Search

Refereed/Peer-reviewed Background: For older persons, vaccination mitigates the harmful impact of vaccine preventable infections. Our study objectives were to evaluate in the Victorian public sector residential aged care services (PSRACS) (1) the existence of local vaccination policies and admission assessment practices, (2) the current documented status of resident influenza, pneumococcal and herpes zoster vaccination uptake and (3) changes in documented resident vaccination uptake over time. Methods: Standardised data were annually reported by all PSRACS between 2018 and 2022. The influenza, pneumococcal and herpes zoster vaccination status of each resident was classified as vaccinated, declined, contraindicated or unknown. Annual trends in vaccination status were assessed using Spearman's correlation. Results: In 2022, most PSRACS reported an influenza immunisation policy existed (87.1%) and new residents were assessed for their influenza vaccination status (97.2%); fewer PSRACS reported the same for pneumococcal disease (73.1% and 78.9%) and herpes zoster (69.3% and 75.6%). The median resident influenza, pneumococcal and herpes zoster (70–79 years old) vaccination uptake was 86.8%, 32.8% and 19.3% respectively. The median unknown status was 6.9%, 63.0% and 76.0% respectively. Statistical evidence of an increase in annual uptake was observed for the herpes zoster (all resident) surveillance module (rs = 0.900, p = 0.037). Conclusions: Our study showed local influenza vaccination policies and practices exist and influenza vaccination uptake was consistently high. Pneumococcal and herpes zoster vaccination uptake were lower. Quality improvement strategies that at least determine the status of those residents classified as unknown are required.

Background To identify nurses' knowledge, perception and practice around urinalysis and asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) and to determine drivers of inappropriate urinalysis practice in an Australian hospital setting. Methods Undertaken in eight geriatric wards over four hospitals, a questionnaire inviting voluntary, anonymous participation tested nursing staff knowledge on urinalysis, recognition of urinary tract infection (UTI) and perception of the utility of urinalysis as a routine test on all ward admissions. A retrospective one-month audit was performed on admissions to a 32-bed geriatric ward. Results 132 of 220 (60%) distributed surveys were completed. Performing urinalysis on all new admissions was identified as routine practice by 89%, and with indwelling catheter change by 35% of respondents. Over-three-quarters believed that routine urinalysis on admission was useful practice and up to one-third believed urinalysis abnormalities warranted antibiotic prescribing. Dark urine (57.6%), foamy urine (55.3%) and vaginal itch (34.5%) were identified as features suggestive of a UTI. In the ward audit, routine urinalysis on admission accounted for most urinalysis testing (59%, 24/41). Of occasions with clinical prompt, delirium accounted for 60% of urinalysis and urinary symptoms 33% however urine culture was undertaken on 53% of occasions. Conclusion There was an overall lack of nursing knowledge regarding ASB, with a high perception that urinalysis abnormalities would be suspicious of a UTI irrespective of clinical findings and that routine urinalysis on ward admission was useful practice. In hospital settings, nursing stewardship can deliver strategies to increase knowledge, motivation and opportunity to improve appropriateness of UTI treatment and recognition of ASB.

Background Older people living in residential aged care facilities are at high risk of acquiring infections such as influenza, gastroenteritis, and more recently COVID-19. These infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality among this cohort. Quality infection prevention and control practice in residential aged care is therefore imperative. Although appointment of a dedicated infection prevention and control (IPC) lead in every Australian residential aged care facility is now mandated, all people working in this setting have a role to play in IPC. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed inadequacies in IPC in this sector and highlighted the need for interventions to improve implementation of best practice. Methods Using mixed methods, this four-phase implementation study will use theory-informed approaches to: (1) assess residential aged care facilities’ readiness for IPC practice change, (2) explore current practice using scenario-based assessments, (3) investigate barriers to best practice IPC, and (4) determine and evaluate feasible and locally tailored solutions to overcome the identified barriers. IPC leads will be upskilled and supported to operationalise the selected solutions. Staff working in residential aged care facilities, residents and their families will be recruited for participation in surveys and semi-structured interviews. Data will be analysed and triangulated at each phase, with findings informing the subsequent phases. Stakeholder groups at each facility and the IMMERSE project’s Reference Group will contribute to the interpretation of findings at each phase of the project. Discussion This multi-site study will comprehensively explore infection prevention and control practices in residential aged care. It will inform and support locally appropriate evidence-based strategies for enhancing infection prevention and control practice.

