Lessons learned from a prolonged norovirus GII.P16-GII.4 Sydney 2012 variant outbreak in a long-term care facility in Portugal, 2017

Effective infection prevention and control measures in long-term care facilities in non-outbreak and outbreak settings: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Healthcare-associated infections in long-term care are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. While infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines are well-defined in the acute care setting, evidence of effectiveness for long-term care facilities (LTCF) is missing. We therefore performed a systematic literature review to examine the effect of IPC measures in the long-term care setting.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed and Cochrane libraries for articles evaluating the effect of IPC measures in the LTCF setting since 2017, as earlier reviews on this topic covered the timeframe up to this date. Cross-referenced studies from identified articles and from mentioned earlier reviews were also evaluated. We included randomized-controlled trials, quasi-experimental, observational studies, and outbreak reports. The included studies were analyzed regarding study design, type of intervention, description of intervention, outcomes and quality. We distinguished between non-outbreak and outbreak settings.

RESULTS

We included 74 studies, 34 (46%) in the non-outbreak setting and 40 (54%) in the outbreak setting. The most commonly studied interventions in the non-outbreak setting included the effect of hand hygiene (N = 10), oral hygiene (N = 6), antimicrobial stewardship (N = 4), vaccination of residents (N = 3), education (N = 2) as well as IPC bundles (N = 7). All but one study assessing hand hygiene interventions reported a reduction of infection rates. Further successful interventions were oral hygiene (N = 6) and vaccination of residents (N = 3). In outbreak settings, studies mostly focused on the effects of IPC bundles (N = 24) or mass testing (N = 11). In most of the studies evaluating an IPC bundle, containment of the outbreak was reported. Overall, only four articles (5.4%) were rated as high quality.

CONCLUSION

In the non-outbreak setting in LTCF, especially hand hygiene and oral hygiene have a beneficial effect on infection rates. In contrast, IPC bundles, as well as mass testing seem to be promising in an outbreak setting.

Associations of infection control measures and norovirus outbreak outcomes in healthcare settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although most norovirus outbreaks in high-income countries occur in healthcare facilities, information on associations between control measures and outbreak outcomes in these settings is lacking.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review/meta-analysis to assess associations between norovirus outbreak control measures and outcomes in hospitals and long-term care facilities (LTCFs), globally. Using regression analyses stratified by setting (hospital/LTCF), we compared durations, attack rates, and case counts for outbreaks in which control measures were reportedly implemented to those in which they were not.

RESULTS

We identified 102 papers describing 162 norovirus outbreaks. Control measures were reportedly implemented in 118 (73%) outbreaks and were associated with 0.6 (95% CI: 0.3-1.1) times smaller patient case counts and 0.7 (95% CI: 0.4, 1.0) times shorter durations in hospitals but 1.5 (95% CI: 1.1-2.2), 1.5 (95% CI: 1.0-2.1) and 1.6 (95% CI: 1.0-2.6) times larger overall, resident and staff case counts, respectively, and 1.4 (95% CI: 1.0-2.0) times longer durations in LTCFs.

CONCLUSIONS

Reported implementation of control measures was associated with smaller/shorter outbreaks in hospitals but larger/longer outbreaks in LTCFs. Control measures were likely implemented in response to larger/longer outbreaks in LTCFs, rather than causing them. Prospective observational or intervention studies are needed to determine effectiveness.

Safe Transitions and Congregate Living in the Age of COVID-19: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 represents a grave risk to residents in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs).

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether establishment of an appropriate-use committee was associated with a reduction in SNF utilization.

DESIGNS, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective cohort study at NorthShore University HealthSystem, a multihospital integrated health system in northern Illinois. Participants were patients hospitalized from March 19, 2019, to July 16, 2020.

INTERVENTION

Creation of a multidisciplinary committee to assess appropriateness of discharge to SNF following hospitalization.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

Primary outcome was total discharges to SNFs. Secondary outcomes were new discharges to SNFs, readmissions, length of stay (LOS), and COVID-19 incidence following discharge.

RESULTS

Matched populations pre and post intervention were each 4424 patients. Post intervention, there was a relative reduction in total SNF discharges of 49.7% (odds ratio [OR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.38-0.47) and in new SNF discharges of 66.9% (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.25-0.34). Differences in readmissions and LOS were not statistically significant. For patients discharged to a SNF, 2.99% (95% CI, 1.59%-4.39%) developed COVID-19 within 30 days, compared with 0.26% (95% CI, 0.29%-0.93%) of patients discharged to other settings (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Implementing a review committee to assess for appropriateness of SNF use after a hospitalization during the COVID-19 pandemic is highly effective. There was no negative impact on safety or efficiency of hospital care, and reduced SNF use likely prevented several cases of COVID-19. This model could serve as a template for other hospitals to reduce the risks of COVID-19 in SNFs and as part of a value-based care strategy.