* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Infection Control Practices to Improve Patient Care
Childhood immunizations in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Gastroenteritis wikipedia , lookup
Common cold wikipedia , lookup
Sociality and disease transmission wikipedia , lookup
Hepatitis C wikipedia , lookup
Schistosomiasis wikipedia , lookup
Marburg virus disease wikipedia , lookup
Staphylococcus aureus wikipedia , lookup
Transmission (medicine) wikipedia , lookup
Hepatitis B wikipedia , lookup
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus wikipedia , lookup
Human cytomegalovirus wikipedia , lookup
Urinary tract infection wikipedia , lookup
Hygiene hypothesis wikipedia , lookup
Carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae wikipedia , lookup
Clostridium difficile infection wikipedia , lookup
Neonatal infection wikipedia , lookup
Antibiotic Resistant Pathogens in the Health Care Setting Focus On Infection Control VA APIC Conference 2005 Gonzalo Bearman MD, MPH Assistant Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology and Community Health Associate Hospital Epidemiologist Virginia Commonwealth University Outline • Nosocomial Infections – Background, Epidemiology – Changing Paradigm • Important Nosocomial Pathogens – MRSA – CA MRSA – VRE – MDR- GNRs – ESBL producing organisms – C.difficile • Importance of hand hygiene in decreasing cross transmission – Alcohol based hand sanitizers • Isolation Categories – Contact Isolation – Gowns and gloves • Compliance with IC guideline – The importance of process measure feedback Nosocomial Infections • 5-10% of patients admitted to acute care hospitals acquire infections – 2 million patients/year – ¼ of nosocomial infections occur in ICUs – 90,000 deaths/year – Attributable annual cost: $4.5 – $5.7 billion • Cost is largely borne by the healthcare facility not 3rd party payors Weinstein RA. Emerg Infect Dis 1998;4:416-420. Jarvis WR. Emerg Infect Dis 2001;7:170-173. Major Sites of Nosocomial Infections • • • • Urinary tract infection Surgical site infection Bloodstream infection Pneumonia (ventilator-associated) Nosocomial Infections • 70% are due to antibiotic-resistant organisms • Invasive devices are more important than underlying diseases in determining susceptibility to nosocomial infection Burke JP. New Engl J Med 2003;348:651-656. Safdar N et al. Current Infect Dis Reports 2001;3:487-495. Nosocomial Infections in the US 1975 1995 Number of admissions (millions) 37.7 35.9 Number of patient days (millions) 299.0 190.0 Average length of stay (days) 7.9 5.3 Number of nosocomial infections (millions) 2.1 1.9 Incidence of nosocomial infections (per 1,000 patient-days) 7.2 9.8 Burke JP. New Engl J Med 2003;348:651-656. Attributable Costs of Nosocomial Infections Cost per Infection Wound infections $3,000 - $27,000 Sternal wound infection $20,000 - $80,000 Catheter-associated BSI $5,000 - $34,000 Pneumonia Urinary tract infection $10,000 - $29,000 $700 Nettleman M. In: Wenzel RP, ed. Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections, 4th ed. 2003:36. Shifting Vantage Points on Nosocomial Infections Many infections are inevitable, although some can be prevented Each infection is potentially preventable unless proven otherwise Gerberding JL. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:665-670. Antibiotic Resistant Pathogens in the Hospital Setting NNIS Summary 2004 Fig 1. Selected antimicrobial-resistant pathogens associated with nosocomial infections in ICU patients, comparison of resistance rates from January through December 2003 with 1998 through 2002, NNIS System. CNS, Coagulasenegative staphylococci; 3rd Ceph, resistance to 3rd generation cephalosporins (either ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, or ceftazidime); Quinolone, resistance to either ciprofoxacin or ofloxacin. Percent (%) increase in resistance rate of current year (January-December 2003) compared with mean rate of resistance over previous 5 years (1998-2002): [(2003 rate – previous 5-year mean rate)/previous 5-year mean rate] × 100. American Journal of Infection Control Volume 32, Issue 8 , December 2004, Pages 470-485 MRSA (Methicillin Resistant S.aureus) •Appeared in 1980s •50-70% of hospital S.aureus isolates are MRSA •Carrier state (colonization)- asymptomatic •Reduce transmission by detecting and treating all infected and colonized patients •Drug of choice is vancomycin •Patients with MRSA infection/colonization are placed on contact