Tag Archives: cost

Best article for 2018 – #blogoff

Jon Otter and I have been having a ‘blog off’, with the aim of presenting the best infection control paper for 2018 (to date). Below, I put my case forward. You can read Jon’s post here. After you read both blogs and listen to points made via Twitter, we encourage you to vote (for the article I present!). Follow more on Twitter (@1healthau) and #mitchellvsotter via this link. Results will be presented during my social media talk on Monday 1st October (& via Twitter). You can vote using this link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SL23H6K

___________

My (Brett Mitchell’s) choice of article

Choosing the best article is always fraught with danger. There are so many great infection control articles in 2018, but for this blog, I have chosen something that impacts everyone working in infection control – contact precautions (CP).  The article – Impact of Discontinuing Contact Precautions for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis by Bearman et al.

There are three main reasons, why I believe this article is noteworthy:

  1. Advancement of knowledge in a difficult area
  2. Sets foundation for additional studies
  3. The implications for changing practice around contact precautions are profound

What is the article about?

In this single centre quasi experimental study, seven horizontal infection control interventions were evaluated. One of these, was the discontinuation of CP for patients with MRSA and VRE. During the study period, using interrupted time-series analysis, infection rates for MRSA and VRE decreased, in addition to device associated HAIs – following discontinuation of CP. Importantly, compliance with CP was monitored prior to cessation, 94% compliance with CPs hospital wide, from nearly 2700 observations. The authors conclude with the suggestions that the discontinuation of CP for patients infected or colonized with MRSA or VRE, when combined with horizontal infection prevention measures was not associated with an increased incidence of MRSA and VRE device-associated infections. MRSA HAI decreased by 1.3 per 100,000 bed days and VRE HAI decreased by 7.5/100,000 bed days. Not statistically significant, but clinically relevant in the context of no increase or difference.

Advancement of knowledge

Evidence supporting the use of CPs is largely based on observational studies, theory and expert opinion. Undertaking RCTs in infection control is challenging and not always possible, not the least on the topic of evaluating the impact of stopping CPs.  We have seen other work which has tested the value of universal glove and gown use, but limited work on ceasing CPs. This study takes a big step forward, using a robust design. It adds to a small but growing body of evidence investigating the universal application of CP for patients with any MRO.

Sets foundation

Another important aspect of this study, is that it sets the foundation for more work. It appears that no harm was caused as a result of ceasing CPs. This evidence is critical when attempting to seek funds for future studies, convincing a hospital to attempt something similar and obtaining ethical approvals. It was ‘gutsy’ to undertake a study that ceased CP, but the pragmatic and clever approach of bundling this with other horizontal infection control initiative made this palatable, as well as being able to unpick the relative effect of ceasing CP, using interrupted time series. In so doing, the authors have taken this controversial topic forward and established platform for multi-site sites (plus or minus randomisation).

For the record, I am not suggesting we should change practice around CPs yet, nor I am suggesting CP do not work in the prevention transmission of certain organisms. Rather, I am saying we should be open to the idea and support work that helps answer this question one way or another.

Implications

Imagine the implications if CPs were not required for patients with certain organisms. As quoted in a recent paper by Prof Nick GravesBecause you exist in a world of scarce resources, the choices you make have economic consequences”. The implications regarding CPs are significant and include the (reduction) in cost of personal protection equipment to the increased availability of single rooms as a starting point. In addition, think about the time invested in

identifying patients with MROs, placing them in CPs, monitoring compliance and the associated education with staff. The freeing up of resources, where there are finite resources, is critically important and present new opportunities.

The authors are to be congratulated for tackling a vexed issue and opening the door to the next stage. We need more research in infection prevention and control, that tackles the ‘known unknowns’, so we can advance the science of the profession, have practice underpinned by strong evidence and provide optimal patient care. Where else to start, than with evidence around CPs?  Regardless of whether you are clinician, an infection control professional, policy maker or researcher, this article should be of interest to you. Let’s hope more studies can build on this in the near future.

If you are in agreement, don’t forget to vote for this article here

 

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.