance with both hand hygiene and terminal cleaning at your facility, this study suggests that improving hand hygiene compliance will yield more improvement than improving terminal cleaning (for A. baumannii, MRSA and VRE at least). However, if you have high levels of compliance with hand hygiene and terminal cleaning, then improving terminal cleaning will yield more.

In general, this study adds more evidence to the status quo that hand hygiene is the single most effective intervention in preventing the transmission of HCAI. However, in a sense, the hands of healthcare workers can be seen as high mobile surfaces that are often contaminated with MDROs and rarely disinfected when they should be!

Article citation: Barnes SL, Morgan DJ, Harris AD, Carling PC, Thom KA. Preventing the transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms: modeling the relative importance of hand hygiene and environmental cleaning interventions. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014; 35: 1156-1162.

What works to control antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the ICU? A two-for-the-price-of-one study

Not content with a single well-planned study to provide information on what works to control multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) in the ICU, the MOSAR study group published an interrupted time series and a cluster randomized trial of various interventions in the Lancet ID. This makes the study rather complex to read and follow, but there are a number of important findings.

Interrupted time series – ‘hygiene’ intervention (chlorhexidine and hand hygiene)

Following a 6-month pre-intervention period, a 6-month interrupted time series of a ‘hygiene’ intervention (universal chlorhexidine bathing combined with hand-hygiene improvement) was performed. The key outcomes were twofold: whether there was a change in trend during each phase, and whether there was a step-change between the phases. The hygiene intervention effected a trend change reduction in all MDROs combined and MRSA individually, but not in VRE or ESBLs (Table). However, there was no step-change compared with the baseline period.

Table: Summary of reduced acquisition of all MDROs combined, or MRSA, VRE and ESBLs individually.

Derde table

Cluster RCT – screening and isolation

In the 12-month cluster RCT of screening and isolation, the 13 ICUs in 8 European countries were randomized to either rapid screening (PCR for MRSA and VRE plus chromogenic media for ESBL-Enterobacteriaceae) or conventional screening (chromogenic media for MRSA and VRE only). When analysed together, the introduction of rapid or conventional screening was not associated with a trend or step-change reduction in the acquisition of MDROs (Table).  In fact, there was an increase in the trend of MRSA acquisition. When comparing rapid with conventional screening, rapid screening was associated with a step-change increase in all MDROs and ESBLs.

Discussion

  • The study suggests, prima facie, not to bother with screening and isolation. Indeed, the authors conclude: “In the context of a sustained high level of compliance to hand hygiene and chlorhexidine bathing, screening and isolation of carriers do not reduce acquisition rates of multidrug-resistant bacteria, whether or not screening is done with rapid testing or conventional testing”. However, the major limitation here is that many of the ICUs were already doing screening and isolation during the baseline and hygiene intervention phases! I checked the manuscript carefully (including the supplemental material) to determine exactly how many units were, but it is not disclosed. To make this conclusion, surely the cluster RCT should have been ‘no screening and isolation’ vs. ‘screening and isolation’.
  • The increasing trend of MRSA associated with screening and isolation by either method, and step-change increases in all MDROs and ESBLs associated with rapid screening are difficult to interpret. Is an increase in acquisition due to screening and isolation plausible? Can more rapid detection of carriers really increase transmission (the turnaround time was 24 hours for rapid screening, and 48 hours for chromogenic screening)? The rapid screening arm also included chromogenic screening for ESBLs, whereas the conventional screening arm did not, so perhaps this apparent increase in acquisition is due to improved case ascertainment somehow?
  • Looking at the supplemental material, a single hospital seemed to contribute the majority of MRSA, with an increasing trend in the baseline period, and a sharp decrease during the hygiene intervention. There’s a suspicion, therefore, that an outbreak in a single ICU influenced the whole study in terms of MRSA. Similarly, a single hospital had a sharp increase in the ESBL rate throughout the screening intervention period, which may explain, to a degree, the increasing trend of ESBL in the rapid screening arm.
  • There was an evaluation of length of stay throughout the study phases, with a significant decrease during the hygiene intervention (26%), a significant increase during the rapid screening intervention, and no significant change during the conventional screening intervention. It seems likely that improved sensitivity of rapid screening identified more colonized patients who are more difficult to step down, resulting in an overall increase in length of stay.
  • The carriage of qacA and qacB was compared in the baseline and hygiene intervention phase, finding no difference in carriage rate (around 10% for both). This does not match our experience in London, where carriage rates of qacA increased when we introduced universal chlorhexidine bathing. However, this was restricted to a single clone; the acquisition of genes associated with reduced susceptibility to chlorhexidine seems to be clone-specific.
  • ICUs varied from open plan to 100% single rooms. Whilst the average proportion of patients in single rooms (15-22%) exceeded the average requirement of patients requiring isolation (around 10%), there was no measure of unit-level variation of single room usage. Since the study was analysed by cluster, the lack of single rooms on some units could have been more important than would appear from looking at the overall average. Put another way, a 100% open plan unit would have been forced to isolate all carriers on the open bay, and vice versa for a 100% single room unit.
  • The impact of the various interventions was moderate, even though a ‘high’ MRDO rate was necessary for enrollment (MRSA bacteraemia rate >10%, VRE bacteraemia rate >5%, or ESBL bacteraemia rate >10%). Would the impact of screening and isolation be different on a unit with a lower rate of MDROs? It’s difficult to tell.
  • Some of the microbiology is quite interesting: 8% of MRSA were not MRSA and 49% of VRE were not VRE! Also, 29% of the ESBLs were resistant to carbapenems (although it’s not clear how many of these were carbapenemase producers).