isolation •Recent reports of a vancomycin resistant strains of S.aureus •Certain to be an increasingly difficult management problem Methicillin-resistant–Staphylococcus aureus Hospitalizations, United States • National Hospital Discharge Survey used to calculate the number of US hospital discharges listing S. aureus–specific diagnoses • From 1999 to 2000: – 125,969 hospitalizations with a diagnosis of MRSA infection occurred annually • • • • 31,440 for septicemia (BSI) 29,823 for pneumonia 64,706 for other infections 3.95 per 1,000 hospital discharges • National burden of serious MRSA disease is substantial Kuehnert MJ, Hill HA, Kupronis BA, Tokars JI, Solomon SL, Jernigan DB. Methicillin-resistant–Staphylococcus aureus Hospitalizations, United States. Emerg Infect Dis [serial on the Internet]. 2005 Jun. Available from http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol11no06/04-0831.htm Community Acquired MRSA Comment Epidemiology CA-MRSA infections were first recognized in the 1980s Persons with CA-MRSA infections are typically younger and healthier than persons with healthcare-associated MRSA. CA-MRSA bacteria are usually susceptible to more types of antibiotics than are healthcare-associated strains of MRSA • Typically susceptible to Bactrim, Clindamycin, Doxycycline Clinical Presentation Most infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus are skin and soft tissue infections such as abscesses or cellulitis Necrotizing pneumonia VRE (vancomycin resistant enterococci) • Enterococcus faecalis and E. faecium •E. faecium is the most frequently isolated species of VRE in hospitals and typically produces high vancomycin (>128 µg/ml) and teicoplanin (>16 µg/ml) minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) • Normal inhabitants of bowel • Can cause UTI, BSI, VAP and wound infections in critically ill patients •Cross infection via contaminated equipment documented •Thermometers MRSA and VRE • Prevention of MRSA/VRE infections is based upon standard infection control precautions including: • Hand Washing • Wash hands immediately after gloves are removed, between patient contacts and between tasks and procedures. • Gloving – contact isolation • Wear gloves when touching blood, body fluids and contaminated items • Remove gloves between patient contacts and wash hands immediately. • Gowning –contact isolation • Wear a gown during procedures that are likely to generate splashes or droplets of blood and body fluids. • Dedicated Patient Care Equipment • Appropriate cleaning, disinfection and sterilization of patient care equipment are important in limiting the transmission of organisms. MDR Gram Negative Rods • MDR gram negative rods are defined as isolates that are susceptible to no more than one class of antimicrobial agents (excluding colistin). • Increasingly problematic – Acinetobacter baumanii – Stenotrophomonas maltophilia – Pseudomonas aeruginosa Application of control measures for infections caused by multi-resistant gram-negative bacteria in intensive care unit patients Prospective study of ICU patients in the Hospital Sao Paulo, between March-June 1997 and March-June 1998. Surveyed nosocomial infections with multi-resistant microorganisms: •A.baumannii and P.aeruginosa: resistant to : aminoglycosides, quinolones, third-generation cephalosporins, and carbapenems. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz vol.99 no.3 Rio de Janeiro May 2004 Application of control measures for infections caused by multi-resistant gram-negative bacteria in intensive care unit patients Promotion of hand hygiene (PVP-I or chlorexidine) before and after contact with the patient Application of contact isolation measures Daily surface cleaning and disinfection with alcohol at 70% Separation of articles and equipment for exclusive use of the patient Study showed significant increase in percentage of multi-resistant pathogens in second period vs first period UTI with multi-resistant increased from 22.7% to 30%, pneumonia 8.3% to 33.3% , and in BSI from 4.7% to 60% Infections with MDR GNR are difficult to manage and will likely require more than just stringent IC practice Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz vol.99 no.3 Rio de Janeiro May 2004 Relatively Poor Outcome after Treatment of Clostridium difficile Colitis with Metronidazole Prospective, observational study of 207 patients who were treated with metronidazole for C. difficile colitis •103 patients (50%) were cured by the initial course of therapy and