Recognizing the Value of Infection Control in Addressing the AMR Crisis

One of the challenges that all infection control and QI programs face is obtaining the necessary funding to complete all their required activities such as surveillance, reporting and prevention. Anthony Harris from the University of Maryland spent a great deal of time (e.g. SHEA White Paper on Necessary Infrastructure) as SHEA President pushing for increased resources for hospital epi activities. In a recent BMJ Quality and Safety editorial, Anthony offered suggestions for advancing the recognition and resources for infection control and QI activities, including societies (i.e. SHEA, APIC, ESCMID) partnering with governments to create comprehensive recommendations for infection control programs and funding.

Specifically, he recommends:

(a) guidelines by major organisations outlining the optimal reimbursement and full time employee (FTE) of hospital epidemiologists and infection preventionists for healthcare facilities in various settings. Currently, agencies such as CMS list certain conditions of participation for institutions relative to infection control and soon to be antibiotic stewardship; however, details of these requirements are vague and should be expanded

(b) as reimbursement moves away from fee per service and more towards quality outcomes driving reimbursement and penalties, we need more effective and novel methods of directing resources for day-to-day infection prevention. For example, an infection prevention fee could be imposed on all procedures that require significant infection prevention resources such as surgery or central line insertion and maintenance

(c) funding for state health departments to assist individual hospitals in establishing effective infection prevention programmes

(d) novel reimbursement models such as a fixed fee per surveillance culture reviewed, a fee for each chart reviewed to assess the appropriateness of antibiotic selection or an hourly fee for performing outbreak investigation may be warranted

(e) certification requirements for hospital epidemiology and QI experts that will help recruit and establish more experts to the field.

The full editorial (free full text access) is well worth reading. (COI alert: I'm a co-author)

Lovin' Contact Precautions (this time in nursing homes)

Contact precautions get very little love on our humble blog. So little in fact, that I've taken it upon myself to be the resident contact precautions fanboy. Just today on rounds, I was waxing sentimental about the poor yellow gowns that protect us from horrible pathogens and how we unceremoniously toss them into the trash after wearing them - we never even say goodbye...but I digress

There is a new study in the September ICHE by Mary-Claire Roghmann and colleagues from the University of Maryland and University of Michigan that sought to estimate the transmission of MRSA from nursing home residents to healthcare workers' gowns and gloves based on clinical activity and resident characteristics (i.e. skin integrity or stool incontinence).  They aimed to determine if there were certain situations where wearing gowns/gloves would be most protective of HCW contamination (and thus reduce MRSA transmission).  The logic - if gowns and gloves are contaminated, the underlying hands would be contaminated if gloves/gowns weren't worn and since no one has ever gotten hand hygiene compliance near 90-100% anywhere, including nursing homes, then gowns/gloves result in cleaner hands and less MRSA transmission. I know, much more complicated than a cluster-RCT, but important data...but I digress again...

RESULTS! Overall, they enrolled 401 nursing home residents from 13 facilities including 113 (28%) who were MRSA colonized. 62% were nasally colonized, 9% were colonized at the perianal skin and 28% were colonized at both sites. There were 954 HCW interactions (median 7 per patient) with MRSA+ patients with a median duration of 6 minutes. Overall, gowns were contaminated after 14% of the interactions and gloves were contaminated 24% of the time. Gown/Glove isolates were identical (Spa type) to patient isolates 89% of the time. Overall, the contamination rate ranged from zero to 24% for gowns and 8 to 37% for gloves based on activity. So as far as hand contamination goes, there were no safe interactions and thus, we wouldn't expect activity-based precautions to be effective. (See figure below)  Significant predictors of glove/gown contamination included dressing, transferring, patient hygiene, changing linens and changing diapers.

As far as patient characteristics, stool incontinence did not modify gown/glove contamination with MRSA, but skin breakdown was associated with higher contamination when healthcare workers transferred the patient, changed their diapers and helped dress the patient.

My interpretation of the study is that if we want to limit the substantial transmission of MRSA in nursing homes, we better up our game. And that game should probably include gloves and perhaps gowns for most of the analyzed patient care activities. Unless we can get hand hygiene compliance up to 100%, we better just learn to love the glove.

HAI Rates are a Red Herring

"Fictional" Hospital CMO: "Why should I care about hand hygiene or environmental cleaning if I have no CLABSI or CAUTI in my hospital?"

Don't take this the wrong way, since I'd never want a patient to develop a CLABSI or VAP, but I think our focus on device infections is actually harming patients in the long run. If we convince ourselves, like that CMO quoted above or QI and patient safety folks, that we can just prevent device infections (never mind define them away) and everything will be fine, we are missing the bigger picture. The bigger picture is antibiotic resistance and I've yet to see any evidence that our antibiograms are improving.

When did hospital epidemiologists forget we were infectious disease physicians?

In September's ICHE Kerri Thom and colleagues in Maryland published a sobering reminder that resistant pathogens are increasing, particularly Gram-negative pathogens. They (COI alert, I'm a co-author) completed an Acinetobacter baumannii prevalence survey of all mechanically ventilated patients in the state of Maryland. They swabbed intubated patients in 40 of 57 hospitals and collected sputum and/or perianal swabs from  92% of all eligible patients in those hospitals.  What they found was staggering.  Fully 34% of patients were colonized or infected with Acinetobacter baumannii with 16% in acute care settings and an astounding 63% in long-term care settings carrying the pathogen. Even more worryingly, many strains were highly drug resistant with 46% of isolates in long-term care described as "extensively drug resistant," meaning there were no effective therapies - polymixin anyone?

Why does this matter?  Resistant pathogens cause untreatable infections and result in terrible situations like patients being removed from organ transplant waiting lists. These pathogens also carry resistance genes and serve as reservoirs for emerging resistance in other pathogens like E. coli. So, while I'm sure these Maryland hospitals all report zero CLABSI or CAUTI, I guarantee that they all have patients infected and dying of Acinetobacter baumannii and other MDR-Gram negative pathogens. Until we make investments in the science behind hand hygiene improvement, environmental cleaning and other methods for transmission prevention and until we invest in antimicrobial discovery, patients will increasingly die of these untreatable infections.

Luckily, when a kidney transplant patient dies of MDR-Acinetobacter sepsis, the hospital CMO can still sleep at night. At least the patient didn't die of a CLABSI.  I'm sure the patient's family will find comfort in that.


red herring image source: misocrazy