In summary, this is an excellent and ambitious study. The lack of impact on ESBL transmission in particular is disappointing, and may lead towards more frequent endogenous transmission for this group. The results do indicate screening and isolation did little to control MDRO transmission in units with improved hand hygiene combined with universal chlorhexidine. However, we need a ‘no screening and isolation’ vs. ‘screening and isolation’ cluster RCT before we ditch screening and isolation.

Article citation: Derde LP, Cooper BS, Goossens H et al. Interventions to reduce colonisation and transmission of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in intensive care units: an interrupted time series study and cluster randomised trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2014; 14: 31-39.

A postcard from São Paulo, Brazil: thank goodness for the NHS

sao paulo traffic mediumI recently had the opportunity to spend a week in São Paulo, Brazil, to meet with some infection control and infectious diseases folks. I came away feeling pretty disturbed and very grateful for the NHS.

Brazil is a massive country, with almost 200m inhabitants. São Paulo is Brazil’s largest city, with more than 20m inhabitants making it the 7th largest city in the world. I have lived in London and close to New York, and spent quite some time in Tokyo but nothing comes close to the traffic in São Paulo. It took me 3 hours to travel the 30km from the airport to the hotel, not because it was the middle of the rush hour or because there was a problem, just because the volume of traffic is too big for the infrastructure to handle.

Brazil has around 7000 hospitals; 70% are private with a healthcare insurance system for those who can afford it. The public hospitals are the only option for those who cannot afford healthcare insurance. I visited a number of public and private hospitals and was struck by the following:

  • Rates of antibiotic resistance are eye-wateringly high. Around 40% of healthcare-associated Klebsiella pneuomoniae are carbapenem-resistant and of these, around 20% are colistin-resistant. More than 50% of K. pneumoniae produce ESBLs. The situation with Acinetobacter baumannii is even worse, with >80% resistant to carbapenems. Whilst there is usually some treatment option left, pan-drug resistant Gram-negative bacteria are a daily reality on the ICUs. To top it off, around 60% of S. aureus are MRSA, 80% of E. faecium are VRE and C. difficile is chronically under-reported due to lack of testing infrastructure and limited awareness about sending specimens. There’s an excellent 2011 review on antibiotic resistance in Brazil here, although a lot has happened since 2011.
  • The public hospitals are chronically overcrowded. This is best illustrated by a quick visit to the Emergency Department, where patients on stretchers line the corridors as far as the eye can see. These patients usually stay for days, not hours. The problem is so endemic that ICUs have been established in the ED. The wards are crowded too, with very small distances between beds. Plus, there are not enough staff to cover their beds, especially during nights and weekends. Following one meeting at a very large public hospital (2000 beds), we literally could not leave the building due to the sheer volume of patients trying to get in. Just like the roads, the volume of patients is too high for the infrastructure to handle.
  • The contrast between public and private hospitals is stark. Instead of being met by patients on stretchers when you arrive at public hospitals, you’re met by glass fronted healthcare insurance offices.

