A new method for near real-time, nationwide surveillance of nosocomial COVID-19 in Norway: providing data at all levels of the healthcare system, March 2020 to March 2022.

BackgroundGreat efforts have been made to minimise spread and prevent outbreaks of COVID-19 in hospitals. However, there is uncertainty in identifying nosocomial vs community-acquired infections. To minimise risks and evaluate measures, timely data on infection risk in healthcare institutions are required.AimsTo design an automated nationwide surveillance system for nosocomial COVID-19 using existing data to analyse the impact of community infection rates on nosocomial infections, to explore how changes in case definitions influence incidence and to identify patients and wards at highest risk and effects of SARS-CoV-2 variants.MethodsWe used data from the Norwegian real-time emergency preparedness register (Beredt C19), which includes all patients nationwide admitted to Norwegian hospitals between March 2020 and March 2022 with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test during their hospital stay or within 7 days post-discharge. COVID-19 cases were assigned to categories depending on the time between admission and testing.ResultsInfection rates for definite/probable nosocomial COVID-19 increased from 0.081% in year 1 to 0.50% in year 2 in hospital admissions 7 days or longer. Varying the definitions resulted in large changes in registered nosocomial infections. Infection rates were similar across different ward types. By 2022, 58% of patients with a definite/probable nosocomial infection had received three vaccine doses.ConclusionAutomated national surveillance for nosocomial COVID-19 is possible based on existing data sources. Beredt C19 provided detailed information with only 5% missing data on hospitals/wards. Epidemiological definitions are possible to standardise, enabling easier comparison between regions and countries.

Probabilistic microsimulation to examine the cost-effectiveness of hospital admission screening strategies for carbapenemase-producing enterobacteriaceae (CPE) in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance has been recognised as a global threat with carbapenemase- producing-Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) as a prime example. CPE has similarities to COVID-19 where asymptomatic patients may be colonised representing a source for onward transmission. There are limited treatment options for CPE infection leading to poor outcomes and increased costs. Admission screening can prevent cross-transmission by pre-emptively isolating colonised patients. OBJECTIVE: We assess the relative cost-effectiveness of screening programmes compared with no- screening. METHODS: A microsimulation parameterised with NHS Scotland date was used to model scenarios of the prevalence of CPE colonised patients on admission. Screening strategies were (a) two-step screening involving a clinical risk assessment (CRA) checklist followed by microbiological testing of high-risk patients; and (b) universal screening. Strategies were considered with either culture or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. All costs were reported in 2019 UK pounds with a healthcare system perspective. RESULTS: In the low prevalence scenario, no screening had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness. Among screening strategies, the two CRA screening options were the most likely to be cost-effective. Screening was more likely to be cost-effective than no screening in the prevalence of 1 CPE colonised in 500 admitted patients or more. There was substantial uncertainty with the probabilities rarely exceeding 40% and similar results between strategies. Screening reduced non-isolated bed-days and CPE colonisation. The cost of screening was low in relation to total costs. CONCLUSION: The specificity of the CRA checklist was the parameter with the highest impact on the cost-effectiveness. Further primary data collection is needed to build models with less uncertainty in the parameters.

Knowledge and Attitudes about Antibiotics and Antibiotic Resistance of 2404 UK Healthcare Workers.

BACKGROUND: Using the COM-B model as a framework, an EU-wide survey aimed to ascertain multidisciplinary healthcare workers' (HCWs') knowledge, attitudes and behaviours towards antibiotics, antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance. The UK findings are presented here. METHODS: A 43-item questionnaire was developed through a two-round modified Delphi consensus process. The UK target quota was 1315 respondents. RESULTS: In total, 2404 participants responded. The highest proportion were nursing and midwifery professionals (42%), pharmacists (23%) and medical doctors (18%). HCWs correctly answered that antibiotics are not effective against viruses (97%), they have associated side effects (97%), unnecessary use makes antibiotics ineffective (97%) and healthy people can carry antibiotic-resistant bacteria (90%). However, fewer than 80% correctly answered that using antibiotics increases a patient's risk of antimicrobial resistant infection or that resistant bacteria can spread from person to person. Whilst the majority of HCWs (81%) agreed there is a connection between their antibiotic prescribing behaviour and the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, only 64% felt that they have a key role in controlling antibiotic resistance. The top three barriers to providing advice or resources were lack of resources (19%), insufficient time (11%) and the patient being uninterested in the information (7%). Approximately 35% of UK respondents who were prescribers prescribed an antibiotic at least once in the previous week to responding to the survey due to a fear of patient deterioration or complications. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight that a multifaceted approach to tackling the barriers to prudent antibiotic use in the UK is required and provides evidence for guiding targeted policy, intervention development and future research. Education and training should focus on patient communication, information on spreading resistant bacteria and increased risk for individuals.

The effectiveness of hand hygiene interventions for preventing community transmission or acquisition of novel coronavirus or influenza infections: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Novel coronaviruses and influenza can cause infection, epidemics, and pandemics. Improving hand hygiene (HH) of the general public is recommended for preventing these infections. This systematic review examined the effectiveness of HH interventions for preventing transmission or acquisition of such infections in the community. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL and Web of Science databases were searched (January 2002-February 2022) for empirical studies related to HH in the general public and to the acquisition or transmission of novel coronavirus infections or influenza. Studies on healthcare staff, and with outcomes of compliance or absenteeism were excluded. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment, using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care risk of bias criteria or Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal checklists, were conducted by one reviewer, and double-checked by another. For intervention studies, effect estimates were calculated while the remaining studies were synthesised narratively. The protocol was pre-registered (PROSPERO 2020: CRD42020196525). RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included. Six were intervention studies evaluating the effectiveness of HH education and provision of products, or hand washing against influenza. Only two school-based interventions showed a significant protective effect (OR: 0.64; 95% CI 0.51, 0.80 and OR: 0.40; 95% CI 0.22, 0.71), with risk of bias being high (n = 1) and unclear (n = 1). Of the 16 non-intervention studies, 13 reported the protective effect of HH against influenza, SARS or COVID-19 (P < 0.05), but risk of bias was high (n = 7), unclear (n = 5) or low (n = 1). However, evidence in relation to when, and how frequently HH should be performed was inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of effectiveness of HH for prevention of community transmission or acquisition of respiratory viruses that have caused epidemics or pandemics, including SARS-CoV-1, SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses. The evidence supporting the protective effect of HH was heterogeneous and limited by methodological quality; thus, insufficient to recommend changes to current HH guidelines. Future work is required to identify in what circumstances, how frequently and what product should be used when performing HH in the community and to develop effective interventions for promoting these specific behaviours in communities during epidemics.