针对 MRSA 和 VRE 的接触预防措施:我们现在在哪里?美国医疗流行病学协会研究网络调查。

Elise Martin, Daniel J Morgan, Rachel Pryor, Gonzalo Bearman
{"title":"针对 MRSA 和 VRE 的接触预防措施:我们现在在哪里?美国医疗流行病学协会研究网络调查。","authors":"Elise Martin, Daniel J Morgan, Rachel Pryor, Gonzalo Bearman","doi":"10.1017/ash.2024.350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Contact precautions for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant <i>Enterococcus</i> (VRE) have limited data on efficacy and have been associated with patient harm. Still, a 2015 <i>Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America</i> (SHEA) Research Network (SRN) survey showed only 7% of hospitals discontinued routine MRSA/VRE contact precautions. The study objectives were to identify the current proportion of hospitals that have discontinued routine MRSA/VRE contact precautions and motivations for change.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>An online survey was conducted of the SRN on current use and views of contact precautions for MRSA/VRE in each facility. An initial survey followed by 2 reminders was sent between 5/18/2021 and 6/9/2021.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>SRN facilities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The response rate was 43% (37/87) of facilities surveyed and 35% of respondents were not routinely using contact precautions for MRSA and VRE. The most frequently reported reason for discontinuing contact precautions was research on the safety of discontinuing contact precautions without an increase in healthcare-associated infections (reported for 92% of facilities for MRSA and 100% for VRE). Of those using contact precautions, the most frequently reported reason to continue was a lack of safety data for discontinuation (MRSA 58% and VRE 46%). Most of those continuing contact precautions were interested in using contact precautions differently in their facility (MRSA 63% and VRE 58%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Over one in three healthcare facilities surveyed do not use contact precautions for MRSA or VRE. Most facilities choosing to continue contact precautions are interested in a different implementation strategy.</p>","PeriodicalId":72246,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11428003/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contact precautions for MRSA and VRE: where are we now? A survey of the <i>Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America</i> Research Network.\",\"authors\":\"Elise Martin, Daniel J Morgan, Rachel Pryor, Gonzalo Bearman\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/ash.2024.350\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Contact precautions for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant <i>Enterococcus</i> (VRE) have limited data on efficacy and have been associated with patient harm. Still, a 2015 <i>Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America</i> (SHEA) Research Network (SRN) survey showed only 7% of hospitals discontinued routine MRSA/VRE contact precautions. The study objectives were to identify the current proportion of hospitals that have discontinued routine MRSA/VRE contact precautions and motivations for change.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>An online survey was conducted of the SRN on current use and views of contact precautions for MRSA/VRE in each facility. An initial survey followed by 2 reminders was sent between 5/18/2021 and 6/9/2021.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>SRN facilities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The response rate was 43% (37/87) of facilities surveyed and 35% of respondents were not routinely using contact precautions for MRSA and VRE. The most frequently reported reason for discontinuing contact precautions was research on the safety of discontinuing contact precautions without an increase in healthcare-associated infections (reported for 92% of facilities for MRSA and 100% for VRE). Of those using contact precautions, the most frequently reported reason to continue was a lack of safety data for discontinuation (MRSA 58% and VRE 46%). Most of those continuing contact precautions were interested in using contact precautions differently in their facility (MRSA 63% and VRE 58%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Over one in three healthcare facilities surveyed do not use contact precautions for MRSA or VRE. Most facilities choosing to continue contact precautions are interested in a different implementation strategy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72246,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11428003/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2024.350\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2024.350","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:针对耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)和耐万古霉素肠球菌(VRE)的接触预防措施的疗效数据有限,且与患者伤害有关。不过,2015 年美国医疗流行病学学会(SHEA)研究网络(SRN)的一项调查显示,只有 7% 的医院停止了常规 MRSA/VRE 接触预防措施。研究目标是确定目前已停止常规 MRSA/VRE 接触预防措施的医院比例以及改变的动机:设计:对SRN进行在线调查,了解各医院目前对MRSA/VRE接触预防措施的使用情况和看法。在 2021 年 5 月 18 日至 2021 年 6 月 9 日期间发送了一份初步调查问卷,随后又发送了两份提醒函:结果:受访机构的回复率为 43%(37/87),35% 的受访者未对 MRSA 和 VRE 常规采取接触预防措施。停用接触预防措施的最常见原因是对停用接触预防措施的安全性进行了研究,研究结果表明停用接触预防措施不会导致医疗相关感染增加(92% 的医疗机构报告了 MRSA 感染情况,100% 的医疗机构报告了 VRE 感染情况)。在使用接触预防措施的机构中,报告最多的继续使用的原因是缺乏停止使用的安全数据(MRSA 58%,VRE 46%)。在继续使用接触性预防措施的人员中,大多数人都希望在他们的医疗机构中以不同的方式使用接触性预防措施(MRSA 63% 和 VRE 58%):结论:在接受调查的医疗机构中,每三家医疗机构中就有一家以上不对 MRSA 或 VRE 使用接触预防措施。大多数选择继续采取接触预防措施的医疗机构都对不同的实施策略感兴趣。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Contact precautions for MRSA and VRE: where are we now? A survey of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America Research Network.

Objective: Contact precautions for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) have limited data on efficacy and have been associated with patient harm. Still, a 2015 Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Research Network (SRN) survey showed only 7% of hospitals discontinued routine MRSA/VRE contact precautions. The study objectives were to identify the current proportion of hospitals that have discontinued routine MRSA/VRE contact precautions and motivations for change.

Design: An online survey was conducted of the SRN on current use and views of contact precautions for MRSA/VRE in each facility. An initial survey followed by 2 reminders was sent between 5/18/2021 and 6/9/2021.

Participants: SRN facilities.

Results: The response rate was 43% (37/87) of facilities surveyed and 35% of respondents were not routinely using contact precautions for MRSA and VRE. The most frequently reported reason for discontinuing contact precautions was research on the safety of discontinuing contact precautions without an increase in healthcare-associated infections (reported for 92% of facilities for MRSA and 100% for VRE). Of those using contact precautions, the most frequently reported reason to continue was a lack of safety data for discontinuation (MRSA 58% and VRE 46%). Most of those continuing contact precautions were interested in using contact precautions differently in their facility (MRSA 63% and VRE 58%).

Conclusions: Over one in three healthcare facilities surveyed do not use contact precautions for MRSA or VRE. Most facilities choosing to continue contact precautions are interested in a different implementation strategy.

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
CiteScore
1.00
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