Development and validation of a time and motion guide to assess the costs of prevention and control interventions for nosocomial infections: A Delphi method among experts

Efficacy of Random Forest Models in Predicting Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacterial Nosocomial Infections Compared to Traditional Logistic Regression Models

This study evaluates whether random forest (RF) models are as effective as traditional Logistic Regression (LR) models in predicting multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacterial nosocomial infections. Data were collected from 541 patients with hospital-acquired Gram-negative bacterial infections at two tertiary-level hospitals in Urumqi, Xinjiang, China, from August 2022 to November 2023. Relevant literature informed the selection of significant predictors based on patients' pre-infection clinical information and medication history. The data were split into a training set of 379 cases and a validation set of 162 cases, adhering to a 7:3 ratio. Both RF and LR models were developed using the training set and subsequently evaluated on the validation set. The LR model achieved an accuracy of 84.57%, sensitivity of 82.89%, specificity of 80.10%, positive predictive value of 84%, negative predictive value of 85.06%, and a Yoden index of 0.69. In contrast, the RF model demonstrated superior performance with an accuracy of 89.51%, sensitivity of 90.79%, specificity of 88.37%, positive predictive value of 87.34%, negative predictive value of 91.57%, and a Yoden index of 0.79. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis revealed an area under the curve of 0.91 for the LR model and 0.94 for the RF model. These findings indicate that the RF model surpasses the LR model in specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy in predicting hospital-acquired multidrug-resistant Gram-negative infections, showcasing its greater potential for clinical application.

Development of a conceptual framework to detect perioperative symptom burden following abdominal surgery for cancer

BACKGROUND

Abdominal surgery for gastrointestinal malignancies has a significant impact on patients' health-related quality of life. However, there is so far no patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) in the immediate postoperative period to detect the perioperative symptom burden and patients' needs which may precede occult and severe complications. The aim of the study was to create a conceptual framework for the development of a PROM to measure perioperative symptom burden in abdominal cancer patients.

METHODS

This mixed method study was performed between March 2021, and July 2021 as part of a multiphase approach to develop a new PROM. A systematic review of the literature was performed health domains were identified. The relevance of the health domains was assessed in a two-round Delphi study with clinical experts. Qualitative interviews were performed in patients who underwent abdominal surgery for cancer.

RESULTS

The systematic literature review yielded 12 different PROM with 168 items and 55 health domains. The most common health domains involved the "digestive system" and "pain". In total, 30 patients (median age 66 years, 20 men [60%]) were included for qualitative patient interviews. Of 16 health domains identified by the Delphi study, a total 15 health domains were confirmed during patients' interviews. The final conceptual framework included 20 health domains.

CONCLUSION

This study provides the essential groundwork to develop and validate a new PROM for the immediate postoperative period of patients undergoing abdominal surgery for cancer.

Comparison of Improved Surgical Eight-Step Handwashing Combined with ATP Fluorescence in Detecting the Infection Rate at the Site of Seven-Step Surgical Handwashing and 30-Day Orthopaedic Surgery: A Randomized Study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of two hand cleaning schemes on the prevention of surgical site infection in routine orthopaedic surgery. Compared with the standard surgical seven-step washing technique and detected by ATP fluorescence method, the handwashing effects of the improved surgical eight-step washing technique and the standard surgical seven-step washing technique were compared, so as to provide a basis for eliminating the handwashing blind area of the surgical seven step washing technique and improving the surgical handwashing method.

METHODS

A total of 800 consecutive patients who underwent clean and clean-contaminated orthopaedic surgery between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020. Twenty orthopaedic doctors in the operating room of our research team were randomly divided into the improved eight-step washing technique group (improved group) and the traditional seven-step washing technique group (traditional group), with 10 people in each group. Each person was randomly sampled 40 times, 400 people in each group, a total of 800 people, and completed by stages in 12 months. Main Outcome Measures. The infection rate of surgical site 30 days after operation was the primary end point. The qualified rate of fingertip culture was combined with ATP fluorescence in the two groups and three new culture areas in the two groups: the lateral edge of the palm, the medial edge of the palm, and the nail groove of the middle finger and the nail root were secondary end points.

