Effectiveness of contact precautions against multidrug-resistant organism transmission in acute care: a systematic review of the literature

Prevention in adults of transmission of infection with multidrug-resistant organisms: an updated systematic review from Making Healthcare Safer IV

BACKGROUND

Healthcare-associated infections due to multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) remain a high priority patient safety topic, despite broad acceptance as standard-of-care safety practices to prevent central line-associated bloodstream infection, catheter-associated urinary tract infection and ventilator-associated pneumonia. Prior editions of Making Healthcare Safer have mixed certainty evidence for various other patient safety practices.

OBJECTIVES

As part of Making Healthcare Safer IV, we performed an updated systematic review on the certainty of evidence for the following safety practices at reducing in-facility MDRO infections in adult patients: universal gloving, contact precautions, cohorting, environmental decontamination, patient decolonisation and the adverse effects of isolation.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Library 2011-May 2023 for systematic reviews and original research studies, both randomised and observational. Settings were limited to high-income countries. Screening and eligibility were done in duplicate, while data extraction was done by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. The synthesis of results is narrative. Certainty of evidence was based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework.

RESULTS

Three systematic reviews and three original research studies provided moderate certainty evidence that patient decolonisation reduced MDRO infections, although restricted to certain populations and organisms. One systematic review provided low certainty evidence that universal gloving was beneficial, again limited to certain populations. One systematic review and two original research studies provided low certainty evidence of benefit for environmental decontamination. One systematic review and one new original study provided low certainty evidence of benefit for cohorting in outbreak settings, and very low certainty evidence of benefit in endemic settings. Six original research studies provide mixed evidence for benefit of contact precautions. There is very low certainty evidence of a signal of increased non-infectious adverse events under patients in contact isolation.

CONCLUSION

In general, the reviewed patient safety practices reduced MDRO infections, but certainty of evidence was low.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023444973.

Hospital-acquired bloodstream infections in patients with cancer: current knowledge and future directions

Patients with cancer experience higher rates of preventable harm from hospital-acquired bloodstream infections (haBSIs) and central-line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) compared with the general hospital population. The prevention of haBSIs and CLABSIs in patients with cancer is an urgent priority, and requires standardized surveillance and reporting efforts. The application of haBSI and CLABSI definitions, classification systems and surveillance strategies for patients with cancer is complex, and there is wide variation in clinical practice. Existing systems were not designed explicitly for patients with cancer, and have different strengths and weaknesses in the cancer setting. For these reasons, epidemiological estimates of haBSIs and CLABSIs in patients with cancer also require careful interpretation. This complexity can be a barrier to identifying appropriate targets for intervention and reducing preventable harm. This review provides an overview of key concepts and challenges in haBSI surveillance and prevention specific to patients with cancer. In addition, this review summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of commonly used surveillance definitions and denominators in the setting of cancer care; existing surveillance practice; epidemiology of haBSIs and CLABSIs; prevention strategies; and current knowledge gaps. A global collaborative effort to harmonize the surveillance of hospital-acquired infections in patients with cancer would be invaluable to improve the accuracy and utility of existing data, advance efforts to prevent hospital-acquired infections, and improve patient safety.

Infant isolation and cohorting for preventing or reducing transmission of healthcare-associated infections in neonatal units

BACKGROUND

Neonatal healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) result in increased morbidity and mortality, as well as increased healthcare costs. Patient isolation measures, i.e. single-room isolation or the cohorting of patients with similar infections, remain a recommended and commonly used practice for preventing horizontal spread of infections in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).  OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to assess the effect of single-room isolation or cohorting, or both for preventing transmission of HAIs or colonization with HAI-causing pathogens in newborn infants less than six months of age admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Our secondary objective was to assess the effect of single-room isolation or cohorting, or both on neonatal mortality and perceived or documented adverse effects in newborn infants admitted to the NICU.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registries. There were no restrictions to date, language or publication type. We also checked the reference lists of studies identified for full-text review.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Types of studies: cluster-randomized or quasi-randomized trials at the level of the cluster (where clusters may be defined by NICU, hospital, ward, or other subunits of the hospital). We also included cross-over trials with a washout period of more than four months (arbitrarily defined).

TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS

newborn infants less than six months of age in neonatal units that implemented patient isolation or cohorting as infection control measures to prevent HAIs. Types of interventions: patient isolation measures (single-room isolation or cohorting, or both of infants with similar colonization or infections) compared to routine isolation measures.

