Things We Do For Good Reasons: Contact Precautions for Multidrug-resistant Organisms, Including MRSA and VRE

Risk factors for transmission of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales to healthcare personnel gloves and gowns in the USA

BACKGROUND

Hospitals are sources for acquisition of carbapenem-resistant Entero-bacterales (CRE), and it is believed that the contamination of healthcare personnel (HCP) hands and clothing play a major role in patient-to-patient transmission of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

AIM

The aim of this study was to determine which HCP types, HCP-patient interactions, and patient characteristics are associated with greater transmission of CRE to HCP gloves and gowns in the hospital.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational cohort study that enrolled patients with recent surveillance or clinical cultures positive for CRE at five hospitals in four states in the USA. HCP gloves and gown were cultured after patient care. Samples were also obtained from patients' stool, perianal area, and skin of the chest and arm to assess bacterial burden.

FINDINGS

Among 313 CRE-colonized patients and 3070 glove and gown cultures obtained after patient care, HCP gloves and gowns were found to be contaminated with CRE 7.9% and 4.3% of the time, respectively. Contamination of either gloves or gowns occurred in 10.0% of interactions. Contamination was highest (15.3%) among respiratory therapists (odds ratio: 3.79; 95% confidence interval: 1.61-8.94) and when any HCP touched the patient (1.52; 1.10-2.12). Associations were also found between CRE transmission to HCP gloves or gown and: being in the intensive care unit, having a positive clinical culture, and increasing bacterial burden on the patient.

CONCLUSION

CRE transmission to HCP gloves and gown occurred frequently. These findings may inform evidence-based policies about what situations and for which patients contact precautions are most important.

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.

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.