耐多药生物接触预防措施的使用和COVID-19大流行的影响:新发感染网络(EIN)调查

Jessica Howard-Anderson, Lindsey Gottlieb, Susan E. Beekmann, Philip Polgreen, Jesse T. Jacob, Daniel Z. Uslan
{"title":"耐多药生物接触预防措施的使用和COVID-19大流行的影响:新发感染网络(EIN)调查","authors":"Jessica Howard-Anderson, Lindsey Gottlieb, Susan E. Beekmann, Philip Polgreen, Jesse T. Jacob, Daniel Z. Uslan","doi":"10.1017/ash.2023.374","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The CDC recommends routine use of contact precautions for patients infected or colonized with multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). There is variability in implementation of and adherence to this recommendation, which we hypothesized may have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: In September 2022, we emailed an 8-question survey to Emerging Infections Network (EIN) physician members with infection prevention and hospital epidemiology responsibilities. The survey asked about the respondent’s primary hospital’s recommendations on transmission-based precautions, adjunctive measures to reduce MDRO transmission, and changes that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sent 2 reminder emails over a 1-month period. We used descriptive statistics to summarize the data and to compare results to a similar EIN survey (n = 336) administered in 2014 (Russell D, et al. doi:10.1017/ice.2015.246). Results: Of 708 EIN members, 283 (40%) responded to the survey, and 201 were involved in infection prevention. Most respondents were adult infectious diseases physicians (n = 228, 80%) with at least 15 years of experience (n = 174, 63%). Respondents were well distributed among community, academic, and nonuniversity teaching facilities (Table 1). Most respondents reported that their facility routinely used CP for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA, 66%) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE, 69%), compared to 93% and 92% respectively, in the 2014 survey. Nearly all (>90%) reported using contact precautions for Candida auris , carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter spp, but there was variability in the use of contact precautions for carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and extended-spectrum β-lactamase–producing gram-negative organisms. In 2014, 81% reported that their hospital performed active surveillance testing for MRSA, and in 2022 this rate fell to 54% (Table 2). The duration of contact precautions varied by MDRO (Table 3). Compared to 2014, in 2022 facilities were less likely to use contact precautions indefinitely for MRSA (18% vs 6%) and VRE (31% vs 11%). Also, 180 facilities (90%) performed chlorhexidine bathing in at least some inpatients and 106 facilities (53%) used ultraviolet light or hydrogen peroxide vapor disinfection at discharge in some rooms. Furthermore, 89 facilities (44%) reported institutional changes to contact precautions policies after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic that remain in place. Conclusions: Use of contact precautions for patients with MDROs is heterogenous, and policies vary based on the organism. Although most hospitals still routinely use contact precautions for MRSA and VRE, this practice has declined substantially since 2014. Changes in contact-precaution policies may have been influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic, and more specifically, contemporary public health guidance is needed to define who requires contact precautions and for what duration. Disclosures: None","PeriodicalId":7953,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Use of contact precautions for multidrug-resistant organisms and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic: An Emerging Infections Network (EIN) survey\",\"authors\":\"Jessica Howard-Anderson, Lindsey Gottlieb, Susan E. Beekmann, Philip Polgreen, Jesse T. Jacob, Daniel Z. Uslan\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/ash.2023.374\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The CDC recommends routine use of contact precautions for patients infected or colonized with multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). There is variability in implementation of and adherence to this recommendation, which we hypothesized may have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: In September 2022, we emailed an 8-question survey to Emerging Infections Network (EIN) physician members with infection prevention and hospital epidemiology responsibilities. The survey asked about the respondent’s primary hospital’s recommendations on transmission-based precautions, adjunctive measures to reduce MDRO transmission, and changes that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sent 2 reminder emails over a 1-month period. We used descriptive statistics to summarize the data and to compare results to a similar EIN survey (n = 336) administered in 2014 (Russell D, et al. doi:10.1017/ice.2015.246). Results: Of 708 EIN members, 283 (40%) responded to the survey, and 201 were involved in infection prevention. Most respondents were adult infectious diseases physicians (n = 228, 80%) with at least 15 years of experience (n = 174, 63%). Respondents were well distributed among community, academic, and nonuniversity teaching facilities (Table 1). Most respondents reported that their facility routinely used CP for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA, 66%) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE, 69%), compared to 93% and 92% respectively, in the 2014 survey. Nearly all (>90%) reported using contact precautions for Candida auris , carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter spp, but there was variability in the use of contact precautions for carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and extended-spectrum β-lactamase–producing gram-negative organisms. In 