Author Archives: Brett Mitchell @1healthau

About Brett Mitchell @1healthau

Brett Mitchell @1healthau

What product do you use prior to urinary catheter insertion?

There is conflicting evidence and hence variation in practice, on which solution you should use for meatal cleaning prior to urinary catheter insertion. A systematic review demonstrates the variation in evidence.

Which do you use in your hospital or clinical practice?

You can vote using the poll below. The results will form part of the discussion in a talk at the IPS conference and ACIPC conference.

So, which is correct?

Well, we will soon be able to tell you whether chlorhexidine or saline is better (or no difference) at reducing CAUTI and asymptomatic bacteriuria. We have undertaken a RCT in three hospitals, involving hundreds of patients and catheter insertions. The aim is to determine the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of chlorhexidine vs saline. The outcomes are asymptomatic bacteriuria and CAUTI.

Data collection was completed earlier this year and analysis is also nearing completion.

Some preliminary results will be presented at the IPS conference in Glasgow in October and more detailed results at the ACIPC conference in Brisbane and HIS conference in Liverpool (England).

I would like to thank the participating hospitals – Canberra hospital, Sydney Adventist Hospital and Lismore hospital.

More to come on this, so stay tuned. The results, regardless of what they are, will help shape guidelines and clinical practice internationally.

Brett

Researcher team: Prof Brett Mitchell, Dr Oyebola Fasugba, Dr Anne Gardner, Dr Jane Koerner, Prof Peter Collignon, Prof Allen Cheng, Prof Nick Graves, Mrs Vicky Gregory (Project Manager)

Funding: This project is supported a grant from the HCF Foundation, a nationally competitive grant.

References

Fasugba, O., Koerner, J., Mitchell, B. G., & Gardner, A. (2017). Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of antiseptic agents for meatal cleaning in the prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Journal of Hospital Infection, 95(3), 233-242.

Mitchell, B. G., Fasugba, O., Gardner, A., Koerner, J., Collignon, P., Cheng, A. C., … & Gregory, V. (2017). Reducing catheter-associated urinary tract infections in hospitals: study protocol for a multi-site randomised controlled study. BMJ open, 7(11), e018871.
Chicago.

 

Reducing urinary catheter use

One of the ways  to reduce the risk of catheter associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) is to reduce catheter duration. Evidence has shown the value of stop orders and reminders (to remove the catheter ASAP) at reducing the incidence of CAUTI.

We have finished a RCT  in an Australian hospital, exploring the effect of an electronic reminder, attached to a catheter bag, on reducing catheter duration. We also surveyed nurses and undertook a focus group.

I’m looking forward to presenting results at the IPS conference in Glasgow and ACIPC later in the year in Australia. 

 

Researchers: Mitchell, BG., Fasugba, O., Russo, P., Cheng, A., Northcote, M. (Hannah Rosebrock, Research Officer).

Funding: This study was supported by an Commonwealth government commercialisation grant.

References

Meddings, J., Rogers, M. A., Krein, S. L., Fakih, M. G., Olmsted, R. N., & Saint, S. (2014). Reducing unnecessary urinary catheter use and other strategies to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infection: an integrative review. BMJ Qual saf, 23(4), 277-289.

Quick insight into ECCMID 2018

After a great few days at ECCMID conference in Madrid, I thought I would give some highlights. There were many good sessions and presentations, but I have picked a few that stood out for me. To set the scene, for those who haven’t been to ECCMID, it is huge. Around 15,000 delegates and 15+ sessions going at any one time. The poster area is the size of a airport hanger. Planning is key.

Petra Gastmeier contributed to many pieces of work at the conference, but on the first day, presented on “Before an outbreak – is complete sanitation of robotic surgical instruments possible?”. She discussed two key outcomes when answering this question. First, is the instrument clean or not; second, does the instrument affects surgical site infection rates. Her talk concluded by with the concept that at present, based on literature, robotics instruments do not appear to increase SSI rates. However, a strong CSSD is required.  Maybe the reasons is that the process includes disinfection and sterilisation. The presentation can be viewed here.