TYPES OF OUTCOME MEASURES

the primary outcome was the rate of transmission of HAIs as estimated by the infection and colonization rates in the NICU. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality during hospital stay at 28 days of age, length of hospital stay, as well as potential adverse effects of isolation or cohorting measures, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal were used to identify studies and assess the methodological quality of eligible cluster-randomized trials. The certainty of the evidence was to be assessed by the GRADE method as evidence of high, moderate, low, or very low certainty. Infection and colonization rates were to be expressed as rate ratios for each trial and if appropriate for meta-analysis, the generic inverse variance method in RevMan was to be used.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any published or ongoing trials to include in the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review found no evidence from randomized trials to either support or refute the use of patient isolation measures (single-room isolation or cohorting) in neonates with HAIs. Risks secondary to infection control measures need to be balanced against the benefits of decreasing horizontal transmission in the neonatal unit for optimal neonatal outcomes. There is an urgent need to research the effectiveness of patient isolation measures for preventing the transmission of HAIs in neonatal units. Well-designed trials randomizing clusters of units or hospitals to a type of patient isolation method intervention are warranted.

The Hidden Cost of COVID-19: Focus on Antimicrobial Resistance in Bloodstream Infections

Antibiotic resistance is one of the greatest growing public health threats and a worldwide priority. According to the WHO, drug-resistant diseases may cause 10 million deaths a year by 2050 and have a substantial impact on the global economy, driving up to 24 million people into poverty. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the fallacies and vulnerability of healthcare systems worldwide, displacing resources from existing programs and reducing funding for antimicrobial resistance (AMR) fighting efforts. Moreover, as already seen for other respiratory viruses, such as flu, COVID-19 is often associated with superinfections, prolonged hospital stays, and increased ICU admissions, further aggravating healthcare disruption. These events are accompanied by widespread antibiotic use, misuse, and inappropriate compliance with standard procedures with a potential long-term impact on AMR. Still, COVID-19-related measures such as increasing personal and environmental hygiene, social distancing, and decreasing hospital admissions could theoretically help the AMR cause. However, several reports have shown increased antimicrobial resistance during the COVID-19 pandemic. This narrative review focuses on this "twindemic", assessing the current knowledge of antimicrobial resistance in the COVID-19 era with a focus on bloodstream infections and provides insights into the lessons learned in the COVID-19 field that could be applied to antimicrobial stewardship initiatives.

Impact of Multidisciplinary Collaborative Intervention on Isolation Implementation in Prevention and Control of Multi-drug Resistance Infection

OBJECTIVE

Contact precautions, especially the initiation of isolation, are important measures to prevent and control multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). However, the implementation in clinical practice remains weak. This study aimed to analyze the impact of multidisciplinary collaborative intervention on isolation implementation in multidrug-resistant infection, and determine the factors that affect the implementation of isolation measures.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary collaborative intervention related to isolation was conducted at a teaching tertiary hospital in central China on November 1, 2018. The information of 1338 patients with MDRO infection and colonization at 10 months before and after the intervention was collected. Then, the issuance of isolation orders was retrospectively analyzed. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to analyze the factors that affected the isolation implementation.

RESULTS

The overall issuance rate of isolation orders was 61.21%, which increased from 33.12% to 75.88% (P<0.001) after the implementation of the multidisciplinary collaborative intervention. The intervention (P<0.001, OR=0.166) was a promoting factor for the issuance of isolation orders, in addition to the length of stay (P=0.004, OR=0.991), department (P=0.004), and microorganism (P=0.038).

CONCLUSION

The isolation implementation remains far lower than policy standards. Multidisciplinary collaborative interventions can effectively improve the compliance to isolation measures implemented by doctors, thereby promoting the standardized management of MDROs, and providing reference for further improving the quality of hospital infection management.

Factores asociados con el cumplimiento de las precauciones de contacto en un hospital de alto nivel de complejidad

Introducción: La prevención de infecciones intrahospitalarias es uno de los aspectos más inquietantes en enfermería en los últimos años. Para esto, se han establecido diversas estrategias, entre ellas, los aislamientos hospitalarios. Sin embargo, se encuentra gran dificultad para el cumplimiento de las medidas de aislamiento. Objetivo: Determinar los factores sociodemográficos y de la atención en salud relacionados con el cumplimiento de las precauciones de contacto por parte de los visitantes en un hospital de alta complejidad de la ciudad de Medellín. Método: Se realizó un estudio descriptivo de corte trasversal a un total de 126 visitantes de pacientes aislados por contacto. Se identificaron factores asociados al cumplimiento del aislamiento mediante una encuesta, se analizó la información en el programa SPSS mediante una regresión logística y se asumió significancia estadística si valor P menor a 0,05. Resultados: La adherencia total al aislamiento fue de un 40,5 % y está asociada principalmente con dos factores: disponibilidad de los elementos de protección y estar de acuerdo con el uso de estos. Conclusiones: Los factores mejor asociados con el cumplimiento del aislamiento hacen necesario que las instituciones garanticen suficientes insumos para los visitantes y que tanto el personal de salud como los visitantes reciban una mayor sensibilización en este tema.

Justice in control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus transmission: a fair question to ask?

