Explore the vast range of titles available.

Achieving a sustained improvement in hand-hygiene compliance is the WHO's first global patient safety challenge. There is no RCT evidence showing how to do this. Systematic reviews suggest feedback is most effective and call for long term well designed RCTs, applying behavioural theory to intervention design to optimise effectiveness. Three year stepped wedge cluster RCT of a feedback intervention testing hypothesis that the intervention was more effective than routine practice in 16 English/Welsh Hospitals (16 Intensive Therapy Units [ITU]; 44 Acute Care of the Elderly [ACE] wards) routinely implementing a national cleanyourhands campaign). Intervention-based on Goal & Control theories. Repeating 4 week cycle (20 mins/week) of observation, feedback and personalised action planning, recorded on forms. Computer-generated stepwise entry of all hospitals to intervention. Hospitals aware only of own allocation. direct blinded hand hygiene compliance (%). All 16 trusts (60 wards) randomised, 33 wards implemented intervention (11 ITU, 22 ACE). Mixed effects regression analysis (all wards) accounting for confounders, temporal trends, ward type and fidelity to intervention (forms/month used). INTENTION TO TREAT ANALYSIS: Estimated odds ratio (OR) for hand hygiene compliance rose post randomisation (1.44; 95% CI 1.18, 1.76;p<0.001) in ITUs but not ACE wards, equivalent to 7-9% absolute increase in compliance. PER-PROTOCOL ANALYSIS FOR IMPLEMENTING WARDS: OR for compliance rose for both ACE (1.67 [1.28-2.22]; p<0.001) & ITUs (2.09 [1.55-2.81]; p<0.001) equating to absolute increases of 10-13% and 13-18% respectively. Fidelity to intervention closely related to compliance on ITUs (OR 1.12 [1.04, 1.20]; p = 0.003 per completed form) but not ACE wards. Despite difficulties in implementation, intention-to-treat, per-protocol and fidelity to intervention, analyses showed an intervention coupling feedback to personalised action planning produced moderate but significant sustained improvements in hand-hygiene compliance, in wards implementing a national hand-hygiene campaign. Further implementation studies are needed to maximise the intervention's effect in different settings. Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN65246961.

Molecular data are now widely used in epidemiological studies to investigate the transmission, distribution, biology, and diversity of pathogens. Our objective was to establish recommendations to support good scientific reporting of molecular epidemiological studies to encourage authors to consider specific threats to valid inference. The statement Strengthening the Reporting of Molecular Epidemiology for Infectious Diseases (STROME-ID) builds upon the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative. The STROME-ID statement was developed by a working group of epidemiologists, statisticians, bioinformaticians, virologists, and microbiologists with expertise in control of infection and communicable diseases. The statement focuses on issues relating to the reporting of epidemiological studies of infectious diseases using molecular data that were not addressed by STROBE. STROME-ID addresses terminology, measures of genetic diversity within pathogen populations, laboratory methods, sample collection, use of molecular markers, molecular clocks, timeframe, multiple-strain infections, non-independence of infectious-disease data, missing data, ascertainment bias, consistency between molecular and epidemiological data, and ethical considerations with respect to infectious-disease research. In total, 20 items were added to the 22 item STROBE checklist. When used, the STROME-ID recommendations should advance the quality and transparency of scientific reporting, with clear benefits for evidence reviews and health-policy decision making.

In December, 2010, National Health Service (NHS) England introduced national mandatory screening of all admissions for meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). We aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this policy, from a regional or national health-care decision makers' perspective, compared with alternative screening strategies. We used an individual-based dynamic transmission model parameterised with national MRSA audit data to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of admission screening of patients in English NHS hospitals compared with five alternative strategies (including no screening, checklist-activated screening, and high-risk specialty-based screening), accompanied by patient isolation and decolonisation, over a 5 year time horizon. We evaluated strategies for different NHS hospital types (acute, teaching, and specialist), MRSA prevalence, and transmission potentials using probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Compared with no screening, mean cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of screening all admissions was £89 000–148 000 (range £68 000–222 000), and this strategy was consistently more costly and less effective than alternatives for all hospital types. At a £30 000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold and current prevalence, only the no-screening strategy was cost effective. The next best strategies were, in acute and teaching hospitals, targeting of high-risk specialty admissions (30–40% chance of cost-effectiveness; mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICERs] £45 200 [range £35 300–61 400] and £48 000/QALY [£34 600–74 800], respectively) and, in specialist hospitals, screening these patients plus risk-factor-based screening of low-risk specialties (a roughly 20% chance of cost-effectiveness; mean ICER £62 600/QALY [£48 000–89 400]). As prevalence and transmission increased, targeting of high-risk specialties became the optimum strategy at the NHS willingness-to-pay threshold (£30 000/QALY). Switching from screening all admissions to only high-risk specialty admissions resulted in a mean reduction in total costs per year (not considering uncertainty) of £2·7 million per acute hospital, £2·9 million per teaching, and £474 000 per specialist hospital for a minimum rise in infections (about one infection per year per hospital). Our results show that screening all admissions for MRSA is unlikely to be cost effective in England at the current NHS willingness-to-pay threshold, and our findings informed modified guidance to NHS England in 2014. Screening admissions to high-risk specialties is likely to represent better resource use in terms of cost per QALY gained. UK Department of Health.