 

John Rossen discussed whole genome sequencing in outbreaks. Challenges and advantanges of WHS were discussed. One issue is the cost and turnaround time. He discussed his work, which involved used WGS to develop a local PCR test – to distinguish outbreak strains from others. This overcomes the cost and timeliness issues. The presentation can be viewed here

 

Jon Otter, always great to listen to, was heavily involved in the conference. If you haven’t seen his blog, make sure you check it out (but don’t forget us). Jon always makes his work available on the blog as well.  I have picked one of Jon’s talks,” Before an outbreak – what to do after first MDR Gram-negatives enter your hospital?”. A great interactive session with live voting. There was variation from the audience, with respect to what products (chlorine or HP) are used for control CPE. A key take home from me, was that cleaning and sinks, are a key issue. There was quite a strong focus on the role of sink in MRGN control at the conference. The presentation can be viewed here.

 

Ben Cooper talking about modelling. Some key things from his talk were – ‘models help us think’. I really like that motto. Time series analysis are good, but poorly analysed. The way of the future is to use models to design high quality RCTs. His presentation can be viewed here.

 

In something close to my heart, given some studies I am involved with, was a talk by Marc Bonton (@MarcBonten) on pragmatic trial designs. Some key takes homes: consider the natural history of the disease. It is easily to find an intervention that works, if the infection rates was trending down anyway. Cluster RCTs are good, but consider selection bias and carry over effects. His presentation can be viewed here.

 

There was a session that had short presentations on current / early research findings. Many topics were covered, from hand dryers to risk factors for predicting ESBL carriers. Sessions topics and presentations are here.  One stand out me, for novelty, was a study that explored norvirus dispersal. It is worth a look.  Norovirus was spilt in a laboratory, then cleaned. Results are very interesting. The presentation by Caroline Lopes Ciofi-Silva is worth seeing as you get a real sense of what they did. I feel for those who cleaned up the norovirus – I wonder if they got sick??

 

There was also an interesting study exploring contact precautions Vs standard precautions, involving 30,000+ patient in 20 non ICUs – to determine any difference in EBSL acquisition. Findings are suggesting no difference, but the key for me, is whether the rooms were single rooms. If so, they would probably would not expect to find any difference. If the ICUs were single rooms, then I think we are none the wiser – especially as most hospitals are not 100% single rooms. If there were shared rooms, this may be the catalyst to rethink contact precautions.

 

There was also a great “Year in review” for infection control. I could never do this justice and it is worth seeing the presentations. Hilary Humphreys presented first and went through a mountain of papers. Looking forward to hearing Hilary again at ACIPC 2018 in Brisbane.

 

There is plenty I have missed. You can use the ECCMID live website to find and view other presentations. I also tweeted about other presentations. Speaking of Twitter, there were some great interactions on Twitter at the conference, including those who were not present. It is a great way to find out they key discussion points at conferences.

 

 

 

 

Infection, prevention & control and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People.

The Snake, the Staff and the Rainbow Serpent : A Call to ‘Fill the Gap’ in research relating to infection, prevention and control and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People.

(Written by Victoria Gregory)1

 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are the oldest surviving culture in the world, yet they will live approximately 10 years less than other Australians. Some contributing factors include indigenous people are at higher risk for emerging infectious diseases compared to other populations (Butler et al 2001). Examples of infectious diseases include respiratory tract infections, infections with antimicrobial-resistant organisms, and bacteremia and meningitis caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae, zoonotic diseases, viral hepatitis, Helicobacter pylori and respiratory syncytial virus infections, diseases caused by Group A and B streptococcus, tuberculosis, Haemophilus influenzae type b, and Neisseria meningitides (Butler et al 2001).