Active surveillance cultures and contact precautions is a strategy to control the transmission of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) within healthcare facilities. Whether to implement this strategy to routinely screen and isolate inpatients with MRSA in non-outbreak (endemic) settings, or to remove it and use standard infection control precautions only is scientifically and ethically controversial, in view of the potential adverse effects of contact precautions on patients. To support the use of standard precautions only, it has been argued that active surveillance to identify patients who are asymptomatically colonised with MRSA to place them in contact precautions is unjust or unfair to these patients in various ways. This paper will unpack and examine four distinct arguments, which are advanced from a medical ethics or quality improvement ethical framework, for why this is so. Our analysis shows that while these arguments highlight the injustice of current practices, they do not provide strong ethical reasons for justifying the removal of active surveillance and contact precautions to control MRSA transmission and infection. An implication of our arguments is that the ethical frame for evaluating prevention and control strategies for MRSA, a multi-drug resistant bacteria, should shift from healthcare to primarily public health. From a public health ethics perspective, whether a strategy is unjust, or how ethically significant its lack of fairness is, depends on assessing the evidence for its public health effectiveness and necessity in a given setting, and the extent of the harms and burdens patients with MRSA bear when they are on contact precautions, which remain matters of scientific debate or uncertainty. As an ethical consideration in the debate, the chief normative implication of justice is to provide us further reasons to revise current active surveillance-contact precautions practices, and for the need for research and interventions to minimise their potential adverse effects on patients.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) admission screening and assessment of infectiousness at an academic medical center in Iowa, 2020

Objective:

Patients admitted to the hospital may unknowingly carry severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and hospitals have implemented SARS-CoV-2 admission screening. However, because SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays may remain positive for months after infection, positive results may represent active or past infection. We determined the prevalence and infectiousness of patients who were admitted for reasons unrelated to COVID-19 but tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on admission screening.

Methods:

We conducted an observational study at the University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics from July 7 to October 25, 2020. All patients admitted without suspicion of COVID-19 were included, and medical records of those with a positive admission screening test were reviewed. Infectiousness was determined using patient history, PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, and serology.

Results:

In total, 5,913 patients were screened and admitted for reasons unrelated to COVID-19. Of these, 101 had positive admission RT-PCR results; 36 of these patients were excluded because they had respiratory signs/symptoms on admission on chart review. Also, 65 patients (1.1%) did not have respiratory symptoms. Finally, 55 patients had Ct values available and were included in this analysis. The median age of the final cohort was 56 years and 51% were male. Our assessment revealed that 23 patients (42%) were likely infectious. The median duration of in-hospital isolation was 5 days for those likely infectious and 2 days for those deemed noninfectious.

Conclusions:

SARS-CoV-2 was infrequent among patients admitted for reasons unrelated to COVID-19. An assessment of the likelihood of infectiousness using clinical history, RT-PCR Ct values, and serology may help in making the determination to discontinue isolation and conserve resources.

Infection control measures in times of antimicrobial resistance: a matter of solidarity

Control measures directed at carriers of multidrug-resistant organisms are traditionally approached as a trade-off between public interests on the one hand and individual autonomy on the other. We propose to reframe the ethical issue and consider control measures directed at carriers an issue of solidarity. Rather than asking “whether it is justified to impose strict measures”, we propose asking “how to best care for a person’s carriership and well-being in ways that do not imply an unacceptable risk for others?”. A solidarity approach could include elevating baseline levels of precaution measures and accepting certain risks in cases where there is exceptionally much at stake. A generous national compensation policy that also covers for costs related to dedicated care is essential in a solidarity approach. An additional benefit of reframing the questions is that it helps to better acknowledge that being subjected to control measures is a highly personal matter.

Do contact precautions reduce the incidence of ICU-acquired Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections? The DPCPYO cluster-randomized crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Issue of contact precautions as contributory factors for reducing P. aeruginosa (Pa) infections in intensive care units (ICUs) remains questioned. We evaluated the impact of the addition of contact precautions to standard precautions for Pa-positive patients on the incidence of ICU-acquired Pa infections.

METHODS

In this multicenter cluster-randomized crossover trial, 10 French ICUs were randomly assigned (1:1) to sequence 0-1 (6-month control period [CP]/3-month washout period/6-month intervention period [IP]) or sequence 1-0 (6-month IP/3-month washout period/6-month CP). A surveillance screening program for Pa was implemented. Competing-risks regression models were built with death and discharge without the occurrence of ICU-acquired Pa infection (the primary outcome), as competing events. Models were adjusted for within-ICU correlation, patient- and ICU-level covariates. The Simpson diversity index (SDI) and the transmission index (TI) of Pa isolates were derived from pulsed-field gel electrophoresis typing.

