Healthcare-acquired clusters of COVID-19 across multiple wards in a Scottish health board.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare-acquired COVID-19 has been an additional burden on hospitals managing increasing numbers of patients with SARS-CoV-2. One acute hospital (W) among three in a Scottish healthboard experienced an unexpected surge of COVID-19 clusters. AIM: To investigate possible causes of COVID-19 clusters at Hospital W. METHODS: Daily surveillance provided total numbers of patients and staff involved in clusters in three acute hospitals (H, M and W) and care homes across the healthboard. All clusters were investigated and documented, along with patient boarding, community infection rates and outdoor temperatures from October 2020 to March 2021. Selected SARS-CoV-2 strains were genotyped. FINDINGS: There were 19 COVID-19 clusters on 14 wards at Hospital W during the six-month study period, lasting from two to 42 days (average, five days; median, 14 days) and involving an average of nine patients (range 1-24) and seven staff (range 0-17). COVID-19 clusters in Hospitals H and M reflected community infection rates. An outbreak management team implemented a control package including daily surveillance; ward closures; universal masking; screening; restricting staff and patient movement; enhanced cleaning; and improved ventilation. Forty clusters occurred across all three hospitals before a January window-opening policy, after which there were three during the remainder of the study. CONCLUSION: The winter surge of COVID-19 clusters was multi-factorial, but clearly exacerbated by moving trauma patients around the hospital. An extended infection prevention and control package including enhanced natural ventilation helped reduce COVID-19 clusters in acute hospitals.

Why is mock care not a good proxy for predicting hand contamination during patient care?

BACKGROUND: Healthcare worker (HCW) behaviours, such as the sequence of their contacts with surfaces and hand hygiene moments, are important for understanding disease transmission. AIM: To propose a method for recording sequences of HCW behaviours during mock vs actual procedures, and to evaluate differences for use in infection risk modelling and staff training. METHODS: Procedures for three types of care were observed under mock and actual settings: intravenous (IV) drip care, observational care and doctors' rounds on a respiratory ward in a university teaching hospital. Contacts and hand hygiene behaviours were recorded in real-time using either a handheld tablet or video cameras. FINDINGS: Actual patient care demonstrated 70% more surface contacts than mock care. It was also 2.4 min longer than mock care, but equal in terms of patient contacts. On average, doctors' rounds took 7.5 min (2.5 min for mock care), whilst auxiliary nurses took 4.9 min for observational care (2.4 min for mock care). Registered nurses took 3.2 min for mock IV care and 3.8 min for actual IV care; this translated into a 44% increase in contacts. In 51% of actual care episodes and 37% of mock care episodes, hand hygiene was performed before patient contact; in comparison, 15% of staff delivering actual care performed hand hygiene after patient contact on leaving the room vs 22% for mock care. The number of overall touches in the patient room was a modest predictor of hand hygiene. Using a model to predict hand contamination from surface contacts for Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli and norovirus, mock care underestimated micro-organisms on hands by approximately 30%.