Here are some specific examples:

  • According to data from ‘healthinfonet’ between 2009 and 2013 tuberculosis notifications were 11 times higher for Indigenous people than for Australian born non-Indigenous people.
  • In 2014-15, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were three times more likely that non-indigenous people to be admitted to hospital for influenza and pneumonia.
  • In 2014, there were 170 cases of invasive meningococcal disease notified in Australia with 21 cases (12%) identified as Aboriginal; an increase from 2013 where 13 cases (8.7%) were identified as Aboriginal and one identified as Torres Strait Islander (0.7%).
  • In 2015, hepatitis C notifications were five times higher for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people than for non-Indigenous people and the rate of HIV diagnosis was just over twice as high for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people than non-Indigenous people. Notification rates for gonorrhoea were also 10 times higher for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people than for non-Indigenous people. For syphilis, notification rates were six times higher for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people than for non-Indigenous people. For chlamydia, notification rates were three times higher for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people than for non-Indigenous people.
  • Skin infections are also common in Aboriginal and Torres strait Islander Communities (The Lowitja Institute).

These data paint a real and bleak picture, but there are many success stories, including:

  • An initiative by Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation group in 2007 which reported on successful Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health projects, such as:
    • ‘Tune into your health: Nunkawarrin Yunti Aboriginal Health Service’ where young people developed lyrics and songs about health issues affecting their community, a song called ‘It’s in your blood’ increased knowledge and awareness of Hepatitis C.
    • ‘Keeping safe with a snake: Marie Stropes International Australia’ an initiative raising awareness of sexual health.
    • ‘Mooditj: Sexual health and positive life skills’ an initiative by the Family Planning Association of Western Australia.
    • Healthworkforce Project and the Shalom Gamarada Ngiyani Yana Residential Scholarship program which has increased the numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students studying medicine and health at UNSW.
  • The implementation of the nationally funded Hib disease vaccination in 1993 which resulted in decrease of notifications of invasive Hib disease by more than 95%.
  • The painting above, ‘Healthcare in the Western Desert’ was created as part of an innovative project building mutual trust and respect involving Aboriginal artists from the Wankatjunka, Kakutja and Walpirri language groups and second year medical students from the University of Notre Dame during the students’ Remote Area Health Placement in the Kimberly. It highlights the 3 ‘snake and staff’ images representing the medical profession as well as symbols depicting women and children from the local communities and coloured squares representing the medical clinics and a number of circular jila (waterholes). The act of painting together transcended cultural differences and led to an evolution of knowledge and understanding for all participants.

Indigenous communities are at high risk for many infectious diseases, but there is limited research specifically relating to Indigenous health in relation to infection, prevention and control in Australia. Culturally appropriate research and ‘bottom-up’ prevention and control strategies, as well as long term commitment to their implementation is urgently required. It is our responsibility to mainstream Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander equality in all the valuable work that we do in the infection, prevention and control sphere. This blog is a reminder of the alarming statistics around infections and a call to work on closing the gap in health outcomes in Australia.

This blog was written by Victoria Gregory.

References

  1. Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation. antar.org.au
  2. Closing the Gap Prime Minister’s Report 2017. Closing the gap.pmc.gov.au
  3. Australian Indigenous HealthInfonet.http://healthinfonet.ecu.edu.au/ Retrieved 29.11.17
  4.  Butler, J. C., Crengle, S., Cheek, J. E., Leach, A. J., Lennon, D., O’Brien, K. L., & Santosham, M. (2001). Emerging infectious diseases among indigenous peoples. Emerging infectious diseases, 7(3 Suppl), 554.
  5. The Lowitja Institute. http://www.crcah.org.au/search/site/infection
  6. The University of Notre Dame, Australia. http://www.nd.edu.au/news/media-releases/2017/077

 

 

 

The Cerberus of science – dealing with ethics committees

We asked a colleage, Hannah Rosebrock, to write a blog for us, thank you Hannah.

In Greek mythology, Cerberus guards the gate of the underworld to prevent the dead from leaving. In social and clinical science, this role is fulfilled by ethics committees who stand as guardian between researchers and Cerberusparticipants and prevent the latter to be exploited by the former for the sake of science. The role of the Cerberus is a necessary one – although not very flattering, Cerberus is depicted as a three-headed beast. In the context of ethics committees, its three heads are called bureaucracy, officialdom and inefficiency.

