Cost effectiveness of temporary isolation rooms in acute care settings in Singapore.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the change to health service costs and health benefits from a decision to adopt temporary isolation rooms that are effective at isolating the patient within a general ward environment. We assess the cost-effectiveness of a decision to adopt an existing temporary isolation room in a Singapore setting. METHOD: We performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate the impact of a decision to adopt temporary isolation rooms for infection prevention. We estimated changes to the costs from implementation, the number of cases of healthcare associated infection, acute care bed days used, they money value of bed days, the number of deaths, and the expected change to life years. We report the probability that adoption was cost-effective by the cost by life year gained, against a relevant threshold. Uncertainty is addressed with probabilistic sensitivity analysis and the findings are tested with plausible scenarios for the effectiveness of the intervention. RESULTS: We predict 478 fewer cases of HAI per 100,000 occupied bed days from a decision to adopt temporary isolation rooms. This will result in cost savings of $SGD329,432 and there are 1,754 life years gained. When the effectiveness of the intervention is set at 1% of cases of HAI prevented the incremental cost per life year saved is $16,519; below the threshold chosen for cost-effectiveness in Singapore. CONCLUSIONS: We provide some evidence that adoption of a temporary isolation room is cost-effective for Singapore acute care hospitals. It is plausible that adoption is a positive decision for other countries in the region who may demonstrate fewer resources for infection prevention and control.

P2/N95 respirators & surgical masks to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection: Effectiveness & adverse effects.

BACKGROUND: Millions of people have acquired and died from SARS-CoV-2 infection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE), including surgical masks and P2/N95 respirators, to prevent infection while treating patients. However, the comparative effectiveness of respirators and masks in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and the likelihood of experiencing adverse events (AEs) with wear are unclear. METHODS: Searches were carried out in PubMed, Europe PMC and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to 14 June 2021. A systematic review of comparative epidemiological studies examining SARS-CoV-2 infection or AE incidence in HCWs wearing P2/N95 (or equivalent) respirators and surgical masks was performed. Article screening, risk of bias assessment and data extraction were duplicated. Meta-analysis of extracted data was carried out in RevMan. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included, with most having high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference in respirator or surgical mask effectiveness in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 0.85, [95%CI 0.72, 1.01]). Healthcare workers experienced significantly more headaches (OR 2.62, [95%CI 1.18, 5.81]), respiratory distress (OR 4.21, [95%CI 1.46, 12.13]), facial irritation (OR 1.80, [95%CI 1.03, 3.14]) and pressure-related injuries (OR 4.39, [95%CI 2.37, 8.15]) when wearing respirators compared to surgical masks. CONCLUSION: The existing epidemiological evidence does not enable definitive assessment of the effectiveness of respirators compared to surgical masks in preventing infection. Healthcare workers wearing respirators may be more likely to experience AEs. Effective mitigation strategies are important to ensure the uptake and correct use of respirators by HCWs.

Infection control professionals' and infectious diseases physicians' knowledge, preparedness, and experiences of managing COVID-19 in Australian healthcare settings.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has placed unprecedented demands on infection control professionals (ICPs) and infectious disease (ID) physicians. This study examined their knowledge, preparedness, and experiences managing COVID-19 in the Australian healthcare settings. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of ICPs and ID physician members of the Australasian College for Infection Prevention and Control (ACIPC) and the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases (ASID) was conducted using an online survey. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise and report data. RESULTS: A total of 103 survey responses were included in the analysis for ICPs and 45 for ID physicians. A majority of ICPs (78.7%) and ID physicians (77.8%) indicated having 'very good' or 'good' level of knowledge of COVID-19. Almost all ICPs (94.2%) relied on state or territory's department of health websites to source up-to-date information While most ID physicians (84.4%) used scientific literature and journals. A majority of ICPs (96%) and ID physicians (73.3%) reported feeling 'moderately prepared' or 'extremely prepared' for managing COVID-19. Most respondents had received specific training about COVID-19 within their workplace (ICPs: 75%; ID physicians: 66.7%), particularly training/certification in PPE use, which made them feel 'mostly or entirely confident' in using it. Most ICPs (84.5%) and ID physicians (76.2%) reported having 'considerably' or 'moderately more' work added to their daily duties. Their biggest concerns included the uncertainties under a rapidly changing landscape, PPE availability, and the community's compliance. CONCLUSION: Harmonised information, specific COVID-19 training and education, and adequate support for front-line workers are key to successfully managing COVID-19 and other future outbreaks.

Environmental hygiene, knowledge and cleaning practice: a phenomenological study of nurses and midwives during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Environmental cleanliness is a fundamental tenet in nursing and midwifery but often overshadowed in practice. This study explored nurses' and midwives' knowledge and experiences of infection prevention and control (IPC) processes and cleaning, and perceptions about workplace risk-management during COVID-19. METHODS: Six registered and enrolled nurses (one with dual midwife qualifications) were recruited. In-depth telephone interviews were analyzed using Colaizzi's phenomenological method. RESULTS: Four major themes were identified: Striving towards environmental cleanliness; Knowledge and learning feeds good practice; There's always doubt in the back of your mind; and COVID has cracked it wide open. These articulate the nurses' and midwives' experiences and knowledge of IPC, particularly during COVID-19. DISCUSSION: The findings emphasize the dynamic, interdependent nature of clinical (time, staff knowledge and compliance, work processes, hospital design) and organizational contexts and environmental cleanliness, which must be constantly maintained. COVID-19 opened up critical insights regarding poor past practices and lack of IPC compliance. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 has highlighted the criticality of environmental cleanliness within clinical and community settings. Evidence-based, experiential learning is important for nurses and midwives at all career stages, but provides only one solution. Clinician-led hospital design may also reduce the spread of infection; thus, promoting better patient care.

Nurses' and midwives' cleaning knowledge, attitudes and practices: An Australian study.

BACKGROUND: As frontline providers of care, nurses and midwives play a critical role in controlling infections such as COVID-19, influenza, multi-drug resistant organisms and health care associated infections. Improved cleaning can reduce the incidence of infection and is cost effective but relies on healthcare personnel to correctly apply cleaning measures. As nurses and midwives have the most contact with patients and as an important first step in improving compliance, this study sought to explore nurses' and midwives' knowledge on the role of the environment in infection prevention and control and identify challenges in maintaining clean patient environments. METHODS: Cross-sectional online survey of 96 nurses (RN/EN) and midwives (RW) employed in clinical settings (e.g. hospital, aged care, medical centre, clinic) in Australia. RESULTS: Nurses and midwives broadly stated that they understood the importance of cleaning. However, cleaning responsibilities varied and there was confusion regarding the application of different disinfectants when cleaning after patients with a suspected or diagnosed infection post-discharge. Most would not be confident being placed in a room where a previous patient had a diagnosed infection such as multi-drug resistant organism. CONCLUSION: Greater organisational support and improving applied knowledge about infection control procedures is needed. This includes correct use of disinfectants, which disinfectant to use for various situations, and cleaning effectively following discharge of a patient with known infection. The cleanliness of shared medical equipment may also pose current risk due to lack of cleaning.