So, what can be done? The various strategies to curb the growing threat of antibiotic resistance are as relevant in Brazil as elsewhere: prevention is better than cure; reduce antibiotic use; improve accurate and timely diagnosis; perform surveillance for action; embrace novel solutions; highlight the financial burden; and develop new antibiotics. Some progress has been made, for example, antibiotics are no longer available without prescription over-the-counter. The commitment and enthusiasm of the infection control and infectious diseases folks that I have met here is inspiring. However, they are limited by poor healthcare infrastructure, virtually no investment in microbiology laboratory facilities, lack of national reporting, the widespread availability of poor-quality antibiotics and extensive use of antibiotics in the veterinary sector, which makes progress difficult.

Next time you have the misfortune of visiting an Accident & Emergency Department in an NHS hospital, rather than moan if you have to wait a few hours to access world-leading healthcare free at the point of care, instead be thankful for the NHS.

Photo credit: Fred Inklaar.

This study has been BUGGing me for a while

bug glove

A fabulous study recently published in JAMA evaluates the ‘Benefits of Universal Glove and Gown’ (BUGG) in US ICUs. This is a model study design: one of the first cluster randomized controlled trials of a non-therapeutic infection control intervention. Twenty ICUs were paired and randomized to either universal glove and gowning, or to continue the current practice of placing patients known to be infected or colonized with MRSA and VRE on contact precautions. The hypothesis is that undetected colonization with MRSA and VRE is common, and the only real way to address this is to assume everybody is colonized!

Summary of findings:

  • Universal glove and gowning was not associated with a reduction in a composite measure of MRSA / VRE acquisition (the primary outcome).
  • VRE acquisition was not reduced by universal glove and gown use, whereas MRSA was.
  • CLABSI, CAUTI and VAP; ICU mortality; and adverse events did differ significantly between the two groups.
  • Hand hygiene compliance on room entry was not significantly different between the two arms, whereas hand hygiene compliance on room exit was significantly higher in the intervention arm.
  • Healthcare workers visited patients 20% less frequently in the intervention arm (4.2 vs. 5.2 visits per hour).

BUGGFigure: The change in acquisition rate, comparing the baseline period with the study period for the intervention and control units.

Here’s what’s BUGGing me about this study:

  • The acquisition rate in both intervention and control study arms reduced (Figure). The acquisition rate reduction in the control arms may be due to improved compliance with admission screening, resulting in more accurate ascertainment of who required contact precautions.
  • The significant reduction was achieved for MRSA but not for VRE. The authors suggest that VRE colonization may have been suppressed on admission and not detected, and flourished during antimicrobial therapy giving the impressive of acquisition. I wonder whether differences in the routes of transmission may also have contributed; for example, VRE seems to be substantially “more environmental” than MRSA. Another potential confounder is that, by chance, the prevalence of MRSA or VRE on admission to the intervention ICUs was more than double that in the control ICUs (22% vs. 9%). In actual fact, the raw rate of MRSA acquisition in the intervention ICUs was marginally higher than in the control ICUs during the intervention period (6.00 vs. 5.94 per 1000 patient days), even though the change in rate was significantly greater on the intervention ICU. Although adjustment was made for this difference in the analysis, it may have skewed the findings somewhat.
  • The authors achieved remarkably high compliance with admission screening (around 95%), discharge screening (around 85%) and glove and gowning (around 85%). Each site had the luxury of a study coordinator and a physician champion to lead implementation, plus weekly feedback on screening compliance and visits from study investigators. Most ICUs would not be afforded these luxuries so I suspect that real-world compliance outside of the somewhat artificial study environment would be considerably lower. Indeed, an ID Week poster suggests that compliance with gowning in one US ICU was a ‘dismal’ 20%!
  • Adverse events were not significantly higher in the universal glove and gowning arm, which may seem surprising prima facie. However, the reason why adverse events are more common for patients on contact precautions is that they are marginalized by being on contact precautions. If all patients are effectively on contact precautions, the time of healthcare workers would be spread evenly.
  • Universal gloving is likely to result in universally bad hand hygiene compliance within the room during patient care; when healthcare workers feel protected, they are less likely to comply with hand hygiene and gloves are a good way to make healthcare workers feel protected. The increase in hand hygiene compliance on room exit is probably also a symptom of inherent human factors, since healthcare workers feel more ‘dirty’ when exiting the room of a patient with a higher perceived risk of MDRO ‘contamination’ (the so-called “urgh” factor).
  • Healthcare workers had less time for patient care in the intervention arm because they were busy donning and doffing gloves and gowns. Interestingly, the authors suggest that fewer visits may be a good thing for patients, and may have contributed to their reduced chances of acquiring MRSA. This seems unlikely though, given the fact that VRE acquisition was not reduced. On balance, less contact with healthcare workers is likely to be bad for patients.
  • The increased cost of universal glove and gowning was not evaluated and, whilst incrementally small, would be a substantial sum.