The quality of research in hospital epidemiology (infection control) must be improved to be robust enough to influence policy and practice. In order to raise the standards of research and publication, a CONSORT equivalent for these largely quasi-experimental studies has been prepared by the authors of two relevant systematic reviews, following consultation with learned societies, editors of journals, and researchers. The ORION (Outbreak Reports and Intervention Studies Of Nosocomial infection) statement consists of a 22 item checklist, and a summary table. The emphasis is on transparency to improve the quality of reporting and on the use of appropriate statistical techniques. The statement has been endorsed by a number of professional special interest groups and societies. Like CONSORT, ORION should be considered a “work in progress”, which requires ongoing dialogue for successful promotion and dissemination. The statement is therefore offered for further public discussion. Journals and research councils are strongly recommended to incorporate it into their submission and reviewing processes. Feedback to the authors is encouraged and the statement will be revised in 2 years.

Objective To assess the cost effectiveness of screening, isolation, and decolonisation strategies in the control of meticillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in intensive care units.Design Economic evaluation based on a dynamic transmission model.Setting England and Wales.Population Theoretical population of patients on an intensive care unit.Main outcome measures Infections, deaths, costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost effectiveness ratios for alternative strategies, and net monetary benefits.Results All decolonisation strategies improved health outcomes and reduced costs. Although universal decolonisation (regardless of MRSA status) was the most cost effective in the short term, strategies using screening to target MRSA carriers may be preferred owing to the reduced risk of selecting for resistance. Among such targeted strategies, universal admission and weekly screening with polymerase chain reaction coupled with decolonisation using nasal mupirocin was the most cost effective. This finding was robust to the size of intensive care units, prevalence of MRSA on admission, proportion of patients classified as high risk, and precise value of willingness to pay for health benefits. All strategies using isolation but not decolonisation improved health outcomes but costs were increased. When the prevalence of MRSA on admission to the intensive care unit was 5% and the willingness to pay per QALY gained was between £20 000 (€23 000; $32 000) and £30 000, the best such strategy was to isolate only those patients at high risk of carrying MRSA (either pre-emptively or after identification by admission and weekly screening for MRSA using chromogenic agar). Universal admission and weekly screening using polymerase chain reaction based detection of MRSA coupled with isolation was unlikely to be cost effective unless prevalence was high (10% of patients colonised with MRSA on admission).Conclusions MRSA control strategies that use decolonisation are likely to be cost saving in an intensive care unit setting provided resistance is lacking, and combining universal screening using polymerase chain reaction with decolonisation is likely to represent good value for money if untargeted decolonisation is considered unacceptable. In intensive care units where decolonisation is not implemented, evidence is insufficient to support universal screening for MRSA outside high prevalence settings.

The English Department of Health introduced universal MRSA screening of admissions to English hospitals in 2010. It commissioned a national audit to review implementation, impact on patient management, admission prevalence and extra yield of MRSA identified compared to \"high-risk\" specialty or \"checklist-activated\" screening (CLAS) of patients with MRSA risk factors. National audit May 2011. Questionnaires to infection control teams in all English NHS acute trusts, requesting number patients admitted and screened, new or previously known MRSA; MRSA point prevalence; screening and isolation policies; individual risk factors and patient management for all new MRSA patients and random sample of negatives. 144/167 (86.2%) trusts responded. Individual patient data for 760 new MRSA patients and 951 negatives. 61% of emergency admissions (median 67.3%), 81% (median 59.4%) electives and 47% (median 41.4%) day-cases were screened. MRSA admission prevalence: 1% (median 0.9%) emergencies, 0.6% (median 0.4%) electives, 0.4% (median 0%) day-cases. Approximately 50% all MRSA identified was new. Inpatient MRSA point prevalence: 3.3% (median 2.9%). 104 (77%) trusts pre-emptively isolated patients with previous MRSA, 63 (35%) pre-emptively isolated admissions to \"high-risk\" specialties; 7 (5%) used PCR routinely. Mean time to MRSA positive result: 2.87 days (±1.33); 37% (219/596) newly identified MRSA patients discharged before result available; 55% remainder (205/376) isolated post-result. In an average trust, CLAS would reduce screening by 50%, identifying 81% of all MRSA. \"High risk\" specialty screening would reduce screening by 89%, identifying 9% of MRSA. Implementation of universal screening was poor. Admission prevalence (new cases) was low. CLAS reduced screening effort for minor decreases in identification, but implementation may prove difficult. Cost effectiveness of this and other policies, awaits evaluation by transmission dynamic economic modelling, using data from this audit. Until then trusts should seek to improve implementation of current policy and use of isolation facilities.