RESULTS

Within recruited ICUs, the cumulative incidence and the incidence rate of ICU-acquired Pa infections were 3.38% (55/1625) vs 3.44% (57/1658) and 3.31 vs 3.52 per 1 000 patient-days at risk during CP and IP, respectively. Multivariable models indicated that the intervention did not significantly change the cumulative incidence (subdistribution hazard ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-1.67, p=0.76) and the rate (cause-specific hazard ratio 1.36, 95%CI 0.71-2.63, p=0.36) of the primary outcome. SDI and TI did not significantly differ between CP and IP.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of contact precautions to standard precautions for Pa-positive patients with a surveillance screening program does not significantly reduce ICU-acquired Pa infections in non-outbreak situations.

Limited multi-drug resistant organism related stigma in carriers exposed to isolation precautions: an exploratory quantitative questionnaire study

BACKGROUND

Isolation precautions are applied to control the risk of transmission of multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs). These precautions have been associated with adverse effects, such as anxiety and depression. This study aimed to quantify stigma among MDRO carriers and its association with perceived mental health and experienced quality of care.

METHODS

A quantitative questionnaire study was performed in MDRO carriers exposed to ≥3 days of isolation precautions during hospitalization. Items derived from the Consumer Quality Index questionnaire (CQI) were used to assess perception of care. Stigma scores were calculated using the recently modified Berger Stigma Scale for meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Mental health was measured with the RAND Mental Health Inventory. The Spearman rank correlation test was used to assess the association between stigma score and RAND mental health score.

FINDINGS

Of the 41 included carriers, 31 (75.6%) completed both questionnaires. The experienced quality of care was 'good' according to CQI score. Twenty-four percent reported not to have received proper explanation about MDRO carriership from healthcare workers (HCWs). MDRO-associated stigma was reported in 1/31 (3.2%). Poor mental health was self-reported in 3/31 (9.7%). There was no correlation between stigma score and RAND mental health score (Spearman correlation coefficient: 0.347).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, MDRO carriers exposed to ≥3 days of isolation precautions did not report stigma. This contrasts with a recent study that investigated MRSA-associated stigma and may be explained by contact plus airborne isolation protocols in MRSA compared with contact isolation alone in most other MDROs. Also, the psychological impact may be of a different magnitude due to as yet unknown reasons.

Compliance to empirical contact precautions for multidrug-resistant microorganisms

Health care-associated infections impact patient morbidity and mortality, and institutions adopt evidence-based measures to prevent and control such infections. In this study, professionals were observed during patient care under empirical contact precautions. A total of 243 observations were performed in which 39.5% complied with all measures. The positivity rate of surveillance cultures was 38.36%, and adherence to the measures in patients with colonization was 43.1%.

Barrier Precautions in the Era of Multidrug Pathogens

Purpose of review

There is a continuing debate regarding contact precaution (CP) usage for endemic multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). In this review, we examine current recommendations for CP and highlight differences in CP use between endemic and non-endemic MDROs.

Recent findings

The discontinuation of CP had no effect on the incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococci. The evidence regarding CP for extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing Enterobacteriaceae is inconclusive, highlighting the need for more research to determine best infection control strategies. Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae maintains a sporadic pattern in the USA, supporting current recommendations to use CP for colonized and infected patients. MDR Acinetobacter baumannii (MDR-AB) is extremely virulent and responsible for outbreaks in healthcare settings, emphasizing the need for CP use with MDR-AB infected patients. Candida auris (C. auris) is often misdiagnosed; it is resistant to UV light and quaternary ammonium low-level disinfection. Because little is known about the transmission of C. auris, significant caution and CP use are necessitated. There is little research on vancomycin-resistant S. aureus (VRSA) control strategies due to its rarity; thus, CP is strongly recommended.

Summary

Contact precautions are frequently part of a bundled infection control approach that involves meticulous hand hygiene, patient decolonization, chlorhexidine gluconate bathing, and reducing the use of invasive devices. Healthcare facilities should continue to utilize CP for non-endemic MDROs and the presence of endemic MDROs; however, CP may not add benefit to the current infection prevention bundle approach.

Contact isolation versus standard precautions to decrease acquisition of extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales in non-critical care wards: a cluster-randomised crossover trial

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of contact isolation for decreasing the spread of extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-E) has been questioned. The aim of this study was to establish the benefits of contact isolation over standard precautions for reducing the incidence density of ESBL-E colonisation and infection in adult medical and surgical wards with an active surveillance culture programme.

METHODS

We did a cluster-randomised crossover trial in adult wards in four European university hospitals. Medical, surgical, or combined medical-surgical wards without critical care were randomised to continue standard precautions alone or implement contact isolation alongside standard precautions for 12 months, followed by a 1 month washout period and 12 months of the alternate strategy. Randomisation was done via a computer-generated sequence, with a block size of two consecutive wards. Only laboratory technicians and data analysts were masked to allocation. Patients were screened for ESBL-E carriage within 3 days of admission, once a week thereafter, and on discharge. The primary outcome was the incidence density of ESBL-E, defined as the acquisition rate per 1000 patient-days at risk at the ward level and assessed in the per-protocol population, which included all patients screened at least twice with a length of stay of more than 1 week for each intervention period. No specific safety measures were assessed given the minimal risk of adverse events. The trial is registered, ISRCTN57648070.