Antimicrobial resistance rates are higher in Australian residential aged care facilities (RACFs) than other community or hospital settings. This is driven by antibiotic overuse and misuse. Urinary tract infection (UTI) is consistently the most common infection treated with antibiotics in Australian RACFs.The aim of this article is to provide an overview of how general practitioners (GPs) can support appropriate UTI management in RACFs following antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) principles.GPs are well placed to improve UTI management in RACFs. In this article, criteria for suspected, proven, recurrent and relapsed UTI are outlined, in addition to key AMS practices for the assessment, prevention, treatment and review of UTIs. Included are recommendations for the judicious use of urine dipstick testing, a widespread and longstanding practice in RACFs, and first-line empirical antibiotic prescribing for suspected UTIs.

This collaborative meta-analysis was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation (grant supporting the post-doctoral fellowship at the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University). The funders had no role in the design of this collaborative meta-analysis; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; or in the report writing., We would like to express our warm gratitude to all participating patients and convalescent plasma donors. We thank Katja Suter and Sina Ullrich, University of Basel, for their administrative assistance. For their helpful contribution to individual trials, we thank Erica Wood, Iain Gosbell, Richard Charlewood, Thomas Hills, Veronica Hoad, Kristina Kairaitis, Aikaj Jindal, John Gerrard, Hong Foo, Adam Stewart, and Nanette Trask (ASCOT trial); Amalia Bravo-Lindoro, Ral Carrillo-Esper, Karla Maldonado-Silva, Catalina Casillas-Suárez, Orlando Carrillo-Torres, Sandra Murrieta, Elizabeth Diaz-Padilla, Eli Omar Zavaleta, Yadira Bejar-Ramirez, and Evelyn Cortina-de la Rosa (CPC-SARS trial); Sheri Renaud, Roel Rolando-Almario, and Jacqueline Day (NCT04385199 trial); Sandra Tingsgrd, MD, Karen Brorup Heje Pedersen, MD, Michaela Tinggaard, MD, Louise Thorlacius-Ussing, MD, Clara Lundetoft Clausen, MD, Nichlas Hovmand, MD, Simone Bastrup Israelsen, MD, Cecilie Leding, MD, Katrine Iversen, MD, Maria Engel Miller, MD, Hkon Sandholdt, MSc biostatistician (CCAP-2 trial). On behalf of the IRCT20200310046736N1 trial, we thank the Khuzestan Blood Transfusion Organization for specialized assistance in the preparation and maintenance of plasma samples. On behalf of the NCT04332835 trial, we thank all the members of the "PC-COVID-19 Group" at the Clinica del Occidente and Hospital Universitario Mayor Mederi in Bogota, and Clinica CES in Medellin. On behalf of the NCT04403477 trial, we thank Miles Carroll for his support regarding the antibody testing in Bangladesh. The Co-CLARITY team would like to extend their gratitude to the Department of Science and Technology Philippine Council for Health Research and Development and the UP-Philippine General Hospital for all their support in the setting up and conduct of the trial. For helpfully communicating details of their trial, we thank members of the PlasmAr trial, NCT04359810 trial (Max O´Donnell), NCT04468009 trial, and CTRI/2020/05/025299 trial. Support for title page creation and format was provided by AuthorArranger, a tool developed at the National Cancer Institute (https://www.cancer.gov/)., During the conduct of the study, the following is reported: Dr. Berry reports being employee with ownership role at Berry Consultants (receives payments for statistical modeling and design of REMAP-CAP). Dr. Castillo reports grants from DOST PCHRD. Dr. Daly reports grants from Medical Research Future Fund (Australian Govt) and RBWH. Dr. Denkinger reports grants from German Ministry for Education and Research. Dr. Dumagay reports grants from Philippine Council for Health Research and Development. Dr. Dunachie reports grants from UK Department of Health and Social Care, grants from UK National Institute of Health Research. Dr. Gauiran reports grants from Department of Science and Technology—Philippine Council for Health Research and Development. Dr. Gordon reports grants from NIHR, grants from NIHR Research Professorship (RP-2015-06-18), and non-financial support from NIHR Clinical Research Network. Dr. Higgins reports grants from NHMRC and from the Minderoo Foundation. Dr. Hills reports grants from Health Research Council of New Zealand. Dr. Holm reports grants from Swedish Government Funds for Clinical Research (ALF). Dr. Janssen and Dr. Müller-Tidow report grants from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research in Germany (BMBF) to the RECOVER clinical trial. Dr. Krapp reports grants from Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development of Canada, grants from Fundación Telefónica del Perú. Dr. J. Lim reports grants from the Department of Science and Technology, Philippine Council for Health Research and Development. Dr. Lucero reports grants from Philippine Council for Health Research and Development. Dr Manrique reports economic support from Grupo ISA Intercolombia for the project development of trial NCT04332835. Drs. McQuilten and Wood report grants from Medical Research Future Fund. Dr. McVerry reports grants from The Pittsburgh Foundation, Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium, and from UPMC Learning While Doing Program. Mr. Mouncey reports grants from National Institute for Health Research and from the European Union FP7: PREPARE. Dr. Najdovski reports payment from KUL Leuven to Belgian Red Cross for supply of convalescent plasma. Dr. Nichol reports grants from Health Research Board of Ireland. Dr. D. Roberts reports grants from the National Institute for Health (UKRIDHSC COVID-19 Rapid Response Rolling Call—Grant Reference