According to the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) there are more than 200 HRECs operating in organisations and institutions throughout Australia (find a list of human Research Ethics Committees registered with NHMRC here). Although all HRECs base their decisions on the same principles deprived from the same National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research, every HREC has its own application procedures, forms and processes. Further, gaining approval from one ethics committee is no vouch for approval from another ethics committee.

This lack of standardisation specifically affects multi-site projects which led to the founding of the National Mutual Acceptance Scheme (NMA) in 2013. Under the NMA scheme, multi-site research projects do not have to gain ethics approval from every site the project is conducted at but only once, from a NMA certified HREC. As of August 2017 the scope of the NMA scheme covers all human research conducted at a public health organisation in Queensland, New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria, South Australia, and – the latest addition to the scheme – Western Australia. Note: Northern Territory, Tasmania, and private health organisations are not included in the NMA scheme. Still, you might be tempted to think, that the NMA scheme has de-bureaucratised the ethics application process, and to some extent, this is true. There is certainly less duplication (if you don’t count private health organisations, Northern Territory and Tasmania). However, researchers are still fighting with a lack of standardisation, as every state has multiple NMA certified HRECs[1] and application procedures vary between and within states. This multitude in ethics committees, applications processes and forms, seems unnecessarily confusing, given that they are all assessed and certified by the same body (the NHMRC) for their compliance with the same criteria based on the same National Statement of Responsible Conduct in Human Research.

Independent of the HREC approval, researchers have to seek approval from the relevant Research Governance office (RGO) for each site the project is conducted at. There is no such thing as a mutual acceptance scheme for research governance approval, every site has its own assessing criteria for determining the site’s suitability for conducting a given research project. This adds to the generally labour-some and tedious process of gaining ethics approval.  In terms, this uses resources, and most commonly tax payer funded resources. In one Australian study, the cost of obtaining ethics and relevant approvals was $348,000 or 38% of study budget.

Applications for HREC approval are often no less than 63 pages; applications for Research Governance approval encompass about 23 pages – exclusive the extensive supporting documentation required, which can be up to another 150+ pages. Applications to both, HREC and RGO’s vary, with some still requiring submission in hardcopy by snail-mail, (additionally to email, USB and online forms) and will only be assessed, once received in hardcopy. This method is unnecessarily prone to error. To simplify, you must take steps away, rather than adding additional steps. The entire process is so focussed on detail that researchers, as well as assessing HREC and RGO officials can’t see the wood for the trees anymore. So much information is requested that even low-risk research projects that involve none to minimal involvement with participants, and thus hardly justify the use of the term ‘participants’, seem to turn into a second Stanford prison experiment throughout the process.

 

[1] Queensland has 7 NMA certified HRECs, New South Wales has 11, Victoria has 7, South Australia has 5 and Western Australia has 3 (Australian Capital Territory has 1). Find a full list here.

#A Trawl for Trends

In the lead up to the ACIPC conference in Canberra next week, I thought it might be timely to write something about the use of Twitter at infection control conferences. Thanks to Gabby Milgate for assisting with this blog.

Some of you might know that last year, a group of us reviewed tweets from four infection control/ID conferences – UK Infection Prevention Society, ID Week2016, The Federation of Infectious Society/Hospital Infection Society and the Australasian College for Infection Prevention and Control. Read the article here . 

Twitter as a medium for infection control content has grown from 181 Tweets at IPS2011 to 11,457 tweets at IPS2016. This rapid growth seems to suggest the twitter epidemic is contagious! The analysis of tweets from these four conferences identified trends in conference-related twitter activity.

Here are some evidence-based trends to help your infection prevention tweeimagests fly!

  1. Tweets with web-links are more likely to be retweeted, all things considered
  2. Picture are out – these are less likely to be re-tweeted, all things considered
  3. Tweeting on topics such as ‘Cleaning’, “Media@, ‘Clostridium Difficile’, ‘Antiseptic’, ‘Infection prevention and control’ and ‘Hand hygiene’ are more often retweeted.