FINDINGS

We enrolled 20 wards from four hospitals in Germany (eight wards), the Netherlands (four wards), Spain (four wards), and Switzerland (four wards). Between Jan 6, 2014, and Aug 31, 2016, 38 357 patients were admitted to these wards. Among 15 184 patients with a length of stay of more than 1 week, 11 368 patients (75%) were screened at least twice. The incidence density of ward-acquired ESBL-E was 6·0 events per 1000 patient-days at risk (95% CI 5·4-6·7) during periods of contact isolation and 6·1 (5·5-6·7) during periods of standard precautions (p=0·9710). Multivariable analysis adjusted for length of stay, percentage of patients screened, and prevalence in first screening cultures yielded an incidence rate ratio of 0·99 (95% CI 0·80-1·22; p=0·9177) for care under contact isolation compared with standard precautions.

INTERPRETATION

Contact isolation showed no benefit when added to standard precautions for controlling the spread of ESBL-E on non-critical care wards with extensive surveillance screening.

FUNDING

European Commission.

Multidrug-resistant bacteria in a paediatric palliative care inpatient unit: results of a one year surveillance

Aim: Nosocomial infections (NIs) and multidrug resistant (MDR) pathogens are an important paediatric healthcare issue. In vulnerable patients such as children with life-limiting conditions, MDR infections can be life-threatening. Additionally, these children have a significantly increased risk for colonisation with MDR pathogens. Therefore, it is vital to prevent new colonisations with MDR pathogens in this vulnerable patient group. However, little is known about colonisation with MDR pathogens and NIs in inpatient units for paediatric palliative care (PPC). The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of colonisation with MDR pathogens and the incidence of NIs in a PPC unit. Methods: Evaluation of surveillance data of a PPC unit. All patients admitted to a PPC unit from 1^st April 2012 to 31^st March 2013 were screened for MDR pathogens upon admission. Patients who exhibited clinical signs of an infection during their inpatient stay were screened again. Results: During the study period, 198 cases were admitted to the unit. Those cases represent 118 patients. 18% of the patients were colonised with MDR pathogens. The most common MDR pathogens were E. coli (8.1%) and Pseudomonas ssp. (8.1%). In addition, 58% of patients with tracheostomy had MDR pathogens in their tracheal secretions. The incidence density of NIs was 0.99 per 1000 inpatient treatment days with no NI caused by MDR pathogens. Conclusion: Due to a high prevalence, it is reasonable to screen PPC patients for MDR pathogen colonisation before or during admission. Special attention must be given to patients with tracheostomy. Our results provide preliminary evidence that participation in social activities in a PPC unit for patients colonised with MDR pathogens is safe if hygiene concepts are applied.

Impact of isolation on hospitalised patients who are infectious: systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature exploring the impact of isolation on hospitalised patients who are infectious: psychological and non-psychological outcomes.

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Embase, Medline and PsycINFO were searched from inception until December 2018. Reference lists and Google Scholar were also handsearched.

RESULTS

Twenty-six papers published from database inception to December 2018 were reviewed. A wide range of psychological and non-psychological outcomes were reported. There was a marked trend for isolated patients to exhibit higher levels of depression, the pooled standardised mean difference being 1.28 (95% CI 0.47 to 2.09) and anxiety 1.45 (95% CI 0.56 to 2.34), although both had high levels of heterogeneity, and worse outcomes for a range of care-related factors but with significant variation.

CONCLUSION

The review indicates that isolation to contain the risk of infection has negative consequences for segregated patients. Although strength of the evidence is weak, comprising primarily single-centre convenience samples, consistency of the effects may strengthen this conclusion. More research needs to be undertaken to examine this relationship and develop and test interventions to reduce the negative effects of isolation.

Impact of isolation on hospitalised patients who are infectious: systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature exploring the impact of isolation on hospitalised patients who are infectious: psychological and non-psychological outcomes.

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Embase, Medline and PsycINFO were searched from inception until December 2018. Reference lists and Google Scholar were also handsearched.

RESULTS

Twenty-six papers published from database inception to December 2018 were reviewed. A wide range of psychological and non-psychological outcomes were reported. There was a marked trend for isolated patients to exhibit higher levels of depression, the pooled standardised mean difference being 1.28 (95% CI 0.47 to 2.09) and anxiety 1.45 (95% CI 0.56 to 2.34), although both had high levels of heterogeneity, and worse outcomes for a range of care-related factors but with significant variation.

