Search

Background: Healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) pose a significant threat to the health and safety of patients, staff, and visitors. Infection prevention and control (IPC) teams play a crucial role in ensuring that systems and processes are in place to keep everyone safe within the healthcare environment. Aim: The aim of this study was to identify components of infection prevention services, priorities, indicators of successes and how they are measured, and facilitators and barriers to success. Methods: A s urvey questionnaire was developed and circulated to infection prevention leaders and managers. Findings/results: Seventy IPC leaders/managers completed the survey. Participants were responsible for a range of IPC services within and across healthcare organisations, with significant variations to IPC delivery components. Additionally, a range of budget availability was reported. Several IPC service requirements were considered core work of IPC teams, including providing IPC advice and support, surveillance and audit and education and training. Discussion: An optimal IPC service needs to be in place to ensure HCAIs are minimised or prevented. In a post pandemic era, this is more important than ever before. This is also as crucial for the health and wellbeing of those working in IPC, who have endured unprecedented demand for their services during the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The importance of infection prevention and control (IPC) services to prevent threats from healthcare-associated infections and improve the quality of healthcare delivery is undeniable. However, IPC services across the UK and Ireland have substantial variability in terms of team structures and delivery models. Aim: The aim of this study was to define an optimal IPC service in different contexts and settings within the United Kingdom and Ireland. Methods: This mixed methods study adopted discussion huddles with IPC teams to explore various components of IPC programmes and services. A Nominal Group technique was then undertaken to achieve a group consensus of what an optimal infection prevention service should look like. Results: Five discussion huddles were conducted which included 53 participants in total. Key themes arising were IPC Service Priorities, IPC Service Enablers for Success, and Necessary Skills and Expertise Required for Delivering an Effective IPC Service. For the nominal technique, 45 responses were identified which were determining the key priorities for an effective IPC service and 69 responses for establishing key enablers for success. Discussion: These findings supported the development of a conceptual model for designing an optimal infection prevention service, which can be used to develop IPC services at an international, national, regional and local level. A focus is required around implementation of these highlighted enablers, so are effectively embedded into infection prevention and control services, and wider healthcare settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Deep sternal wound infections are a financially costly complication of cardiac surgery with serious implications for patient morbidity and mortality. Prophylactic antimicrobials have been shown to reduce the incidence of infection significantly. In 2018, the European Association for CardioThoracic Surgery (EACTS) provided clear guidance advising that third-generation cephalosporins are the first-line prophylactic antimicrobial of choice for cardiac surgery via median sternotomy as a result of their broad spectrum of activity and association with reduced postoperative mortality. Despite this guidance, it was believed that UK practice differed from this as a consequence of national concerns surrounding cephalosporins use and Clostridioides difficile infection. Methods: A survey was developed and distributed to all UK and Republic of Ireland (ROI) cardiac surgery centres in January 2019 to quantify this variation. Results: Of the 38 centres, 34 responded. Variation existed between the antimicrobial agent used, as well as the dosage, frequency and duration of suggested regimens even among centres using the same antimicrobial agent. The most common antimicrobial prophylaxis prescribed was a combination of flucloxacillin and gentamicin (16, 47%). Followed by cefuroxime (6, 17.6%) and cefuroxime combined with a glycopeptide (4, 11.7%). In patients colonised with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or those with penicillin allergy gentamicin combined with teicoplanin was most common (42% and 50%, respectively). Discussion: This variation in antimicrobial agents and regimens may well contribute to the varying incidence of surgical site infection seen across the UK and ROI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) is common in both hospitals and the community. Aim: To investigate the prevalence of indwelling urinary catheters on district nursing caseloads in the UK. Methods: Participants were recruited through the Infection Prevention Society (IPS). An electronic survey was undertaken on a single day between November 2017 and January 2018. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Findings: A total of 49,575 patients were included in the survey, of whom 5352 had an indwelling urinary catheter. This gave a point prevalence of 10.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 10.53–11.07), which varied between organisations, ranging from 2.36% (95% CI = 2.05–2.73) to 22.02% (95% CI = 20.12–24.05). Of catheters, 5% were newly placed (within four weeks). Of these, most (77%) had a documented indication for insertion. Only half of patients with a newly placed catheter had a plan for its removal. This varied between organisations in the range of 20%–96%. Only 13% of patients had a patient-held management plan or 'catheter passport' but these patients were significantly more likely to also have an active removal plan (28/36 [78%] vs. 106/231 [46%]; P < 0.0001). Alternative bladder management strategies had been considered for 70/267 (26%) patients. Discussion: The management of patients with an indwelling urinary catheter represents a significant component of district nursing caseloads. Given the high proportion of newly catheterised patients without an active management plan for removal of the catheter, the establishment of an optimal management pathway should be the focus of future prevention efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Norovirus outbreaks have a significant impact on all care settings; little is known about the index cases from whom these outbreaks initiate. Aim: To identify and categorise norovirus outbreak index cases in care settings. Methods: A mixed-methods, multi-centre, prospective, enhanced surveillance study identified and categorised index cases in acute and non-acute care settings. Results: From 54 participating centres, 537 outbreaks were reported (November 2013 to April 2014): 383 (71.3%) in acute care facilities (ACF); 115 (21.4%) in residential or care homes (RCH) and 39 (7.3%) in other care settings (OCS). Index cases were identified in 424 (79%) outbreaks. Of the 245 index cases who were asymptomatic on admission and not transferred within/into the care setting, 123 (50%) had been an inpatient/resident for 4 days. Four themes emerged: missing the diagnosis, care service under pressure, delay in outbreak control measures and patient/resident location and proximity. Conclusion: The true index case is commonly not identified as the cause of a norovirus outbreak with at least 50% of index cases being misclassified. Unrecognised norovirus cross-transmission occurs frequently suggesting that either Standard Infection Control Precautions (SICPs) are being insufficiently well applied, and or SICPs are themselves are insufficient to prevent outbreaks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]