Background Definitions and practices regarding use of contact precautions and isolation to prevent the spread of gram-positive and gram-negative multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) are not uniform. Methods We conducted an on-site survey during the European Congress on Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 2014 to assess specific details on contact precaution and implementation barriers. Results Attendants from 32 European (EU) and 24 non-EU countries participated ( n  = 213). In EU-respondents adherence to contact precautions and isolation was high for Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, and MDR A. baumannii (84.7, 85.7, and 80%, respectively) whereas only 68% of EU-respondents considered any contact precaution measures for extended-spectrum-beta-lactamase (ESBL) producing non- E. coli . Between 30 and 45% of all EU and non-EU respondents did not require health-care workers (HCW) to wear gowns and gloves at all times when entering the room of a patient in contact isolation. Between 10 and 20% of respondents did not consider any rooming specifications or isolation for gram-positive MDRO and up to 30% of respondents abstain from such interventions in gram-negative MDRO, especially non- E. coli ESBL. Understaffing and lack of sufficient isolation rooms were the most commonly encountered barriers amongst EU and non-EU respondents. Conclusion The effectiveness of contact precautions and isolation is difficult to assess due to great variation in components of the specific measures and mixed levels of implementation. The lack of uniform positive effects of contact isolation to prevent transmission may be explained by the variability of interpretation of this term. Indications for contact isolation require a global definition and further sound studies.

Kirsten Rosendal, a microbiologist at the public health centre in Copenhagen was highly active in the Danish College of Physicians and eff ective in campaigning to improve infection prevention and control, as well as antibiotic stewardship measures, which were successful in eradicating MRSA in Denmark. Media coverage of the issue increased dramatically, and in the late 1990s patient advocacy organisations fi nally began to recognise that hospital infection and MRSA were major patient safety issues.\\n I led a consensus on European standards and indicators for health-care-associated infection and related issues of antimicrobial resistance, and this work has revealed key themes. England was unique in introducing MRSA bacteraemia reduction targets although, as the National Audit Offi ce pointed out, reductions were not seen until pressure was exerted upon chief executives to report these rates to the Department of Health.

Recent evidence suggests that less than one-quarter of patients with symptomatic nosocomial Clostridium difficile infections (CDI) are linked to other in-patients. However, this evidence was limited to one geographic area. We aimed to investigate the level of symptomatic CDI transmission in hospitals located across England from 2008 to 2012. A generalized additive mixed-effects Poisson model was fitted to English hospital-surveillance data. After adjusting for seasonal fluctuations and between-hospital variation in reported CDI over time, possible clustering (transmission between symptomatic in-patients) of CDI cases was identified. We hypothesised that a temporal proximity would be reflected in the degree of correlation between in-hospital CDI cases per week. This correlation was modelled through a latent autoregressive structure of order 1 (AR(1)). Forty-six hospitals (33 general, seven specialist, and six teaching hospitals) located in all English regions met our criteria. In total, 12,717 CDI cases were identified; seventy-five per cent of these occurred >48 hours after admission. There were slight increases in reports during winter months. We found a low, but statistically significant, correlation between successive weekly CDI case incidences (phi = 0.029, 95%CI: 0.009-0.049). This correlation was five times stronger in a subgroup analysis restricted to teaching hospitals (phi = 0.104, 95%CI: 0.048-0.159). The results suggest that symptomatic patient-to-patient transmission has been a source of CDI-acquisition in English hospitals in recent years, and that this might be a more important transmission route in teaching hospitals. Nonetheless, the weak correlation indicates that, in line with recent evidence, symptomatic cases might not be the primary source of nosocomial CDI in England.

Achieving a sustained improvement in hand-hygiene compliance is the WHO's first global patient safety challenge. There is no RCT evidence showing how to do this. Systematic reviews suggest feedback is most effective and call for long term well designed RCTs, applying behavioural theory to intervention design to optimise effectiveness. Three year stepped wedge cluster RCT of a feedback intervention testing hypothesis that the intervention was more effective than routine practice in 16 English/Welsh Hospitals (16 Intensive Therapy Units [ITU]; 44 Acute Care of the Elderly [ACE] wards) routinely implementing a national cleanyourhands campaign). Intervention-based on Goal & Control theories. Repeating 4 week cycle (20 mins/week) of observation, feedback and personalised action planning, recorded on forms. Computer-generated stepwise entry of all hospitals to intervention. Hospitals aware only of own allocation. Primary outcome: direct blinded hand hygiene compliance (%). All 16 trusts (60 wards) randomised, 33 wards implemented intervention (11 ITU, 22 ACE). Mixed effects regression analysis (all wards) accounting for confounders, temporal trends, ward type and fidelity to intervention (forms/month used). Despite difficulties in implementation, intention-to-treat, per-protocol and fidelity to intervention, analyses showed an intervention coupling feedback to personalised action planning produced moderate but significant sustained improvements in hand-hygiene compliance, in wards implementing a national hand-hygiene campaign. Further implementation studies are needed to maximise the intervention's effect in different settings.