CONCLUSION

The review indicates that isolation to contain the risk of infection has negative consequences for segregated patients. Although strength of the evidence is weak, comprising primarily single-centre convenience samples, consistency of the effects may strengthen this conclusion. More research needs to be undertaken to examine this relationship and develop and test interventions to reduce the negative effects of isolation.

Patient care experience with utilization of isolation precautions: systematic literature review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Use of isolation precautions (IP) may represent a trade-off between reduced transmission of infectious pathogens and reduced patient satisfaction with their care.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to identify if and how IPs impact patients' care experiences.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, PsychInfo, HSRProj and Cochrane Library databases.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Interventional and observational studies published January 1990 to May 2019 were eligible for inclusion.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients admitted to an acute-care facility.

INTERVENTIONS

IPs versus no IPs.

METHODS

Six reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full text. Experience of care reported by patients using the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey was assessed as the outcome for the meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios were calculated using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² value.

RESULTS

After screening 7073 titles and abstracts, 15 independent studies were included in the review. Pooling of unadjusted estimates from the HCAHPS survey demonstrated that IP patients were less likely to give top scores on questions pertaining to respect, communication, receiving assistance and cleanliness compared to the no-IP patients. Patients under IP with longer length of stay appeared to have more negative experiences with the care received during their stay compared to no IP.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients under IP were more likely to be dissatisfied with several aspects of patient care compared to patients not under IP. It is crucial to educate patients and healthcare workers in order to balance successful implementation of IP and patient care experiences, particularly in healthcare settings where it may be beneficial.

How often are health care personnel hands colonized with multidrug- resistant organisms? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hands of health care personnel (HCP) can transmit multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs), resulting in infections. Our aim was to determine MDRO prevalence on HCP hands in adult acute care and nursing facility settings.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed. Studies were included if they reported microbiologic culture results following HCP hands sampling; included prevalent MDROs, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus, Clostridium difficile, Acinetobacter baumannii, or Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and were conducted in acute care or nursing facility settings.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine articles comprising 6,840 hand cultures were included. Pooled prevalence for MRSA, P aeruginosa, A baumannii, and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus were 4.26%, 4.59%, 6.18%, and 9.03%, respectively. Substantial heterogeneity in rates of pathogen isolation were observed across studies (I² = 81%-95%). Only 4 of 59 studies sampled for C difficile, with 2 of 4 finding no growth. Subgroup analysis of MRSA revealed the highest HCP hand contamination rates in North America (8.28%). Sample collection methods used were comparable for MRSA isolation (4%-7%) except for agar direct contact (1.55%).

CONCLUSIONS

Prevalence of common MDROs on HCP hands vary by pathogen, care setting, culture acquisition method, study design, and geography. When obtained at an institutional level, these prevalence data can be utilized to enhance knowledge, practice, and research to prevent health care-associated infections.

Discontinuing contact precautions for multidrug-resistant organisms: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several single-center studies have suggested that eliminating contact precautions (CPs) for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) control in nonoutbreak settings has no impact on infection rates. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the impact of discontinuing contact precautions in the acute care setting.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Embase through December 2016 for studies evaluating discontinuation of contact precautions for multidrug-resistant organisms. We used random-effect models to obtain pooled risk ratio estimates. Heterogeneity was evaluated with I² estimation and the Cochran Q statistic. Pooled risk ratios for MRSA and VRE were assessed separately.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies met inclusion criteria and were included in the final review. Six studies discontinued CPs for both MRSA and VRE, 3 for MRSA only, 2 for VRE only, 2 for extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli, and 1 for Clostridium difficile infection. When study results were pooled, there was a trend toward reduction of MRSA infection after discontinuing CPs (pooled risk ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-1.02; P = .07) and a statistically significant reduction in VRE infection (pooled risk ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.94; P = .005).

CONCLUSIONS

Discontinuation of CPs for MRSA and VRE has not been associated with increased infection rates.

Direct Costs of a Contact Isolation Day: A Prospective Cost Analysis at a Swiss University Hospital

We prospectively evaluated direct costs of contact precautions using on-site observation. Additional mean costs per patient day were calculated for extra materials used, increased workload, and one-off isolation activities. The cost of contact precautions was $158.90 (95% confidence interval, $124.90‒$192.80) per patient day. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:101-103.

No-Touch Disinfection Methods to Decrease Multidrug-Resistant Organism Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Recent studies have shown that using no-touch disinfection technologies (ie, ultraviolet light [UVL] or hydrogen peroxide vapor [HPV] systems) can limit the transmission of nosocomial pathogens and prevent healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). To investigate these findings further, we performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the impact of no-touch disinfection methods to decrease HAIs. METHODS We searched PubMed, CINAHL, CDSR, DARE and EMBASE through April 2017 for studies evaluating no-touch disinfection technology and the nosocomial infection rates for Clostridium difficile, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), and other multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). We employed random-effect models to obtain pooled risk ratio (pRR) estimates. Heterogeneity was evaluated with I2 estimation and the Cochran Q statistic. Pooled risk ratios for C. difficile, MRSA, VRE, and MDRO were assessed separately. RESULTS In total, 20 studies were included in the final review: 13 studies using UVL systems and 7 studies using HPV systems. When the results of the UVL studies were pooled, statistically significant reduction ins C. difficile infection (CDI) (pRR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-0.84) and VRE infection rates (pRR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.28-0.65) were observed. No differences were found in rates of MRSA or gram-negative multidrug-resistant pathogens. CONCLUSIONS Ultraviolet light no-touch disinfection technology may be effective in preventing CDI and VRE infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:20-31.

