(This blog was inspired by the session at ECCMID 2016 also mentioned by Brett)
There are some things we Antipodeans are good at and are arguably international leaders, and some things we’re not (sporting references will be overlooked for now).
Take for example Australia’s innovative and novel National Hand Hygiene Initiative (NHHI). Obviously declaring conflict here, but a national program rolled out across Australia that recently had over 900 healthcare facilities submit compliance data is an example of what enthusiasm, strong leadership, central coordination and jurisdictional cooperation combined with adequate resources can achieve.
Clearly the start up of the NHHI was resource intensive, and this has been well documented, and it is difficult to measure the precise effect the NHHI has had on HAIs, particularly when HAI surveillance in Australia is so disparate. Undeniably it has bought the importance of hand hygiene to the forefront of clinicians, executive and politicians. And when these groups listen to infection prevention, it’s a good thing.
Australia also leads the way in antimicrobial stewardship. At the recent ECCMID conference in Amsterdam, AMS was a common theme in many sessions, and several Australians presented new knowledge identified through novel audit tools. Feedback from across the globe has reflected much interest at the appropriateness data being generated.
And then there are things that make us watch in awe, like surveillance. My poster on national surveillance in Australia at ECCMID received a moderate amount of visitors (and not one mistook me for being Austrian). The top two comments were “Nice layout, good colors” and “Really, you don’t have a national surveillance program?”
As Brett has mentioned in his post, the final session at ECCMID was about surveillance and public reporting, and we had Eli Perencevich present perspectives from the US and Europe. England now has a public reporting tool where consumers can drill down to Trust by infection and time period for an assortment of HAIs, presumably this will expand to all mandatory surveillance activities in the future. A presentation by Maaike van Mourik from the Netherlands about semi and fully automated surveillance systems and their utility for the numerous stakeholders was inspiring. Maaike demonstrated how a semi automated surveillance system resulted in an impressive surveillance workload reduction for ICPs and 100% case sensitivity
Will we live to see the day in Australia where electronically sourced, risk adjusted HAI data is collected by an automated surveillance program which is then analysed and interpreted by infection prevention experts, and then submitted to a central agency where data is collated, benchmarks established, and published on an interactive webpage providing complete transparency for consumers?
Unfortunately many other countries are closer to that day than Australia, but we must move in this direction… A journey of a thousand miles…
Why have a national HAI surveillance program, (I hear you ask), when the surveillance you do is perfectly adequate for your needs? Answers to that question will be provided in later blogs!