Number COV19-RECPLAS) and the European Commission (SUPPORT-E #101015756). Dr. Rowan reports grants from the European Commission and from the UK National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Shankar-Hari reports grants from National Institute for Health Research UK, grants from UKRI-National Institute for Health Research UK. Dr. Turgeon reports grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Venkatesh reports grants from Baxter. Dr. Webb reports grants from National Health and Medical Research Council, grants from Minderoo Foundation. Dr. Zacharowski reports grants from EU Horizon 2020. The ASCOT trial team (Drs Bowen, Daly, Davis, Denholm, Hammond, Jha, L. Lim, McQuilten, Molton, Morpeth, O’Sullivan, Paterson, Perry, Price, Rees, Roberts, Rogers, Sasadeusz, Snelling, Tong, Venkatesh, Wood) is funded by grants from from Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital Foundation, Pratt Foundation, Minderoo Foundation, BHP Foundation, Hospital Research Foundation, Macquarie Group Foundation, Health Research Council of New Zealand, Australian Partnership for Preparedness Research on Infectious Disease Emergencies (APPRISE), and the collection and supply of convalescent plasma was conducted within Lifeblood’s funding arrangements. The CONFIDENT trial is funded by the Belgian KCE (blood establishments received payment for the convalescent plasma supplied in the clinical trial). REMAP-CAP was supported in part by funding from UKRIDHSC COVID-19 Rapid Response Rolling Call (Grant Reference Number COV19-RECPLAS). Collection of convalescent plasma for REMAP-CAP was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, UK. The IRCT20200310046736N1 trial was supported by the Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences (Grant No. R.AJUMS.REC.1399.003, Dr. Pouladzadeh). The PC-COVID-19 Group is supported by the Universidad del Rosario, IDCBIS, ISA Group and Suramericana (Colombia). Outside the submitted work, the following is reported: Dr. Axfors reports postdoctoral grants from the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, Uppsala University, the Swedish Society of Medicine, the Blanceflor Foundation, and the Sweden-America Foundation. Dr. Aomar reports personal fees from SOBI, GEDEON RICHTER, and GSK. Dr. Benfield reports grants from Novo Nordisk Foundation, Simonsen Foundation, Lundbeck Foundation, Kai Hansen Foundation, Erik and Susanna Olesen’s Charitable Fund; grants and personal fees from GSK, Pfizer, Gilead; and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, and Pentabase ApS. Dr. Estcourt reports being an investigator on the RECOVERY trial. Dr. Gordon reports personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol Myers Squibb, and 30 Respiratory. Dr. Jha reports grants and personal fees from Baxter Healthcare, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, grants from NephroPlus. Dr. Laterre reports personal fees from Adrenomed. Dr. McVerry reports grants from NIH/NHLBI and Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr. Mondragon reports financial activities outside the submitted work (employment at Johnson & Johnson). Dr. Perry reports partner being employed at CSL and owning shares in CSL. Dr. Paterson reports involvement with ALLIANCE trial of COVID-19 treatments. Dr. J. Roberts reports other COVID-19 related trials (in different patient groups): tocilizumab in ICU patients; hydroxychloroquine dosing in ICU patients; planned study of remdesivir pharmacokinetics in patients during expanded access program; and in silico evaluation of ivermectin dosing. Dr Sasadeusz reports grants from various Pharma companies including Gilead Sciences, Abvvie, Merck, and Takeda. Dr. Zacharowski reports personal fees from Biotest AG, CSL Behring, GE Heathcare, and is President of the ESAIC., Background: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX). Methods: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care., Amalia Bravo-Lindoro, BHP Foundation, Blanceflor Foundation, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development of Canada, Eli Omar Zavaleta, Erik and Susanna Olesen’s Charitable Fund, Federal Ministry of Education and Research in Germany, Fundación Telefónica del Perú, IDCBIS, ISA Group and Suramericana, Kai Hansen Foundation, Katja Suter and Sina Ullrich, Khuzestan Blood Transfusion Organization, Macquarie Group Foundation, Medical Research Future Fund, NephroPlus, RBWH, Roel Rolando-Almario NCT04385199, Royal Brisbane, Sheri Renaud, Simonsen Foundation, UKRI-National Institute for Health Research UK, UKRIDHSC COV19-RECPLAS, UP-Philippine General Hospital CTRI/2020/05/025299, NCT04359810, NCT04468009, Women’s Hospital Foundation, National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Pittsburgh Foundation, Pfizer, Baxter International, Stanford University, Gilead Sciences, National Institute on Handicapped Research RP-2015-06-18, Meso Scale Diagnostics, Universität Basel, Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Health Research Board, Pratt Foundation, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Institute for Health Research, Department of Health and Social Care, European Commission 101015756, National Health and Medical Research Council, Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India, Health Research Council of New Zealand, Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung, Sweden-America Foundation, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Lundbeckfonden, Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse, Seventh Framework Programme, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Uppsala Universitet, Horizon 2020, Svenska Läkaresällskapet, Universidad del Rosario, Pharmaceuticals Bayer, Novo Nordisk Fonden, Department of Science and Technology, Philippines, Philippine Council for Health Research and Development, Minderoo Foundation