Randomized controlled trial of honey versus mupirocin to decolonize patients with nasal colonization of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

BACKGROUND

Mupirocin is used specifically for the eradication of nasal meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), but increasing mupirocin resistance restricts its repeated use. The antibacterial effects of manuka honey have been established in vitro; antibacterial activity of other honeys has also been reported.

AIM

To describe the learning experience from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing the efficacy of medical-grade honey (MGH) with mupirocin 2% for the eradication of nasal MRSA.

METHODS

Patients colonized in the nose with MRSA and age ≥18 years were recruited. Participants received either one or two courses of MGH or mupirocin 2%, three times per day for five consecutive days.

FINDINGS

The proportion of patients who were decolonized after one or two courses of treatment was not significantly different between MGH [18/42; 42.8%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 27.7-59.0] and mupirocin 2% (25/44; 56.8%; 95% CI: 41.0-71.7). Non-nasal MRSA colonization was significantly associated with persistent nasal colonization (odds ratio: 5.186; 95% CI: 1.736-5.489; P = 0.003). The rate of new acquisition of mupirocin resistance was 9.75%.

CONCLUSION

Although not significant, a decolonization rate of 42.8% for MGH was impressive. Our findings suggest that this strategy, which has the potential to combat antimicrobial resistance, should be assessed in similar but larger studies.

Multidrug-Resistant Microorganisms Colonizing Lower Extremity Wounds in Patients in a Tertiary Care Hospital, Lima, Peru

Multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) infections cause high morbidity and mortality, and high costs to patients and hospitals. The study aims were to determine the frequency of MDRO colonization and associated factors in patients with lower-extremity wounds with colonization. A cross-sectional study was designed during November 2015 to July 2016 in a tertiary care hospital in Lima, Peru. A wound swab was obtained for culture and susceptibility testing. MDRO colonization was defined if the culture grew with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant enterococci, and/or extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) microorganisms. The frequency of MDRO wound colonization was 26.8% among the 97 patients enrolled. The most frequent MDRO obtained was ESBL-producing Escherichia coli, which was significantly more frequent in chronic wounds versus acute wounds (17.2% versus 0%, P < 0.05). Infection control measures should be implemented when patients with chronic lower-extremity wounds are admitted.

Are Contact Precautions ethically justifiable in contemporary hospital care?

Hospital infection control practices known as Contact Precautions are recommended for the management of people with pathogens such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or vancomycin-resistant Enterococci. Background: The patient is isolated, and staff are required to wear gloves, and a gown or apron when providing care. A notice is displayed to remind staff of these requirements and an 'alert' message is placed in the patient's medical record. Objective: The aim of this article is to discuss and explore whether practices used in hospitals to reduce the transmission of endemic antibiotic-resistant organisms are ethically justified in today's healthcare environment in the developed world. In order to do this, the history of the development of these practices is summarised, and the evidence base for their effectiveness is reviewed. Key bioethics principles are then discussed and contextualised from the perspective of hospital infection prevention and control, and an ethically superior model for the prevention and control of healthcare associated infection is proposed.

Isolation Precautions Use for Multidrug-Resistant Organism Infection in Nursing Homes

OBJECTIVES

To examine factors associated with isolation precaution use in nursing home (NH) residents with multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) infection.

DESIGN

Retrospective, cross-sectional analysis.

SETTING

Nursing homes with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' certification from October 2010 to December 2013.

PARTICIPANTS

Elderly, long-stay NH residents with positive MDRO infection assessments.

MEASUREMENTS

Data were obtained from the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0, Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reporting, and Area Health Resource File. Multivariable regression with facility fixed effects was conducted.

RESULTS

The sample included 191,816 assessments of residents with MDRO infection, of which isolation use was recorded in 12.8%. Of the NHs reporting MDRO infection in the past year, 31% used isolation at least once among residents with MDRO infection. Resident characteristics positively associated with isolation use included locomotion (23.6%, P < .001) and eating (17.9%, P < .001) support. Isolation use was 14.3% lower in those with MDRO history (P < .001). Residents in NHs that had received an infection control-related citation in the past year had a greater probability of isolation use (3.4%, P = .02); those in NHs that had received a quality-of-care citation had lower probability of isolation use (-3.3%, P = .03).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to examine the new MDS 3.0 isolation and MDRO items. Isolation was infrequently used, and the proportion of isolated MDRO infections varied between facilities. Inspection citations were related to isolation use in the following year. Further research is needed to determine whether and when isolation should be used to best decrease risk of MDRO transmission and improve quality of care.