had no recurrence of disease. •22% continued to have symptoms of colitis for 10 days despite treatment • 28% responded initially but had a recurrence within the ensuing 90 days. •The mortality rate higher among patients who did not respond fully to an initial course of therapy, compared with those who did (33% vs. 21%; P < .05) Clinical Infectious Diseases 2005;40:1586-1590 Increasing Risk of Relapse after Treatment of Clostridium difficile Colitis in Quebec, Canada Kaplan-Meier plots of the 60-day probabilities of recurrence among patients with Clostridium difficile associated diarrhea treated with only metronidazole, comparing 1991-2002 to 2003-2004 (top). Treatment with only vancomycin during 1991 2002 to 2003-2004 (bottom) Clinical Infectious Diseases 2005;40:1591-1597 Clostridium difficile • Because of the increasingly poor response to therapy, additional approaches to prevention and/or treatment of C. difficile colitis are in order • Newer therapies – nitazoxanide or tinidazole – probiotics, such as Saccharomyces boulardii and Lactobacillus species • Stringent application of infection control measures – Contact isolation – Meticulous hand hygiene – Thorough terminal disinfection of patient rooms • (sporicidal agent) The ABC’s of ESBL for Infection Control Nurses: -Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamases- Epidemiology • Today, 30 – 50% of E. coli are resistant to ampicillin and amoxicillin due to a beta-lactamase • ESBLs have been reported for E.coli, Klebsiella, Enterobacter, Proteus,Pseudomonas, Salmonella, Serratia Beta-Lactamases: What are they ? • Enzymes produced by certain bacteria that provide resistance to certain antibiotics • Produced by both gram positive and gram negative bacteria • Found on both chromosomes and plasmids Beta-lactamases • Are primary mode of resistance to betalactam antibiotics • Produced by some gram positive bacteria and virtually all gram negative bacteria ESBL? • Resistance that is produced through the actions of beta-lactamases. • Extended spectrum cephalosporins, such as the third generation cephalosporins, were originally thought to be resistant to hydrolysis by beta-lactamases! • Not so! – mid 1980's it became evident that a new type of beta-lactamase was being produced by Klebsiella & E coli that could hydrolyze the extended spectrum cephalosporins. – These are collectively termed the • 'extended spectrum beta-lactamases' (ESBL's) Mechanism of Action • Hydrolysis of beta-lactam ring of basic penicillin structure • Hydrolysis = adding a molecule of H2O to C-N bond with enzyme action – This opens up the ring, thus making the drug ineffective! Plasmids Bacterial Conjugation • Rings of extrachromosomal DNA • Can be transferred between different species of bacteria conjugation • Carry resistance genes • Most common and effective mechanism of spreading resistance from bacteria to bacteria Beta-lactam Antibiotic Examples • Penicillins: – Penicillin, amoxicillin, ampicillin • Cephalosporins: – Ancef, Rocephin, Keflex, Cefotan • Carbapenems: – Imipenem, meropenem Beta-lactamase inhibitor • • • • Clavulanic acid + amoxicillin = Augmentin Clav. Acid + ticarcillin = Timentin Sulbactam + ampicillin = Unasyn Tazobactam + piperacillin = Zosyn Good News: Beta-lactamase inhibitors inhibit the beta lactamase thereby not allowing the molecule to hydrolyze the antibiotic. Most ESBLS remain susceptible to Betalactamase inhibitors Bad News: some ESBL producing bacteria produce large amounts of beta-lactamase thereby overwhelming the betalactamase inhibitors The story is more complicated…. • Multiple antimicrobial resistance is often a characteristic of ESBL producing gramnegative bacteria. • • • • Ceftazidime Cefotaxime Ceftriaxone Aztreonam • Genes encoding for ESBLs are frequently located on plasmids that also carry resistance genes for: • • • • • Aminoglycosides Tetracycline TMP-SULFA Chloramphenicol Fluoroquinolones NCCLS ESBL Screening • For isolates: – K.pneumoniae, E.coli and K.oxytoca : – 1st step- screen using: • Ceftazidime, ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, cefpodoxime, or aztreaonam – 2nd Step: If MIC> 2 mcg/ml then: • Ceftazidime and cefotaxime alone and in combination with clavulanate • Positive test: greater than a three-fold reduction in MIC for combination versus single agent – ESBL status of organism is now highly likely Take home message: ESBLs are harbingers of multidrug resistance What are the clinical implications? • Can result in treatment failure – Morbidity and mortality • Several outbreaks have occurred • If an ESBL is detected, all penicillins, cephalosporins, and aztreonam should be reported as “resistant”, regardless of in vitro susceptibility test results Management of ESBL infections • Pharmacotherapy: – Treatment of choice for serious infections • Carbapenems – Stable in the presence of most beta-lactamases – Examples » Imipenem » Meropenem • Restrict the use of 3rd generation cephalosporins. Infection Control? As infection control nurses your job is to ensure that adequate precautions are taken to minimize the risk of cross transmission! – Contact precautions • Cohort patients during outbreaks – Promote meticulous hand hygiene practices – Reminders to HCW staff about Patient ESBL status • Electronic flagging of medical record • Placing stickers on charts – When are contact precautions discontinued? • No specific guidelines: – Resolution of infectious process Nosocomial Drug Resistant Pathogens: • Nosocomial pathogens of continued or increasing concern – MRSA – CA-MRSA – VRE – C.difficile – MDR GNR – ESBL producing organisms 30%-40% of all Nosocomial Infections are Attributed to Cross Transmission The inanimate environment is a reservoir of pathogens X represents a positive Enterococcus culture The pathogens are ubiquitous ~ Contaminated surfaces increase cross-transmission ~ Abstract: The Risk of Hand and Glove Contamination after Contact with a VRE (+) Patient Environment. Hayden M, ICAAC, 2001, Chicago, IL. The inanimate environment is a reservoir of pathogens Recovery of MRSA, VRE, C.diff CNS and GNR Devine et al. Journal of Hospital Infection. 2001;43;72-75 Lemmen et al Journal of Hospital Infection. 2004; 56:191-197 Trick et al. Arch Phy Med Rehabil Vol 83, July 2002 Walther et al. Biol Review, 2004:849-869 The inanimate environment is a reservoir of pathogens Recovery of MRSA, VRE, CNS. C.diff and GNR Devine et al. Journal of Hospital Infection. 2001;43;72-75 Lemmen et al Journal of Hospital Infection. 2004; 56:191-197 Trick et al. Arch Phy Med Rehabil Vol 83, July 2002 Walther et al. Biol Review, 2004:849-869 The inanimate environment is a reservoir of pathogens Recovery of MRSA, VRE, CNS. C.diff and GNR Devine et al. Journal of Hospital Infection. 2001;43;72-75 Lemmen et al Journal of Hospital Infection. 2004; 56:191-197 Trick et al. Arch Phy Med Rehabil Vol 83, July 2002 Walther et al. Biol Review, 2004:849-869 Transfer of VRE via HCW Hands 16 transfers (10.6%) occurred in 151 opportunities. •13 transfers occurred in rooms of unconscious patients who were unable to spontaneously touch their immediate environment Duckro et al. Archive of Int Med. Vol.165,2005 Alcohol Based Hand Sanitizers • CDC/SHEA hand antiseptic agents of choice – Recommended by CDC based on strong experimental,clinical, epidemiologic and microbiologic data – Antimicrobial superiority • Greater microbicidal effect • Prolonged residual effect – Ease of use and application Alcohol based hand hygiene Easy to use Quick solutions Very effective antisepsis due to bactericidal properties of alcohol Impact of alcohol based hand sanitizers at VCU: can this improve hand hygiene? Study Algorithm Incremental Increase in Alcohol Dispensers Hand Hygiene Educational Program Implemented Direct Observation of Hand Hygiene Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:1017-1021. Results Hand hygiene practice can be improved with education and greater accessibility of alcohol hand sanitizers •Improvement in Hand Hygiene Compliance Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:1017-1021. Hand Hygiene • Single most important method to limit cross transmission of nosocomial pathogens • Multiple opportunities exist for HCW hand contamination – Direct patient care – Inanimate environment • Alcohol based hand sanitizers are ubiquitous – USE THEM BEFORE AND AFTER PATIENT CARE ACTIVITIES Types of Isolation Precautions Transmission-based Precautions -for patients with documented or suspected infections -3 Types: airborne, droplet and contact Standard Precautions -Apply to all Patients --Replace Universal Precautions Contact Precautions for drug resistant pathogens. Gowns and gloves must be worn upon entry into the patient’s room Contact Precautions • • • • • • MRSA CA-MRSA VRE MDR GNR ESBL producing organisms C.difficile Gown and Glove use for Infection Control Glove Use for Infection Control Variable Rationale Comment Gloves Prevent exposure to bloodborne pathogens Even with proper glove use, hands may become