Background Sepsis is the world’s leading cause of death and its detection from a range of data and coding sources, consistent with consensus clinical definition, is desirable. Objective To evaluate the performance of three coding definitions (explicit, implicit, and newly proposed synchronous method) for sepsis derived from administrative data compared to a clinical reference standard. Method Extraction of administrative coded data from Australian metropolitan teaching hospital with 25,000 annual overnight admissions compared to clinical review of medical records; 313 (27.9%) randomly selected adult multi-day stay hospital separations from 1,123 separations with acute infection during July 2019. Estimated prevalence and performance metrics, including positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV), and area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC). Results Clinical prevalence of sepsis was estimated at 10.7 (95% CI = 10.3–11.3) per 100 separations, and mortality rate of 11.6 (95% CI = 10.3–13.0) per 100 sepsis separations. Explicit method for case detection had high PPV (93.2%) but low NPV (55.8%) compared to the standard implicit method (74.1 and 66.3%, respectively) and proposed synchronous method (80.4% and 80.0%) compared to a standard clinical case definition. ROC for each method: 0.618 (95% CI = 0.538–0.654), 0.698 (95% CI = 0.648–0.748), and 0.802 (95% CI = 0.757–0.846), respectively. Conclusion In hospitalised Australian patients with community-onset sepsis, the explicit method for sepsis case detection underestimated prevalence. Implicit methods were consistent with consensus definition for sepsis, and proposed synchronous method had better performance.