Colonization pressure as a risk factor of ICU-acquired multidrug resistant bacteria: a prospective observational study

The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of colonization pressure on intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired multidrug resistant bacteria (MDRB). All patients hospitalized for more than 48 h in the ICU were included in this prospective observational study. MDRB were defined as methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa resistant to ceftazidime or imipenem, Gram-negative bacilli producing extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBL), and all strains of Acinetobacter baumannii and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. Colonization pressure was daily calculated in the three participating ICUs. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine risk factors for ICU-acquired MDRB. Two hundreds and four (34%) of the 593 included patients acquired an MDRB during their ICU stay. Multivariate analysis identified colonization pressure as an independent risk factor for ICU-acquired MDRB (OR (95% CI) 4.18 (1.03-17.01), p = 0.046). Other independent risk factors for ICU-acquired MDRB were mechanical ventilation (3.08 (1.28-7.38), p = 0.012), and arterial catheter use (OR, 3.04 (1.38-6.68), p = 0.006). ICU-acquired MDRB were associated with increased mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, and ICU stay. However, ICU-acquired MDRB was not independently associated with ICU-mortality. Colonization pressure is an independent risk factor for acquiring MDRB in the ICU.

[Multidrug resistant bacteria in the intensive care unit : Reasonable measures for prevention]

Multidrug resistant (MDR) bacteria present an increasing threat for intensive care patients. Whereas colonization of intensive care patients with methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in German ICUs has remained at a constant level in recent years and therapeutic options have improved, colonization and infections with MDR gram-negative bacteria and vancomycin-resistant enterococci are increasing year by year. Only a few or even no therapeutic options remain for the treatment of these bacteria. If recommendations and guidelines for the prevention of transmission of MDR bacteria do exist they often are of moderate evidence due to lack of randomized controlled trials. The single most important measure to avoid transmission and infection with sensible and MDR bacteria is still hand disinfection. Screening and barrier precautions must be adapted and implemented to pathogen and local conditions. In addition to those specific measures universal decolonization with antiseptics have been demonstrated to be effective at least in intensive care patients.

Impact of a targeted isolation strategy at intensive-care-unit-admission on intensive-care-unit-acquired infection related to multidrug-resistant bacteria: a prospective uncontrolled before-after study

Isolation of patients with multidrug resistant (MDR) bacteria is recommended to reduce cross-transmission of these bacteria. However, isolation of critically ill patients has several negative side effects. Therefore, we hypothesized that a targeted isolation strategy, based on the presence of at least one risk factor for MDR bacteria, would be not inferior to a systematic isolation strategy at intensive-care unit (ICU) admission. This prospective before-after study was conducted in a mixed ICU, during two 12-month periods, separated by a 1-month 'wash-out' period. During the before period, isolation was systematically performed in all patients at admission. During the after period, isolation was only performed in patients with at least one risk factor for MDR bacteria at admission. During the two periods, routine screening for MDR bacteria was performed at ICU admission, and isolation prescription was modified after receipt of screening result. Primary outcome was the percentage of patients with ICU-acquired infection (ICUAI) related to MDR bacteria, measured from ICU admission until ICU discharge or day 28, whatever happens first. A total of 1221 patients were included. No significant difference was found in ICUAI related to MDR bacteria (85 of 585 (14.5%) vs. 84 of 636 (13.2%) patients, risk difference, -1.3%, 95% confidence interval [-5.2 to 2.6%]) between the two periods, confirming the non-inferiority hypothesis. Our results suggest that targeted isolation of patients at ICU admission is not inferior to systematic isolation, regarding the percentage of patients with ICUAI related to MDR bacteria. Further randomized controlled multicentre studies are needed to confirm our results.

Policies for Controlling Multidrug-Resistant Organisms in US Healthcare Facilities Reporting to the National Healthcare Safety Network, 2014

We examined reported policies for the control of common multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) in US healthcare facilities using data from the National Healthcare Safety Network Annual Facility Survey. Policies for the use of Contact Precautions were commonly reported. Chlorhexidine bathing for preventing MDRO transmission was also common among acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016:1-4.

Utility of a single nasal polymerase chain reaction assay in predicting absence of skin and environmental contamination in hospitalized patients with past methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

We evaluated hospitalized patients with a history of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) for persistent colonization and need for contact precautions. Up to 3 daily cultures of nares, skin, and any present wounds were compared with a single nasal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay. Most patients (76.2%) were no longer colonized with MRSA. A single PCR assay was sufficient to exclude persistent colonization and environmental contamination and remove the contact precautions.