Search

Background: Acquisition of pathogens into health care settings from prior room occupants has been documented. Hospital room privacy curtains are at high risk for pathogenic bacterial contamination. Antimicrobial impregnated curtains could be effective in reducing contamination., Methods: Rooms within an intensive care unit at The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics were randomized to 3 arms. The 2 intervention arms: (1) halamine antimicrobial curtains (BioSmart curtain [BSC]) and (2) halamine antimicrobial curtains sprayed twice weekly with a sodium hypochlorite-based disinfecting spray (BSC-pre and BSC-post) and a third control arm (standard curtain [SC]). Samples were collected twice weekly for 3 weeks to assess pathogenic bacterial contamination., Results: The likelihood of remaining uncontaminated was 38% for SC, 37% for BSC, and 60% for the BSC-pre group. Time to event (contamination) analysis found no statistically significant difference between pathogenic contamination between the SC, BSC, and BSC-pre groups (P value = .1921). There was a decrease in average colony count for BSC curtains compared with control, however, this difference was not statistically significant. Hypochlorite spray was found to transiently decontaminate curtains, but effects dissipated after 72 hours., Conclusions: BSC did not show a significant reduction in pathogenic contamination compared with control. Antimicrobial curtains could have a role in reducing environmental contamination in the health care setting. Future studies should be done to determine the long-term effects of using antimicrobial curtains in health care., (Copyright © 2020 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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 I 2 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., (Copyright © 2018 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cost-effectiveness analyses are an important methodology in assessing whether a health care technology is suitable for widespread adoption. Common models used by economists, such as decision trees and Markov models, are appropriate for noninfectious diseases where treatment and exposure are independent. Diseases whose treatment and exposure are dependent require dynamic models to incorporate the nonlinear transmission effect. Two different types of models are often used for dynamic cost-effectiveness analyses: compartmental models and individual models. In this methodology-focused literature review, we describe each model type and summarize the literature associated with each using the example of health care-associated infections (HAIs)., Methods: We conducted a review of the literature to identify dynamic cost-effectiveness analyses that examined interventions to prevent or treat HAIs. To be included in the review, studies needed to have each of 3 necessary components: involve economics, such as cost-effectiveness analysis and evidence of economic theory, use a dynamic transmission model, and examine HAIs., Results: Of the 9 articles published between 2005 and 2016 that met criteria to be included in our study, 3 used compartmental models and 6 used individual models., Conclusions: Very few published studies exist that use dynamic transmission models to conduct economic analyses related to HAIs and even fewer studies have used these models to perform cost-effectiveness analyses., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses are important research designs used to summarize and derive conclusions about the collective evidence on a focused research question in a structured, reproducible manner. The goal of this Methodology Minute is to describe how to conduct a systematic literature review and meta-analysis using a step-by-step approach to help infection preventionists (IPs) and others in the field perform their own systematic literature review and meta-analysis, and to critically evaluate published systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

We compared the ability to observe hand hygiene opportunities using the World Health Organization My 5 Moments method to the Entry/Exit method. Under covert direct observation, Entry/Exit method opportunities were observed at all times. My 5 Moments were observable in 32.3% of episodes, with a lower rate in wards versus intensive care units (28.0% vs 39.4%; P < .01). In US hospitals, the Entry/Exit method appears to be more feasible for directly observed hand hygiene compliance monitoring due to line-of-sight issues and other barriers., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) created an evidence-based bundle to help reduce methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) health care-associated infections. The study aim was to identify which components of the IHI's MRSA bundle that rural hospitals have implemented and to identify barriers that hindered implementation of bundle components., Methods: Four surveys about the IHI's MRSA bundle were administered at the Iowa Statewide Infection Prevention Seminar between 2007 and 2011. Surveys were mailed to infection preventionists (IPs) who did not attend the meetings., Results: The percentage of IPs reporting that their hospital implemented a hand hygiene program (range by year, 87%-94%) and used contact precautions for patients infected (range by year, 97%-100%) or colonized (range by year, 77%-92%) with MRSA did not change significantly. The number of hospitals that monitored the effectiveness of environmental cleaning significantly increased from 23%-71% (P < .01). Few hospitals assessed daily if central lines were necessary (range by year, 22%-26%). IPs perceived lack of support to be a major barrier to implementing bundle components., Conclusion: Most IPs reported that their hospitals had implemented most components of the MRSA bundle. Support within the health care system is essential for implementing each component of an evidence-based bundle., (Copyright © 2014 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hand hygiene is one of the most effective ways to prevent transmission of health care-associated infections. Electronic systems and tools are being developed to enhance hand hygiene compliance monitoring. Our systematic review assesses the existing evidence surrounding the adoption and accuracy of automated systems or electronically enhanced direct observations and also reviews the effectiveness of such systems in health care settings., Methods: We systematically reviewed PubMed for articles published between January 1, 2000, and March 31, 2013, containing the terms hand AND hygiene or hand AND disinfection or handwashing. Resulting articles were reviewed to determine if an electronic system was used., Results: We identified 42 articles for inclusion. Four types of systems were identified: electronically assisted/enhanced direct observation, video-monitored direct observation systems, electronic dispenser counters, and automated hand hygiene monitoring networks. Fewer than 20% of articles identified included calculations for efficiency or accuracy., Conclusions: Limited data are currently available to recommend adoption of specific automatic or electronically assisted hand hygiene surveillance systems. Future studies should be undertaken that assess the accuracy, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of such systems. Given the restricted clinical and infection prevention budgets of most facilities, cost-effectiveness analysis of specific systems will be required before these systems are widely adopted., (Published by Mosby, Inc.)

Background: Previous studies have suggested that informatics tools, such as automated alert and decision support systems, may increase the efficiency and quality of infection control surveillance. However, little is known about the cost-effectiveness of these tools., Methods: We focus on 2 types of economic analyses that have utility in assessing infection control interventions (cost-effectiveness analysis and business-case analysis) and review the available literature on the economics of computerized infection control surveillance systems., Results: Previous studies on the effectiveness of computerized infection control surveillance have been limited to assessments of whether these tools increase the sensitivity and specificity of surveillance over traditional methods. Furthermore, we identified only 2 studies that assessed the costs associated with computerized infection control surveillance. Thus, it remains unknown whether computerized infection control surveillance systems are cost-effective and whether use of these systems improves patient outcomes., Conclusion: The existing data are insufficient to allow for a summary conclusion on the cost-effectiveness of infection control surveillance technology. All future studies of computerized infection control surveillance systems should aim to collect outcomes and economic data to inform decision making and assist hospitals with completing business-cases analyses.