In summary, this study sets the standard in terms of rigorous assessment of an infection prevention and control intervention. Universal application of gloves and gowns is unlikely to do as much harm as universal administration of mupirocin, but it will not make a profound reduction in the transmission of MDROs. Therefore, I shouldn’t think many ICUs will be rushing to implement universal gloves and gowns on the strength of these findings.

Article citation: Harris AD, Pineles L, Belton B et al. Universal glove and gown use and acquisition of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the ICU: a randomized trial. JAMA 2013;310:1571-1580.

Contaminated surfaces contribute to transmission; the question is, how much?

mop

I’ve been asked to write a chapter on the role of the environment in transmission in an Springer book (on the potential role for antimicrobial surfaces in healthcare). So, I’ve been busy updating my 2011 ICHE literature review on a similar topic, drawing on an excellent recent AJIC review by Dr Donskey.

There are some epidemiological associations that suggest an important role for contaminated surfaces in transmission. Most compelling are the studies showing that admission to a room previously occupied by a patient with certain environmentally-associated pathogens increases the risk of acquisition for incoming patients, presumably due to residual contamination. However, in order to really nail a scientific association, an intervention is required. Hence, the environmental intervention studies provide the highest quality evidence evaluating the role of the environment in transmission (see the Table below).

These studies have shown that switching to more effective agents, improving the cleaning / disinfection process or turning to automated “no-touch” room disinfection systems (NTD) can reduce transmission in endemic settings. It’s important to note that some studies report an ineffective environmental intervention. These are important to publish to avoid publication bias. Looking under the bonnet of these studies usually offers an explanation as to why they did not show a significant reduction in transmission. For example:

  • Wilcox 2003. There was virtually no impact on the frequency of C. difficile environmental contamination on the wards using bleach, so it’s surprising that they saw any reduction in CDI!
  • Valiquette 2007. The bundle of interventions, some of which were environmental, was only given a few months to be effective.
  • Wilson 2011. This one is more difficult to explain. Perhaps it was underpowered to detect a clinical impact in the declining prevalence of MRSA in the UK?
  • Dharan 1999. The intervention was focused mainly on improving the cleaning and disinfection floors, which are not exactly a high-touch, high-risk sites.

Believe it or not, I still occasionally meet people who tell me that contaminated surfaces do not contribute to transmission. That rather dated viewpoint is becoming increasingly untenable as the volume and quality of data evaluating the role of the environment in transmission continues to increase. For me, the question has now moved on to how much contaminated surfaces contribute to transmission, and how best to address contamination of the hospital environment.

Table. Intervention studies evaluating the role of contaminated surfaces in the endemic transmission of nosocomial pathogens.