I’ll be talking more about this at the ACIPC conference next week – the abstract is here

Not only has Twitter been used to broaden conference exposure and encourage attendees to further engage with content but the Royal Society of Chemistry hosted an entire conference on Twitter. The conference had an audience of 380,000 online users, without a ‘face-to-face’ component.  The conference was both cost-effective and far-reaching.  Additionally, its virtual delivery eliminated risks of airborne or droplet transmission of infections!

Twitter may serve as a useful tool for infection control professionals and enthusiasts to broaden their networks, providing a platform for infection related discourse and a mode of communication for health promotion and education to the general public of social media users.

Perhaps a future trending topic: ‘Twitterer’s twiddling their thumbs on their devices practice excellent hand hygiene’.

TwitterFor those attending the Australasian College for Infection Prevention and Control or want to follow what is happening from a distance, follow #ACIPC17 – and of course the authors of this blog!

 

Network Analysis: A line (edge) between usernames, indicates a relationship – a tweet sent by one person that included the username the other.  (IPS = Infection Prevention Society)

Variation in hospital cleaning

Hospital cleanliness has a number of implications for patients and staff in addition to simply preventing the spread of infection. Aside from infection, for patients and their families, a tidy and sanitary ward greatly improves comfort and provides assurance of the quality of their treatment. For staff, a hygienic environment means a more appealing workplace.

Throw in numerous studies demostrating and articulating links between the environment and infection [1-5], it’s easy to see why effective cleaning is of utmost importance when it comes to maintaining safe and quality hospital care. In light of this, it is difficult to believe that we have no uniformity across Australian hospitals when it comes to cleaning practices, staff training, products used or even standards by which to evaluate whether a hospital environment is clean and safe.

Variation in hospital cleaning practice and process in Australian hospitals: a structured mapping exercise [6] is the first paper to identify the variations in cleaning practices present among Australian hospitals. It describes in detail a range of discrepancies found in cleaning processes used across the country, in a study of 11 private and public Capturehospitals.

This paper is the latest from The ‘Researching Effective Approaches to Cleaning in Hospitals’ (REACH). The REACH study uses a bundle of standardized interventions in an attempt to combat healthcare-associated infections, with a view of gathering evidence that could be used to inform better and more standardized cleaning methods in the future.

The variation in cleaning practice and processs highlighted in this paper, demonstrates  the need for nationally recognised standards in hospital cleaning and outlines the challenges associated with the current system – or lack thereof.

 

References

  1. Dancer SJ. The role of environmental cleaning in the control of hospital-acquired infection. J. Hosp. Infect. 2009;73:378-385
  2. Mitchell BG, Dancer SJ, Anderson M, Dehn E. Risk of organism acquisition from prior room occupants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Hosp. Infect. 2015;91:211-217.
  3. Hayden, M. K., Bonten, M. J., Blom, D. W., Lyle, E. A., van de Vijver, D. A., & Weinstein, R. A. (2006). Reduction in acquisition of vancomycin-resistant enterococcus after enforcement of routine environmental cleaning measures. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 42(11), 1552-1560.
  4. Donskey CJ. Does improving surface cleaning and disinfection reduce
    health care-associated infections? Am J Infect Control. 2013;41(5):S12–9.
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2012.12.010.
  5. Barker J, Vipond IB, Bloomfield SF. Effects of cleaning and
    disinfection in reducing the spread of Norovirus contamination via
    environmental surfaces. J Hosp Infect 2004; 58(1): 42–9. doi:10.1016/
    j.jhin.2004.04.021
  6. Mitchell, B. G., Farrington, A., Allen, M., Gardner, A., Hall, L., Barnett, A. G., . . . Graves, N. Variation in hospital cleaning practice and process in Australian hospitals: A structured mapping exercise. Infection, Disease & Health. doi:10.1016/j.idh.2017.08.001