Tag Archives: SHEA

The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Issued Contact Precautions Guidelines On Multidrug-resistant Infections and C. difficile Infections

The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) January 2018 issued guidelines on how long hospitals should continue contact precautions for multidrug-resistant infections and Clostridium difficile infections to avoid the spread of potentially deadly organisms through hospitals.

“Because of the virulent nature of multi-drug resistant infections and C. difficile infections, hospitals should consider establishing policies on the duration of contact precautions to safely care for patients and prevent spread of these bacteria,” said David Banach, MD, MPH, an author of the study and hospital epidemiologist at the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington, in a society news release. “Unfortunately, current guidelines on contact precautions are incomplete in describing how long these protocols should be maintained. We outlined expert advice for hospitals to consider in developing institutional policies to more effectively use contact precautions to safely care for patients.”

Dr Banach and members of the SHEA Guidelines Committee, which includes experts in infection control and prevention, studied available evidence and practical considerations and surveyed SHEA members to develop the updated guidance document. The available evidence, however, is insufficient to issue a formal guideline.

The recommendations were published online January 11 in Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology.

The guidance, which covers methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant enterococci, and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, as well as C difficile, emphasizes the need for clinicians to consider the amount of time since the last positive sample. Specific recommendations include:

  • For patients not receiving antibiotics with activity against methicillin-resistant S aureus ((MRSA), the committee recommends using negative screening cultures to decide when to stop contact protocols. The optimal number of negative cultures is unclear, but 1 to 3 are often used. Hospitals may want to extend contact precautions for high-risk patients with chronic wounds and those from long-term care facilities. The ideal length of extension is unknown, but 6 months is common.
  • For highly resistant Enterobacteriaceae, such as carbapenemase-producing carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, or Enterobacteriaceae with few treatment options, hospitals should maintain contact precautions indefinitely.
  • For C difficile infections, contact precautions should be continued for at least 48 hours after the resolution of diarrhea, and clinicians should consider extending precautions if C difficile infection rates remain high despite appropriate prevention and control measures.
  • With cases of vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE)  infection, negative stool or rectal swab cultures should be used to determine when to discontinue precautions. One to three negative cultures at least 1 week apart are commonly used.

The authors note that there was insufficient evidence to formally recommend use of molecular testing to help guide decisions on length of contact precautions. However, they said they assume that polymerase chain reaction tests have better sensitivity compared with culture.

Hospitals should carefully gauge their own risks, priorities, and resources when adopting policy on duration of precautions, as costs and practicality of implementation differ, the authors note. In addition, guidance should be reevaluated by infection control leadership, especially when there are outbreaks.

“The duration of contact precautions can have a significant impact on the health of the patient, the hospital, and the community,” coauthor Gonzolo Bearman, MD, MPH, from the Division of Infectious Diseases at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, said in the news release. “This guidance is a starting point, however stronger research is needed to evaluate and optimize the use.”

The guidance was endorsed by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, the Society of Hospital Medicine, and the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada.

This study was supported in part by the SHEA Research Network. Various coauthors report ties to Springer Nature for book and journal editing and grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Veterans Affairs’ Health Services Research and Development, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Medimmune, Nanosphere Inc, Techlab, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Premier EHEC and CHRO-Magar 0157, Pfizer, and the University of Louisville. Coauthors also report consultant roles or fees with Xenex/Clorox, Ecolab and Gilead.

 

To review this article in its entirety please click on the following link:

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/891242

Contagion Live Infectious Diseases Today Report 2017 SHEA’s Spring Conference

for Read the Article In Its Entirety Please Click On the Following Link:

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) continue to plague hospitals and long-term care facilities across the country, although, a recent report from shows that strategies to prevent these infections have made progress in decreasing their incidence since 2010. Still, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has stated that a least one healthcare-associated infection is reported in about one in 25 hospitals on any given day.

When it comes to keeping up on the latest news regarding these harmful infections, the newest strategies being used to prevent them, antimicrobial stewardship efforts, and treating infections caused by organisms that have managed to develop resistance to current antibiotics, the annual Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Spring Conference is a gold mine packed full of information from key opinion leaders in the field, and Contagion® will be reporting on the conference for the second year in a row.

Since our inception in February 2016, Contagion® has kept readers current on new findings pertaining to healthcare-associated infections. Two of the big culprits that are most commonly behind these harmful and costly infections are Clostridium difficile and Staphylococcus aureus.

#####

At last year’s SHEA Conference, we interviewed Robin Jump, MD, PhD, about the burden of C. difficile in the hospital setting and up-and-coming prevention methods that healthcare providers can use to help manage these infections.

– See more at: http://www.contagionlive.com/news/contagion-to-report-on-2017-shea-spring-conference#sthash.kxaDnByE.dpuf

Medicare Penalties Include Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria In Hospital Patient Injury Reporting

newsspeaker

The federal government has cut payments to 769 hospitals with high rates of patient injuries, for the first time counting the spread of antibiotic-resistant germs in assessing penalties.