Background Diabetic foot infections (DFI) present a major morbidity, mortality and economic challenge for the tertiary health sector. However, lack of high quality evidence for specific treatment regimens for patients with DFIs may result in inconsistent management. This study aimed to identify DFI caseload proportion and patterns of clinical practice of Infectious Diseases (ID) Physicians and Trainees within Australia and New Zealand. Methods A cross-sectional online survey of Australian and New Zealand ID Physicians and Trainees was undertaken, to estimate the overall ID caseload devoted to patients with DFIs and assess clinicians’ management practices of patients with DFIs. Results Approximately 28% (142/499) of ID Physicians and Trainees from Australia and New Zealand responded to the survey. DFI made up 19.2% of all ID consultations. Involvement in multidisciplinary teams (MDT) was common as 77.5% (93/120) of those responding indicated their patients had access to an inpatient or outpatient MDT. Significant heterogeneity of antimicrobial treatments was reported, with 82 unique treatment regimens used by 102 respondents in one scenario and 76 unique treatment regimens used by 101 respondents in the second scenario. The duration of therapy and the choice of antibiotics for microorganisms isolated from superficial swabs also varied widely. Conclusions Patients with DFIs represent a significant proportion of an ID clinician’s caseload. This should be reflected in the ID training program. Large heterogeneity in practice between clinicians reflects a lack of evidence from well-designed clinical trials for patients with DFI and highlights the need for management guidelines informed by future trials. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13047-018-0256-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Questionnaire. (DOCX 34Â kb)

Student health-care workers (sHCW) with cystic fibrosis (CF) on clinical placement pose unique infection control issues, with potential acquisition and transmission of multi-resistant pathogens between sHCW and patients. We reviewed existing Australian infectious diseases policies and guidelines for sHCW and published data on the potential infection control risks posed by sHCW with CF in this setting. Current consensus infectious diseases guidelines for sHCW address blood-borne viruses but do not address CF, and the management of sHCW with CF is controversial. While the potential risk of nosocomial transmission of multi-resistant organisms such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus, both to and from sHCW with CF is acknowledged, there have been no reports of HCW with CF-linked with outbreaks. Given the recognised risk, sHCW with CF will more than likely require modifications to their learning programs while on clinical placement to allow them to complete their studies and adequately prepare them for a range of practice in their chosen profession, while minimising risk to both patients and themselves. Universities organising clinical placement for sHCW with CF are obliged to provide vocational and academic counselling as early into the course as possible. Limited disclosure of the status of the sHCW with CF to direct clinical supervisors and infection control is essential in order to observe duty of care towards the student as well as ensuring the safety of the patients.

Voriconazole can prolong the QT interval contributing to life-threatening cardiac arrhythmia. Torsades de pointes is an uncommon but serious complication of voriconazole use which may be under-recognised. We present torsades de pointes in two patients with underlying haematological malignancy being treated for invasive fungal infection with voriconazole. Patients receiving voriconazole should be screened and monitored for evidence of QT prolongation, and if prolongation detected, consideration given to alternative treatments or more intensive cardiac monitoring.

We read the editorial by Robert Pearce and Ian Whyte with interest.1 We agree that electronic medication management...

Objective: To achieve sustained improvement in use of cefotaxime and ceftriaxone (CEFX) in a major teaching hospital, as measured against national antibiotic guidelines. Design and setting: Pre- and post-intervention survey of CEFX use in the Royal Melbourne Hospital, a tertiary hospital in Melbourne, Victoria. Intervention: Web-based antimicrobial approval system linked to national antibiotic guidelines was developed by a multidisciplinary team and implemented in March 2001. Main outcome measures: Change in rate of CEFX use (defined daily doses [DDDs] per 1000 acute occupied bed days) over 8 months pre- and 15 months post-intervention; concordance of indication for CEFX with national antibiotic guidelines pre- and post-intervention. Results: CEFX use decreased from a mean of 38.3 DDDs/1000 bed days pre-intervention to 15.9, 18.7 and 21.2 DDDs/1000 bed days at 1, 4 and 15 months post-intervention. Concordance with national antibiotic guidelines rose from 25% of courses pre-intervention to 51% within 5 months post-intervention (P< 0.002). Gentamicin use also increased, from a mean of 30.0 to 48.3 DDDs/1000 bed days (P= 0.0001). Conclusion: The web-based antimicrobial approval system achieved a sustained reduction in CEFX use over 15 months as well as increased prescribing concordance with antibiotic guidelines. It has potential for linking to electronic prescribing and for wider use for other drugs, as well as for research into the epidemiology of antibiotic use.