Reference Setting, location Organism Study design Key findings
Mayfield 2000 1 Three units, USA C. difficile 18-month before-after study of a switch from QAC to bleach disinfection. Significant reduction in CDI incidence on the highest risk unit from 8.6 to 3.3 cases per 1000 patient-days.
Wilcox 2003 2 Two units, UK C. difficile 2-year ward cross-over study of a switch from detergent to bleach disinfection. Significant reduction in CDI incidence on one of the units (from 8.9 to 5.3 cases per 100 admissions), but not on the other.
McMullen 2007 3 MICU and SICU, USA C. difficile 2-month before-after evaluation of bleach disinfection of CDI rooms on SICU and 4-month evaluation of bleach disinfection of all rooms on MICU in a hyper-endemic setting. Significant reduction in CDI incidence on both units (10.4 to 3.9 cases per 1000 patient days on SICU; 16.6 to 3.7 cases per 1000 patient days on MICU).
Valiquette 2007 4 Hospital-wide, Canada C. difficile 5-month evaluation of enhanced infection control and disinfection, including a switch to bleach, and a subsequent switch to ‘accelerated’ hydrogen peroxide. Neither environment intervention made a significant impact on the incidence of CDI; a reduction in the use of high-risk antibiotics significantly reduced the incidence of CDI.
Boyce 2008 5 Hospital-wide, USA C. difficile 20-month before-after study on the use of HPV disinfection for terminal disinfection of CDI rooms. Significant reduction in CDI incidence on five high incidence units (from 2.3 to 1.3 cases per 1000 patient-days). Lesser reduction in CDI incidence hospital wide.
Hacek 2010 6 Three hospitals, USA C. difficile 3-year before-after study on switching from QAC to bleach for terminal disinfection of CDI rooms. Significant reduction in the incidence of CDI (from 0.85 to 0.45 per 1000 patient days).
Orenstein 2011 7 Two medical units, USA C. difficile 2-year before-after study on switching to bleach wipes for daily and terminal disinfection of all rooms. Significant reduction in the incidence of CDI (from 24.2 to 3.6 per 1000 patient days).
Manian 2013 8 Hospital-wide, USA C. difficile 3-year before-after study on enhanced terminal disinfection of CDI rooms using HPV and bleach. Significant reduction in the incidence of CDI (from 0.88 to 0.55 cases per 1000 patient days).
Hayden 2006 9 ICU, USA VRE 9-month before-after study on educational improvement of cleaning and hand hygiene. The frequency of environmental contamination and patient acquisition of VRE were reduced  from 33 to 17 acquisitions per 1000 patient-days during the improved cleaning phase.
Datta 2011 10 ICU, USA VRE / MRSA 3-year before-after study of an intervention (fluorescent markers, “bucket method” and education) to enhance daily and terminal cleaning. Significant reduction of MRSA (3.0% to 1.5% of admissions) and VRE (3.0% to 2.2% of admissions) acquisitions; intervention significantly reduced the increased risk from the prior occupant for MRSA but not VRE.
Perugini 2011 11 Hospital-wide, Brazil VRE 4-year before-after study of an educational and observational intervention for cleaners. Significant reduction in VRE infection (from 7.7 to 1.9 per 1000 patient days) and environmental contamination.
Grabsch 2012 12 Hospital-wide, Australia VRE 18-month before-after study of a multimodal intervention (switch to bleach, improved monitoring of cleaners, modification of VRE contact isolation, periodic ‘super-clean-disinfection’ of high-risk wards). Significant reduction of VRE colonization (from 10.7% to 8.0% of patients) and VRE environmental contamination.
Passaretti 2013 13 ICU, USA VRE / all MDROs 30-month cohort study on the impact of HPV decontamination. Patient admitted to rooms disinfected using HPV significantly less likely to acquire an MDRO (15.7 to 6.2 per 1000 patient days) and VRE (11.6 to 2.4 per 1000 patient days).
Mahamat 2007 14 Hospital-wide, UK MRSA 8-year interrupted time series analysis of multiple infection control interventions. Introduction of bleach disinfection, environmental sampling, alcohol gels and admission screening all reduced the prevalence of MRSA.
Dancer 2009 15 Two wards, UK MRSA 12-month cross over-study on the impact of one extra cleaner. Enhanced cleaning was associated with significant reductions surface contamination, hygiene fails and MRSA acquisition.
Wilson 2011 16 ICU, UK MRSA 12-month randomized crossover study on the impact of additional twice daily cleaning of hand contact surfaces. Significant reduction in the detection of MRSA on surfaces and hands, but no significant change in MRSA acquisition was detected.
Dharan 1999 17 5 medical wards, Switzerland 4-month controlled study where 3-wards received an intervention (including an active oxygen based compound) and 2 wards continued current practice. Intervention associated with reduced contamination but not reduced nosocomial infection or MRSA infection / colonization.