contaminated during the removal of Prevent contamination the glove or with micro-tears that allow of hands with drug for microorganism resistant pathogens transmission during patient care activities Glove use should not be used as a substitute for hand hygiene Gown Use for Infection Control Variable Rationale Comment Several studies have documented colonization of healthcare worker apparel and instruments during patient care activities without the use of gowns The use of gloves and gowns is the convention for limiting the cross transmission of nosocomial pathogens, however, the incremental benefit of gown use, in endemic settings, may be minimal Gowns What about the role of Universal Gloving For All Patient Care? Feedback of infection control process measures Quality Improvement Initiative to Improve Compliance with Infection Control Practice Measurement and feedback of infection control process measures in the intensive care unit: impact on compliance Mezgebe Berhe MD1, Mike Edmond MD, MHA, MPH1,2, Gonzalo Bearman MD, MPH1,2 Divisions of Infectious Diseases1 and Quality Health Care2 Department of Internal Medicine Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine Richmond, VA, USA Measurement and feedback of infection control process measures in the intensive care unit: impact on compliance. - • To measure selected infection control process measures • To feedback the results of process indicator measurement to ICU leadership • To assess the impact of feedback on compliance with infection control process measures Mezgebe Berhe MD1, Mike Edmond MD, MHA, MPH1,2, Gonzalo Bearman MD, MPH1,2 Measurement and feedback of infection control process measures in the intensive care unit: Impact on compliance • Selected Infection Control Process Measures: – Hand Hygiene – Femoral Catheter use as proportion of CVC days – Proportion of Head of bed (HOB) elevations in medical (MRICU) and Surgical (STICU) Intensive Care Units • All Data Collected by ICPs – Baseline data- April-June 2004 – Follow up- 3rd, 4th quarters of 2004, 1st quarter 2005 – Baseline and follow up data presented to ICU nurses and Physician staff Mezgebe Berhe MD1, Mike Edmond MD, MHA, MPH1,2, Gonzalo Bearman MD, MPH1,2 Measurement and feedback of infection control process measures in the intensive care unit: impact on compliance MRICU STICU Process Measure Baseline Q2-2004 Q3 (2004) Q4 (2004) Q1 (2005) P value* Baseline Q2-2004 HH % Opp 14/44 (32%) 31/91 (37%) 33/91 (36%) 50/108 (46%) 0.101 19/38 (50%) HOB % Opp 28/51 (55%) 320/333 (96%) 450/454 (99%) 551/556 (99%) <0.001 Fem. CVC % of Days 195/1093 (18%) 130/769 (16%) 80/879 (9.1%) 51/951 (5.4%) <0.001 Q3 (2004 Q4 (2004) Q1 (2005) P value* 42/80 (53%) 40/80 (50%) 49/100 (49%) 0.916 20/43 (47%) 229/307 (75%) 389/488 (79%) 275/361 (76%) <0.001 93/1109 (8.4%) 49/970 (5.1%) 14/1077 (1.3%) 26/920 (2.8%) 0.01 Mezgebe Berhe MD1, Mike Edmond MD, MHA, MPH1,2, Gonzalo Bearman MD, MPH1,2 Head of Bed Elevation in VCU Medical ICU: Effect of Feedback % Compliance with HOB elevation Pneumonia cases/1,000 ventilator-days 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 8 10 0 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 0 Q1-04 Baseline; no feedback Q2-04 Q3-04 Q4-04 Q1-05 Performance feedback quarterly Q2-05 Pneumonia cases/1,000 ventilator-days HOB compliance Measurement and feedback of infection control process measures in the intensive care unit: impact on compliance • Feedback of process measures: • lowered the use of femoral catheters • Improved the proportion of elevated HOBs in both ICUs • There was no significant improvement in hand hygiene. • System level changes such as catheter placement and HOB elevation appears to be impacted by feedback whereas individual level practices such as hand hygiene were not affected Mezgebe Berhe MD1, Mike Edmond MD, MHA, MPH1,2, Gonzalo Bearman MD, MPH1,2 Conclusion • Antimicrobial resistant pathogens are becoming increasingly problematic in acute care settings – MRSA,VRE, CA-MRSA, MDR GNRs, C.difficile and ESBL producing GNR • Paradigm Shift in Nosocomial Infections – Each infection is potentially preventable unless proven otherwise • Healthcare facilities must have up to date IC programs and strive for maximum compliance with IC guidelines Conclusion • IC measures to limit cross transmission of drug resistant pathogens – Hand Hygiene • Alcohol based hand sanitizers – Contact Precautions • Gown • Gloves – Surveillance and feedback of IC process measures to maximize adherence to guidelines