2014, 81% reported that their hospital performed active surveillance testing for MRSA, and in 2022 this rate fell to 54% (Table 2). The duration of contact precautions varied by MDRO (Table 3). Compared to 2014, in 2022 facilities were less likely to use contact precautions indefinitely for MRSA (18% vs 6%) and VRE (31% vs 11%). Also, 180 facilities (90%) performed chlorhexidine bathing in at least some inpatients and 106 facilities (53%) used ultraviolet light or hydrogen peroxide vapor disinfection at discharge in some rooms. Furthermore, 89 facilities (44%) reported institutional changes to contact precautions policies after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic that remain in place. Conclusions: Use of contact precautions for patients with MDROs is heterogenous, and policies vary based on the organism. Although most hospitals still routinely use contact precautions for MRSA and VRE, this practice has declined substantially since 2014. Changes in contact-precaution policies may have been influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic, and more specifically, contemporary public health guidance is needed to define who requires contact precautions and for what duration. Disclosures: None\",\"PeriodicalId\":7953,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.374\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.374","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:美国疾病控制与预防中心(CDC)建议对感染或定植多药耐药菌(MDROs)的患者常规使用接触预防措施。在执行和遵守这一建议方面存在差异,我们假设这可能因COVID-19大流行而加剧。方法:我们于2022年9月通过电子邮件向负责感染预防和医院流行病学工作的新发感染网络(EIN)医师成员发送了一份8个问题的调查问卷。该调查询问了受访者所在的主要医院对基于传播的预防措施、减少MDRO传播的辅助措施的建议,以及COVID-19大流行期间发生的变化。我们在一个月内发了两封提醒邮件。我们使用描述性统计来总结数据,并将结果与2014年进行的类似EIN调查(n = 336)进行比较(Russell D等人doi:10.1017/ice.2015.246)。结果:在708名EIN成员中,有283人(40%)回复了调查,201人参与了感染预防。大多数被调查者是至少有15年经验的成人传染病医生(n = 228,80%) (n = 174,63%)。受访者分布在社区、学术机构和非大学教学机构中(表1)。大多数受访者报告说,他们的机构常规使用CP治疗耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA, 66%)和耐万古霉素肠球菌(VRE, 69%),而2014年的调查分别为93%和92%。几乎所有(90%)报告对金黄色念珠菌、耐碳青霉烯肠杆菌(CRE)和耐碳青霉烯不动杆菌采取接触预防措施,但对耐碳青霉烯铜绿假单胞菌和广谱产β-内酰胺酶革兰氏阴性菌采取接触预防措施的情况存在差异。2014年,81%的医院报告对MRSA进行了主动监测测试,到2022年,这一比例降至54%(表2)。接触预防措施的持续时间因MDRO而异(表3)。与2014年相比,2022年医院不太可能无限期地使用MRSA接触预防措施(18%对6%)和VRE(31%对11%)。180家机构(90%)对至少部分住院患者进行洗必泰沐浴,106家机构(53%)在部分病房出院时使用紫外线或过氧化氢蒸汽消毒。此外,89家机构(44%)报告说,在2019冠状病毒病大流行开始后,接触预防政策的机构变化仍然存在。结论:MDROs患者接触预防措施的使用是不均匀的,政策因生物体而异。尽管大多数医院仍然常规使用MRSA和VRE的接触预防措施,但这种做法自2014年以来已大幅减少。接触预防政策的变化可能受到COVID-19大流行的影响,更具体地说,需要当代公共卫生指南来确定谁需要接触预防措施以及需要多长时间。披露:没有
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Use of contact precautions for multidrug-resistant organisms and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic: An Emerging Infections Network (EIN) survey
Background: The CDC recommends routine use of contact precautions for patients infected or colonized with multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). There is variability in implementation of and adherence to this recommendation, which we hypothesized may have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: In September 2022, we emailed an 8-question survey to Emerging Infections Network (EIN) physician members with infection prevention and hospital epidemiology responsibilities. The survey asked about the respondent’s primary hospital’s recommendations on transmission-based precautions, adjunctive measures to reduce MDRO transmission, and changes that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sent 2 reminder emails over a 1-month period. We used descriptive statistics to summarize the data and to compare results to a similar EIN survey (n = 336) administered in 2014 (Russell D, et al. doi:10.1017/ice.2015.246). Results: Of 708 EIN members, 283 (40%) responded to the survey, and 201 were involved in infection prevention. Most respondents were adult infectious diseases physicians (n = 228, 80%) with at least 15 years of experience (n = 174, 63%). Respondents were well distributed among community, academic, and nonuniversity teaching facilities (Table 1). Most respondents reported that their facility routinely used CP for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA, 66%) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE, 69%), compared to 93% and 92% respectively, in the 2014 survey. Nearly all (>90%) reported using contact precautions for Candida auris , carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter spp, but there was variability in the use of contact precautions for carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and extended-spectrum β-lactamase–producing gram-negative organisms. In 2014, 81% reported that their hospital performed active surveillance testing for MRSA, and in 2022 this rate fell to 54% (Table 2). The duration of contact precautions varied by MDRO (Table 3). Compared to 2014, in 2022 facilities were less likely to use contact precautions indefinitely for MRSA (18% vs 6%) and VRE (31% vs 11%). Also, 180 facilities (90%) performed chlorhexidine bathing in at least some inpatients and 106 facilities (53%) used ultraviolet light or hydrogen peroxide vapor disinfection at discharge in some rooms. Furthermore, 89 facilities (44%) reported institutional changes to contact precautions policies after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic that remain in place. Conclusions: Use of contact precautions for patients with MDROs is heterogenous, and policies vary based on the organism. Although most hospitals still routinely use contact precautions for MRSA and VRE, this practice has declined substantially since 2014. Changes in contact-precaution policies may have been influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic, and more specifically, contemporary public health guidance is needed to define who requires contact precautions and for what duration. Disclosures: None
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信