The punishments come in the third year of Medicare penalties for hospitals with patients most frequently suffering from potentially avoidable complications, including various types of infections, blood clots, bed sores and falls.

This year – 2016 –  the government also examined the prevalence of two types of bacteria resistant to drugs.

Based on rates of all these complications, the hospitals identified by federal officials this week will lose 1 percent of all Medicare payments for a year — with that time frame beginning this past October. While the government did not release the dollar amount of the penalties, they will exceed a million dollars for many larger hospitals. In total, hospitals will lose about $430 million, 18 percent more than they lost last year, according to an estimate from the Association of American Medical Colleges.

The reductions apply not only to patient stays but also will reduce the amount of money hospitals get to teach medical residents and care for low-income people.

Forty percent of the hospitals penalized this year – 2016 – escaped punishment in the first two years of the program, a Kaiser Health News analysis shows. Those 306 hospitals include the University of Miami Hospital in Florida, Cambridge Health Alliance in Massachusetts, the University of Michigan Health System in Ann Arbor and Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City.

Nationally, hospital-acquired conditions declined by 21 percent between 2010 and 2015, according to the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, or AHRQ. The biggest reductions were for bad reactions to medicines, catheter infections and post-surgical blood clots.

Still, hospital harm remains a threat. AHRQ estimates there were 3.8 million hospital injuries last year, which translates to 115 injuries during every 1,000 patient hospital stays during that period.

Each year, at least 2 million people become infected with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics, including nearly a quarter million cases in hospitals. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates 23,000 people die from them.

Infection experts fear that soon patients may face new strains of germs that are resistant to all existing antibiotics. Between 20 and 50 percent of all antibiotics prescribed in hospitals are either not needed or inappropriate, studies have found. Their proliferation — inside the hospital, in doctor’s prescriptions and in farm animals sold for food — have hastened new strains of bacteria that are resistant to many drugs.

One resistant bacteria that Medicare included into its formula for determining financial penalties for hospitals is methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, which can cause pneumonia and bloodstream and skin infections. MRSA is prevalent outside of hospitals and sometimes people with it show no signs of disease. But these people can bring the germ into a hospital, where it can be spread by health care providers and be especially dangerous for older or sick patients whose immune system cannot fight the infection.

Hospitals have had some success in reducing MRSA infections, which dropped by 13 percent between 2011 and 2014, according to the CDC. AHRQ estimates there were 6,300 cases in hospitals last year.

The second bacteria measured for the penalties is Clostridium difficile, known as C. diff, It can be spread through contaminated surfaces or hands. ………,

C. diff has challenged infection control efforts. While hospital infections dropped 8 percent from 2008 to 2014, there was a “significant increase” in C. diff that final year, the CDC says. AHRQ estimated there were 100,000 hospital cases last year.

“The reality is we don’t know how to prevent all these infections,” said Dr. Louise Dembry, a professor at the Yale School of Medicine and president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

The Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program also factors in rates of infections from hysterectomies, colon surgeries, urinary tract catheters and central line tubes. Those infections carry the most weight in determining penalties, but the formula also takes into account the frequency of bed sores, hip fractures, blood clots and four other complications.

Specialized hospitals, such as those that treat psychiatric patients, veterans and children, are exempted from the penalties, as are hospitals with the “critical access” designation for being the only provider in an area. Of the remaining hospitals, the Affordable Care Act requires that Medicare penalize the 25 percent that perform the worst on these measures, even if they have reduced infection rates from previous years.

…………………

To read the article in its entirety click on the following link to be redirected:

http://triblive.com/news/healthnow/11702788-74/hospitals-hospital-penalties

IDSA and SHEA Release New Antibiotic Stewardship Guidelines

In The News

April 2016

Preauthorization of broad-spectrum antibiotics and prospective review after two or three days of treatment should form the cornerstone of antibiotic stewardship programs to ensure the right drug is prescribed at the right time for the right diagnosis. These are among the numerous recommendations included in new guidelines released by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases.

“Initially, antibiotic stewardship was more focused on cost savings, and physicians responded negatively to that, because they often felt it was best to give patients the newest, most expensive drug,” said Tamar Barlam, MD, lead co-author of the guidelines, director of the antibiotic stewardship program at Boston Medical Center and associate professor of medicine at Boston University Medical School. “While these programs do save hospitals money, their most important benefit is that they improve patient outcomes and reduce the emergence of antibiotic resistance. When we say stewardship, we really mean stewardship, and increasingly, doctors are realizing it’s important and necessary.”

The White House has called for hospitals and healthcare systems to implement antibiotic stewardship programs by 2020 to ensure appropriate use of these vital drugs and reduce resistance, an escalating problem that threatens the ability to effectively treat often life-threatening infections.

