Search

Background: Patient-level surveillance (indication, appropriate choice, dosing, route, duration) of antimicrobial use in Canadian hospitals is needed to reduce antimicrobial overuse and misuse. Patient-level surveillance has not been performed on a national level in Canada. The Global Point Prevalence Survey of Antimicrobial Consumption and Resistance (Global-PPS) is an international collaborative to monitor antimicrobial use and resistance in hospitals worldwide. Global-PPS locally documents on a single day patient-level antimicrobial prescribing practices. This article presents the results of the 2017 Global-PPS in Canadian hospitals with established antimicrobial stewardship programs. Methods: Hospitals part of the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program were invited to participate. Surveys could be performed any time in the 2017 calendar year. All in-patient wards in each hospital were surveyed by a physician, pharmacist or nurse with infectious disease training. Results: Fourteen Canadian hospitals participated in the survey. Of 4118 patients, 1400 patients (34.0%) received a total of 2041 antimicrobials. Overall, 73.1% (n = 1493) of antimicrobials were for therapeutic use, 14.2% (n = 288) were for medical prophylaxis, 8.3% (n = 170) were for surgical prophylaxis, 1.8% (n = 37) were for other reasons, and 0.2% (n = 3) were used as prokinetic agents. Only 2.5% (n = 50) were for unknown reasons. For antimicrobials for therapeutic use, 29.9% of patients were treated for lower respiratory tract (343/1147), 10.5% for intra-abdominal (120/1147), 9.3% for skin and soft tissue (107/1147) and 7.5% for gastro-intestinal (86/1147) infections. Conclusions: Standardized methodology amongst Global-PPSs allows the comparison of our results to the 2015 Global-PPS. The prevalence of antimicrobial use on medical, surgical, and intensive care wards are similar to those previously observed in North America. Indication of antimicrobials has not been previously reported on such a large scale in Canadian hospitals. This report serves as a comparison for further point prevalence surveys that are currently underway. It will be used for identifying opportunities and benchmarking in antibiotic stewardship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Visitor restriction policies in pediatric wards during the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak are variable. Among 36 hospitals that responded to our survey, 97% allowed at least 1 visitor, with 67% restricting to 1 caregiver. Sixty-nine percent required the visitor to wear personal protective equipment and only 19% allowed non-household visitors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Late-onset infection is a serious cause of mortality and long-term morbidity in NICU patients. Healthcare worker hands are the most common vehicle for transmission of pathogenic organisms to neonates. Studies have suggested a reduction in infections in neonatal and pediatric patients cared for with universal nonsterile glove use. Methods We developed an online survey (https://fhspeds.mcmaster.ca/pedsCapOne/surveys/?s=9RDX7EHT79) for clinicians to understand the current glove use and hand hygiene practices in NICUs in North America. The survey was sent to neonatologists and Pediatric Infectious Disease Specialists via the AAP Neonatal-Perinatal Section listserv, SHEA and the Canadian Neonatal Network. Results Of 336 responses; the majority were from physicians at level 3 to 4 NICUs (97%), and from the United States (96.1%). Beyond sterile procedures, sterile gloves were used for central line dressing changes (88.4%), contact with central nervous system shunts (61.0%), and direct contact with central lines (57.4%). Nonsterile gloves were used most commonly for universal precautions and diaper changes (Table 1). Almost half of participants also used nonsterile gloves for all patients and 37.5% for extremely low birth weight (<1000 g) infants. While most sites (76.8%) stated that nonsterile gloves were not required for parents, 15.8% requested gloves also for parents. 58% of respondents felt there was not enough evidence for a practice change at this time and 53.3% felt further study was needed to assess the effect of nonsterile gloves and infection (Figures 2 and 3). Almost a third of respondents (n = 109) would be interested in participating in a randomized study to assess glove-based care. Major concerns with this approach included a possible reduction in hand hygiene compliance, environmental waste, and glove contamination (Figure 4). Conclusion There is variability in gloving practices across NICUs in North America, with equipoise and interest in a potential randomized study to further explore the hypothesis that nonsterile gloves prevent late-onset infections in neonates. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]