RESULTS

The 2 protocols were comparable in regard to surgical site infection risk factors. The infection rate of surgical site in the traditional group was 10 cases (2.50%) in 400 cases and 0 cases (0%) in the improved group. Three culture areas were added: the qualified rate of lateral edge of palm, medial edge of palm, and nail groove and nail root of middle finger, and the nosocomial infection rate of surgical incision between the two groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the qualified rate of fingertip culture (P > 0.05). The handwashing scheme in this study meets the recommended duration of hand disinfection and has good tolerance, and the skin dryness and skin irritation after using aqueous solution are similar.

CONCLUSIONS

The improved surgical eight-step washing technique combined with ATP fluorescence detection is helpful to eliminate the "blind area" of handwashing. It is also necessary to add three training areas. Handwashing and training are more scientific, rigorous, and effective. They are effective in reducing orthopaedic surgical infection and have application value. They can safely replace the traditional surgical seven-step washing technique, which is worthy of clinical promotion.

Antimicrobial and Antiviral Activities of Durable Cotton Fabrics Treated with Nanocomposite Based on Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles, Acyclovir, Nanochitosan, and Clove Oil

In this study, cotton fabrics based on zinc oxide nanoparticles in situ synthesis, acyclovir, nanochitosan, and clove oil were treated. The treated cotton fabrics were examined by FTIR, HR-TEM, FE-SEM, EDAX, and the surface roughness processing of FE-SEM images. The obtained characterization data emphasized the nano-size of nanocomposite with high homogeneity of particles in spherical shape as well as affirmed the deposition of nanocomposite onto the textile fibers with concluded that the deposition of nanocomposite was increased parallel with sonication time. Antimicrobial and antiviral activities of treated cotton fabrics were evaluated. Results revealed that treated cotton fabrics exhibited promising antibacterial activity toward Gram-positive higher than Gram-negative bacteria. Likewise, treated cotton fabrics are still effective as antibacterial after washing for 100 cycles. Moreover, treated cotton fabrics exhibited potential antifungal activity against Candida albicans, Aspergillus niger, and Aspergillus fumigatus. The antiviral activity significantly depended on the type of virus. The treated cotton fabrics showed antiviral activity against tested viral particles (HSV-1, Adeno, and CoxB2) with viral inhibition of 95.9, 76.4, and 86.9% respectively, while in the case of coated cotton textile with acyclovir, it only exhibited viral inhibition of 49.9, 41, and 22.3% respectively.

Evaluation of the quality of COVID-19 prevention and control by a novel comprehensive evaluation model in a tertiary general hospital: a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Prevention and control (P&C) of Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still a critical task in most countries and regions. However, there are many single evaluation indexes to assess the quality of COVID-19 P&C. It is necessary to synthesize the single evaluation indexes reasonably to obtain the overall evaluation results.

METHODS

This study was divided into three steps. Step 1: In February 2020, the improved Delphi method was used to establish the quality evaluation indexes system for COVID-19 P&C. Step 2: in March 2020, the CRITIC method was used to adjust the Order Relation Analysis (G1) method to obtain the subjective and objective (S&O) combination weights. The comprehensive evaluation value was obtained using the weighted Efficacy Coefficient (EC) method, weighted TOPSIS method, weighted rank-sum ratio (RSR) method, and weighted Grey Relationship Analysis (GRA) method. Finally, the linear normalization method was used to synthesize the evaluation values of different evaluation methods. Step 3: From April 2020 to May 2021, this evaluation method was used to monitor and assess COVID-19 P&C quality in critical departments prospectively. The results were reported to the departments monthly.

RESULT

A quality evaluation indexes system for COVID-19 P&C was established. Kendall's consistency test shows that the four evaluation method had good consistency (χ² = 43.429, P<0.001, Kendall's consistency coefficient = 0.835). The Spearman correlation test showed that the correlation between the combined evaluation results and the original method was statistically significant(P < 0.001). According to the Mann-Kendall test, from March 2020 to May 2021, the mean value of COVID-19 P&C quality in all critical departments showed an upward trend (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The combined comprehensive evaluation method based on the S&O combined weight was more scientific and comprehensive than the single weighting and evaluation methods. In addition, monitoring and feedback of COVID-19 P&C quality were helpful for the improvement of P&C quality.

