Universal rapid screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the intensive care units in a large community hospital

Using Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Nasal Screens to Rule Out Methicillin-Resistant S aureus Pneumonia in Surgical Intensive Care Units

INTRODUCTION

The methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has a high negative predictive value (NPV). We aimed to understand if there was a difference in the NPV of the MRSA screen in surgical intensive care units (ICUs) and to determine its role in antibiotic de-escalation.

METHODS

We performed a single-center, retrospective cohort study of adults with a positive respiratory culture and MRSA nasal PCR admitted to a surgical ICU from 2016 to 2019. Patients were stratified by surgical ICU: cardiothoracic/cardiovascular intensive care unit (CVICU) or transplant/acute care surgery intensive care unit (ACS-ICU). Our primary outcome was the NPV of MRSA screen. Secondary outcome was the duration of empiric MRSA-targeted therapy.

RESULTS

We analyzed 61 patients: 42.6% (n = 26) ACS-ICU and 57.4% (n = 35) CVICU. There were no differences in age, comorbidities, prior MRSA infection, recent antibiotic use, immunocompromised status, or renal replacement therapy. At pneumonia diagnosis, more patients in the ACS-ICU were hospitalized ≥5 d (65.4% versus 8.6%, P < 0.0001) and more patients in the CVICU were in septic shock (88.6% versus 34.5%, P < 0.0001) and thrombocytopenic (40% versus 11.5%, P = 0.02). NPV of the PCR was similar (ACS-ICU: 0.92 [0.75-0.98], CV-ICU 0.89 [0.73-0.96]). On multivariable linear regression, the CVICU was associated with longer empiric therapy (β 1.5, 95% CI 0.8-2.3, P < 0.0001), as was hospitalization for ≥5 d (β 0.73, 95% CI 0.06-1.39, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

The MRSA nasal PCR screen has a high NPV for ruling out MRSA pneumonia in critically ill surgical patients. However, patients in the CVICU and patients hospitalized ≥5 d had a longer time to de-escalation of MRSA-targeted therapy, potentially due to higher clinical risk profile.

Belgian hand hygiene campaigns in ICU, 2005-2015

BACKGROUND

Healthcare-associated infections (HCAI) are still a major problem especially in most intensive care units (ICU). Incompliance by clinical staff with hand hygiene (HH) increases rates of preventable infections. We report the outcome of the Belgian national hand hygiene campaign from 2005 to 2015 with focus on intensive care units.

METHODS

Using the World Health organisation (WHO) standardised observation roster, trained infection control teams measured adherence to HH guidelines by direct observation. HH opportunities were counted and the actual episodes of HH were scored as no HH, HH with water and soap, or HH with alcohol-based hand rub. Measurements were repeatedly done before and after a one month awareness campaign every second year. Compliance was stratified by indication and by type of healthcare worker, and computed as a percentage of the number of HH episodes with water and soap or with alcohol-based hand rub, divided by the number of opportunities.

RESULTS

A total of 108,050 hand hygiene opportunities were observed in ICU during this period. HH compliance increased significantly from 49.6 % before campaign in 2005 to 72.0 % before campaign in 2015. Over the same time frame, post campaign compliance increased from 67.0 to 80.2 %. The number of opportunities observed substantially increased when automated feedback was installed.

CONCLUSIONS

In Belgian intensive care units, hand hygiene compliance is getting improved overtime, though consecutive campaigns with immediate feedback are required to achieve and sustain a high compliance rate.

The relationship between hand hygiene and health care-associated infection: it's complicated

The reasoning that improved hand hygiene compliance contributes to the prevention of health care-associated infections is widely accepted. It is also accepted that high hand hygiene alone cannot impact formidable risk factors, such as older age, immunosuppression, admission to the intensive care unit, longer length of stay, and indwelling devices. When hand hygiene interventions are concurrently undertaken with other routine or special preventive strategies, there is a potential for these concurrent strategies to confound the effect of the hand hygiene program. The result may be an overestimation of the hand hygiene intervention unless the design of the intervention or analysis controls the effect of the potential confounders. Other epidemiologic principles that may also impact the result of a hand hygiene program include failure to consider measurement error of the content of the hand hygiene program and the measurement error of compliance. Some epidemiological errors in hand hygiene programs aimed at reducing health care-associated infections are inherent and not easily controlled. Nevertheless, the inadvertent omission by authors to report these common epidemiological errors, including concurrent infection prevention strategies, suggests to readers that the effect of hand hygiene is greater than the sum of all infection prevention strategies. Worse still, this omission does not assist evidence-based practice.

Systematic literature analysis and review of targeted preventive measures to limit healthcare-associated infections by meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a major cause of healthcare-associated infections in Europe. Many examples have demonstrated that the spread of MRSA within healthcare settings can be reduced by targeted infection control measures. The aim of this systematic literature analysis and review was to summarise the evidence for the use of bacterial cultures for active surveillance the benefit of rapid screening tests, as well as the use of decolonisation therapies and different types of isolation measures. We included 83 studies published between 2000 and 2012. Although the studies reported good evidence supporting the role of active surveillance followed by decolonisation therapy, the effectiveness of single-room isolation was mostly shown in non-controlled studies, which should inspire further research regarding this issue. Overall, this review highlighted that when planning the implementation of preventive interventions, there is a need to consider the prevalence of MRSA, the incidence of infections, the competing effect of standard control measures (e.g. hand hygiene) and the likelihood of transmission in the respective settings of implementation.

The national one week prevalence audit of universal meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) admission screening 2012

Introduction

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.