HPV = hydrogen peroxide vapour.

 

References

1.       Mayfield JL, Leet T, Miller J, Mundy LM. Environmental control to reduce transmission of Clostridium difficile. Clin Infect Dis 2000; 31: 995-1000.

2.       Wilcox MH, Fawley WN, Wigglesworth N, Parnell P, Verity P, Freeman J. Comparison of the effect of detergent versus hypochlorite cleaning on environmental contamination and incidence of Clostridium difficile infection. J Hosp Infect 2003; 54: 109-114.

3.       McMullen KM, Zack J, Coopersmith CM, Kollef M, Dubberke E, Warren DK. Use of hypochlorite solution to decrease rates of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. Infect Control Hospital Epidemiol 2007; 28: 205-207.

4.       Valiquette L, Cossette B, Garant MP, Diab H, Pepin J. Impact of a reduction in the use of high-risk antibiotics on the course of an epidemic of Clostridium difficile-associated disease caused by the hypervirulent NAP1/027 strain. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 45 Suppl 2: S112-121.

5.       Boyce JM, Havill NL, Otter JA et al. Impact of hydrogen peroxide vapor room decontamination on Clostridium difficile environmental contamination and transmission in a healthcare setting. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008; 29: 723-729.

6.       Hacek DM, Ogle AM, Fisher A, Robicsek A, Peterson LR. Significant impact of terminal room cleaning with bleach on reducing nosocomial Clostridium difficile. Am J Infect Control 2010; 38: 350-353.

7.       Orenstein R, Aronhalt KC, McManus JE, Jr., Fedraw LA. A targeted strategy to wipe out Clostridium difficile. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011; 32: 1137-1139.

8.       Manian FA, Griesnauer S, Bryant A. Implementation of hospital-wide enhanced terminal cleaning of targeted patient rooms and its impact on endemic Clostridium difficile infection rates. Am J Infect Control 2013; 41: 537-541.

9.       Hayden MK, Bonten MJ, Blom DW, Lyle EA, van de Vijver DA, Weinstein RA. Reduction in acquisition of vancomycin-resistant enterococcus after enforcement of routine environmental cleaning measures. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 42: 1552-1560.

10.     Datta R, Platt R, Yokoe DS, Huang SS. Environmental cleaning intervention and risk of acquiring multidrug-resistant organisms from prior room occupants. Arch Intern Med 2011; 171: 491-494.

11.     Perugini MR, Nomi SM, Lopes GK et al. Impact of the reduction of environmental and equipment contamination on vancomycin-resistant enterococcus rates. Infection 2011; 39: 587-593.

12.     Grabsch EA, Mahony AA, Cameron DR et al. Significant reduction in vancomycin-resistant enterococcus colonization and bacteraemia after introduction of a bleach-based cleaning-disinfection programme. J Hosp Infect 2012; 82: 234-242.

13.     Passaretti CL, Otter JA, Reich NG et al. An evaluation of environmental decontamination with hydrogen peroxide vapor for reducing the risk of patient acquisition of multidrug-resistant organisms. Clin Infect Dis 2013; 56: 27-35.

14.     Mahamat A, MacKenzie FM, Brooker K, Monnet DL, Daures JP, Gould IM. Impact of infection control interventions and antibiotic use on hospital MRSA: a multivariate interrupted time-series analysis. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2007; 30: 169-176.

15.     Dancer SJ, White LF, Lamb J, Girvan EK, Robertson C. Measuring the effect of enhanced cleaning in a UK hospital: a prospective cross-over study. BMC Med 2009; 7: 28.

16.     Wilson AP, Smyth D, Moore G et al. The impact of enhanced cleaning within the intensive care unit on contamination of the near-patient environment with hospital pathogens: a randomized crossover study in critical care units in two hospitals. Crit Care Med 2011; 39: 651-658.

17.     Dharan S, Mourouga P, Copin P, Bessmer G, Tschanz B, Pittet D. Routine disinfection of patients’ environmental surfaces. Myth or reality? J Hosp Infect 1999; 42: 113-117.