A pre-pandemic COVID-19 assessment of the costs of prevention and control interventions for healthcare associated infections in medical and surgical wards in Québec

Background

Healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) present a major public health problem that significantly affects patients, health care providers and the entire healthcare system. Infection prevention and control programs limit HCAIs and are an indispensable component of patient and healthcare worker safety. The clinical best practices (CBPs) of handwashing, screening, hygiene and sanitation of surfaces and equipment, and basic and additional precautions (e.g., isolation, and donning and removing personal protective equipment) are keystones of infection prevention and control (IPC). There is a lack of rigorous IPC economic evaluations demonstrating the cost–benefit of IPC programs in general, and a lack of assessment of the value of investing in CBPs more specifically.

Objective

This study aims to assess overall costs associated with each of the four CBPs.

Methods

Across two Quebec hospitals, 48 healthcare workers were observed for two hours each shift, for two consecutive weeks. A modified time-driven activity-based costing framework method was used to capture all human resources (time) and materials (e.g. masks, cloths, disinfectants) required for each clinical best practice. Using a hospital perspective with a time horizon of one year, median costs per CBP per hour, as well as the cost per action, were calculated and reported in 2018 Canadian dollars ($). Sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

A total of 1831 actions were recorded. The median cost of hand hygiene (N = 867) was 20 cents per action. For cleaning and disinfection of surfaces (N = 102), the cost was 21 cents per action, while cleaning of small equipment (N = 85) was 25 cents per action. Additional precautions median cost was $4.1 per action. The donning or removing or personal protective equipment (N = 720) cost was 76 cents per action. Finally, the total median costs for the five categories of clinical best practiced assessed were 27 cents per action.

Conclusions

The costs of clinical best practices were low, from 20 cents to $4.1 per action. This study provides evidence based arguments with which to support the allocation of resources to infection prevention and control practices that directly affect the safety of patients, healthcare workers and the public. Further research of costing clinical best care practices is warranted.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13756-021-01000-y.

Delphi methodology in healthcare research: How to decide its appropriateness

The Delphi technique is a systematic process of forecasting using the collective opinion of panel members. The structured method of developing consensus among panel members using Delphi methodology has gained acceptance in diverse fields of medicine. The Delphi methods assumed a pivotal role in the last few decades to develop best practice guidance using collective intelligence where research is limited, ethically/logistically difficult or evidence is conflicting. However, the attempts to assess the quality standard of Delphi studies have reported significant variance, and details of the process followed are usually unclear. We recommend systematic quality tools for evaluation of Delphi methodology; identification of problem area of research, selection of panel, anonymity of panelists, controlled feedback, iterative Delphi rounds, consensus criteria, analysis of consensus, closing criteria, and stability of the results. Based on these nine qualitative evaluation points, we assessed the quality of Delphi studies in the medical field related to coronavirus disease 2019. There was inconsistency in reporting vital elements of Delphi methods such as identification of panel members, defining consensus, closing criteria for rounds, and presenting the results. We propose our evaluation points for researchers, medical journal editorial boards, and reviewers to evaluate the quality of the Delphi methods in healthcare research.

Delphi methodology in healthcare research: How to decide its appropriateness

The Delphi technique is a systematic process of forecasting using the collective opinion of panel members. The structured method of developing consensus among panel members using Delphi methodology has gained acceptance in diverse fields of medicine. The Delphi methods assumed a pivotal role in the last few decades to develop best practice guidance using collective intelligence where research is limited, ethically/logistically difficult or evidence is conflicting. However, the attempts to assess the quality standard of Delphi studies have reported significant variance, and details of the process followed are usually unclear. We recommend systematic quality tools for evaluation of Delphi methodology; identification of problem area of research, selection of panel, anonymity of panelists, controlled feedback, iterative Delphi rounds, consensus criteria, analysis of consensus, closing criteria, and stability of the results. Based on these nine qualitative evaluation points, we assessed the quality of Delphi studies in the medical field related to coronavirus disease 2019. There was inconsistency in reporting vital elements of Delphi methods such as identification of panel members, defining consensus, closing criteria for rounds, and presenting the results. We propose our evaluation points for researchers, medical journal editorial boards, and reviewers to evaluate the quality of the Delphi methods in healthcare research.