The new guidelines replace those originally created to help with the development of programs when antibiotic stewardship was in its infancy, and instead focus on specific strategies that the evidence suggests are most beneficial to ensure the program will be effective and sustainable. They also note it is key that these programs tailor interventions based on local issues, resources and expertise. To ensure that, the guidelines recommend the programs be led by physicians and pharmacists and rely on the expertise of infectious diseases specialists.

“We want hospital administrators to understand the importance of giving antibiotic stewardship their full support to ensure its success,” said Sara Cosgrove, MD, MS, lead co-author of the guidelines, president-elect of SHEA and associate professor of medicine and epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, and director of the antimicrobial stewardship program and associate hospital epidemiologist at The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore. “Distributing a few brochures or holding grand rounds won’t do it. It’s vital that antibiotic stewardship be integrated into the hospital’s culture and that infectious disease specialists guide strategies that have been shown to work.”

The guidelines note that more research needs to be done to determine how to ensure antibiotic stewardship is most effective. However, the best evidence to date suggests a number of components, including the following, will help ensure the implementation of an effective antibiotic stewardship program.

  • Preauthorization or prospective audit and feedback – Targeted antibiotics, such as those that treat emerging drug-resistant bacterial infections, should require preauthorization. This means providers need to get approval to use antibiotics before they are prescribed. Prospective audit and feedback can be an alternate strategy or combined with preauthorization. Prospective audit allows antibiotic stewards to engage the prescribing clinician after the antibiotic has been used, typically after two or three days, to optimize antibiotic treatments. Both methods can reduce antibiotic misuse and decrease the development of resistance. Hospitals should choose one or both of these methods as part of their program based on their local resources and expertise.
  • Syndrome-specific interventions – The guidelines recommend focused multifaceted interventions for the treatment of specific syndromes, rather than trying to improve treatment of all infections at once. For example, Dr. Barlam said those leading a hospital’s antibiotic stewardship program might take a close look at management of pneumonia during winter, including making recommendations to shorten the amount of time people are treated and switching to an oral agent more quickly, and then measuring the results of those interventions. In the fall, the program might focus on urinary tract infections and then several months later, switch to skin and soft tissue infections. “This method makes stewardship more manageable and provides a targeted and clear treatment message rather than trying to disseminate 100 different lessons at the same time,” she said.
  • Rapid diagnostic testing – The guidelines note that rapid diagnostic testing of respiratory specimens can help determine if the cause is viral and therefore reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics. They also note that the rapid testing of blood cultures in addition to conventional culture is helpful, but should be guided by the antibiotic stewardship team for maximum benefit to the patient.

Other recommendations include reducing the use of antibiotics associated with Clostridium difficile infection, implementing antibiotic time-outs and other strategies to encourage prescribers to perform routine reviews of regimens and using computerized clinical decision support if possible.

The guidelines do not recommend relying solely on passive educational materials to implement antibiotic stewardship because any improvement likely will not be sustained. Lectures and brochures should be used to supplement strategies such as antibiotic preauthorization and prospective audit and feedback, the authors note.

AT A GLANCE

  • Preauthorization and prospective review of antibiotics are among the many recommendations to ensure antibiotic stewardship programs are most effective, suggest new guidelines from IDSA/SHEA.
  • Antibiotic stewardship programs should be led by physicians and pharmacists, including ID specialists, who have the expertise and education to ensure the right drug is being prescribed at the right time for the right diagnosis.
  • Antibiotic stewardship programs must be based on the specific problems identified by the healthcare facility and a realistic examination of available resources to ensure interventions are performed with consistency.
  • These programs have been shown to improve patient outcomes, reduce antibiotic resistance and save money.

In addition to Drs. Barlam and Cosgrove, the antibiotic stewardship program guidelines panel includes: Lilian Abbo, Conan MacDougall, Audrey N. Schuetz, Ed Septimus, Arjun Srinivasan, Timothy Dellit, Yngve T. Falck-Ytter, Neil Fishman, Cindy W. Hamilton, Timothy C. Jenkins, Pamela A. Lipsett, Preeti N. Malani, Larissa S. May, Gregory J. Moran, Melinda M. Neuhauser, Jason Newland, Christopher A. Ohl, Matthew Samore, Susan Seo and Kavita K. Trivedi.

IDSA and SHEA individually have published myriad treatment guidelines and together have published several, including the prevention of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery.

As with other IDSA and SHEA guidelines, the antibiotic stewardship guidelines will be available in a smartphone format and a pocket-sized quick-reference edition.

The full guidelines are available free on the

IDSA website at http://www.idsociety.org

 

SHEA website at http://www.shea-online.org.

