[MRSA bloodstream infections according to the German obligation for notification - data and experience of the MDRO Network Rhine-Main, Germany, 2011]

Evaluation of the statutory surveillance system for invasive MRSA infections in Germany, 2016-2017

BACKGROUND

Mandatory notification of invasive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections was introduced for laboratories in Germany in 2009. The aims were to support local health authorities (LHAs) in their mandate to prevent and control infections in hospitals and to improve population-based nationwide surveillance of healthcare associated infections. We evaluated the MRSA surveillance system to assess whether its aims were met and to identify areas for improvement.

METHODS

Using the updated guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention we assessed the attributes simplicity, timeliness, data quality, acceptability, and usefulness. In 2016/2017 we interviewed staff in LHAs, state health authorities (SHAs), and laboratories and analyzed surveillance data of cases notified between 2009 and 2016.

RESULTS

We interviewed 10% of LHAs (n = 38), 63% of SHAs (n = 10), 5 selected laboratories and analyzed information on 27,706 notified MRSA cases. LHAs reported that on receiving notifications from laboratories they contacted hospitals for clinical information, which was time-consuming and complicated as physicians were hard to reach or refused to answer questions, citing doctor-patient confidentiality. LHAs suggested reducing the amount of information collected as some clinical information was unnecessary for implementing control measures. LHAs stated that they received notifications on time, however surveillance data analysis showed some delay. Data completeness exceeded 90% for most variables, however it was only 68% and 80% for dates of disease onset and hospital admission respectively making it impossible to discriminate between hospital and community acquired infections in half of the cases. The surveillance system was well accepted by half of the interviewees. A third however stated that the benefits of the surveillance system were outweighed by the work associated with it. The majority rated the system to be useful for recognizing trends in the MRSA incidence and the ability to check up on infection control measures in hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

The surveillance system proved to be useful by fulfilling its aims. It was timely, acceptable and provided complete data for most variables. However, the system was complicated; ensuring that only relevant variables are reported could simplify the system without losing any of its usefulness.

[Mandatory reporting of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens. What should, what can be achieved? : assessment related to the particular facility seems crucial]

Antimicrobial-resistant organisms are regarded as a particular threat to the public health of the European population. In Germany the requirement for a national rollout reporting of positive laboratory test results for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in blood cultures was implemented in 2009. This was followed in 2011 by the introduction of a laboratory-based, rollout reporting system for the detection of gram-negative bacteria with acquired carbapenem-resistance (carbapenem-resistant organisms, CRO) in the federal state of Hessen. This article will present the experience gained in Frankfurt am Main with the existing reporting system. Blood or cerebrospinal fluid cultures positive for MRSA were reported from all Frankfurt clinics between 2010 and 2013. The objective of preventing nosocomial infections by introducing a mandatory reporting for MRSA in blood cultures was only partially achieved by the reporting procedure on a population scale. Instead, reporting on a clinic-based scale, i.e., incidence per 1,000 patient days should be used. Moreover, mandatory reporting of clusters of nosocomial colonizations with MRSA could be an appropriate measure for the timely prevention of nosocomial infections with these organisms. CROs were reported from nearly all clinics as well as the ambulatory setting. Different reporting criteria have resulted not only in a greatly varying workload for the institutions and the health authorities but also in vastly different numbers of reported events. Regarding the importance of CRO, mandatory reporting seems reasonable. Criteria of reporting should be simple and easily comprehensible, i.e., all 4MRGN (gram-negative bacteria with resistance against four antibiotic groups such as acylureidopenicillins, third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins, fluorchinolones, and carbapenems) according to the German Commission on Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention (KRINKO) should be considered. Reporting and evaluation of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) in a population-based system does not seem to be sufficient regarding these organisms with high importance for hospital hygiene; mandatory reporting on an anonymous clinic-based scale should be used.