 

To read this article in its entirety click  on the following link:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-04/idso-nas041216.php

 

World Health Organization (WHO) Recommends Six-Step Hand-Hygiene Technique

Scientists reveal how to wash your hands: Research shows six step process is most efficient at killing bacteria.,  It turns out that just lathering your hands with soap, rubbing them vigorously for 20 seconds and rinsing is not the most effective way to clean them.
Experts now say the six-step hand-hygiene technique recommended by the World Health Organization is far more superior than a rival three step process.

https://youtu.be/XedODzGrmic

During the randomized controlled trial in an urban, acute-care teaching hospital, researchers observed 42 physicians and 78 nurses completing hand-washing using an alcohol-based hand rub after delivering patient care. The six-step technique was determined to be microbiologically more effective for reducing the median bacterial count (3.28 to 2.58) compared to the three-step method (3.08 to 2.88). However, using the six-step method required 25 percent more time to complete (42.50 seconds vs. 35 seconds).

 

HOW TO PROPERLY WASH YOUR HANDS WITH THE SIX-STEP TECHNIQUE  

1. To properly wash your hands using the superior six-step method begin by wetting hands with water and grab either a dollop of soap or hand rub.

2. Begin rubbing your palms together with your fingers closed, then together with fingers interlaced.

3. Move your right palm over left dorsum with interlaced fingers and vice versa – make sure to really rub in between your fingers.

4. Then interlock your fingers and rub the back of them by turning your wrist in a half circle motion.

5. Clasp your left thumb in your right palm and rub in in a rotational motion from the tip of your fingers to the end of the thumb, then switch hands.

6. And finally scrub the inside of your right hand with your left fingers closed and the other hand.

 

‘Only 65 percent of providers completed the entire hand hygiene process despite participants having instructions on the technique in front of them and having their technique observed.’

 

SixStepHands

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resourece:

(1)  http://www.shea-online.org/View/ArticleId/409/Six-Step-Hand-Washing-Technique-Found-Most-Effective-for-Reducing-Bacteria.aspx

 

Evaluation of a Pulsed Xenon Ultraviolet (PX-UV) Disinfection System for Reduction of Healthcare-Associated Pathogens in Hospital Rooms

“Evaluation of a Pulsed Xenon Ultraviolet (PX-UV) Disinfection System for Reduction of Healthcare-Associated Pathogens in Hospital Rooms”

A study conducted by Dr. Curtis Donskey, and a team of researchers with the objective to determine the effectiveness of pulsed xenon ultraviolet (PX-UV) disinfection device for reduction in recovery of healthcare-associated pathogens was recently published in Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology (ICHE).

Michelle M. Nerandzica1 c1, Priyaleela Thotaa2, Thriveen Sankar C.a2, Annette Jencsona1, Jennifer L. Cadnuma2, Amy J. Raya2a3, Robert A. Salataa2a3, Richard R. Watkinsa4 and Curtis J. Donskeya2a3a5

a1 Research Service, Louis Stokes Cleveland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio

a2 Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio

a3 Department of Medicine, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio

a4 Akron General Medical Center, Akron, Ohio

a5 Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center, Cleveland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To determine the effectiveness of a pulsed xenon ultraviolet (PX-UV) disinfection device for reduction in recovery of healthcare-associated pathogens.

SETTING Two acute-care hospitals.

METHODS We examined the effectiveness of PX-UV for killing of Clostridium difficile spores, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) on glass carriers and evaluated the impact of pathogen concentration, distance from the device, organic load, and shading from the direct field of radiation on killing efficacy. We compared the effectiveness of PX-UV and ultraviolet-C (UV-C) irradiation, each delivered for 10 minutes at 4 feet. In hospital rooms, the frequency of native pathogen contamination on high-touch surfaces was assessed before and after 10 minutes of PX-UV irradiation.

RESULTS On carriers, irradiation delivered for 10 minutes at 4 feet from the PX-UV device reduced recovery of C. difficile spores, MRSA, and VRE by 0.55±0.34, 1.85±0.49, and 0.6±0.25 log10 colony-forming units (CFU)/cm2, respectively. Increasing distance from the PX-UV device dramatically reduced killing efficacy, whereas pathogen concentration, organic load, and shading did not. Continuous UV-C achieved significantly greater log10CFU reductions than PX-UV irradiation on glass carriers. On frequently touched surfaces, PX-UV significantly reduced the frequency of positive C. difficile, VRE, and MRSA culture results.

CONCLUSIONS The PX-UV device reduced recovery of MRSA, C. difficile, and VRE on glass carriers and on frequently touched surfaces in hospital rooms with a 10-minute UV exposure time. PX-UV was not more effective than continuous UV-C in reducing pathogen recovery on glass slides, suggesting that both forms of UV have some effectiveness at relatively short exposure times.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;00(0): 1–6

(Received July 11 2014)

(Accepted October 14 2014)

To access the report in its entirety please click on the following link:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ice.2014.36