Effective infection prevention and control measures in long-term care facilities in non-outbreak and outbreak settings: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare-associated infections in long-term care are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. While infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines are well-defined in the acute care setting, evidence of effectiveness for long-term care facilities (LTCF) is missing. We therefore performed a systematic literature review to examine the effect of IPC measures in the long-term care setting. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed and Cochrane libraries for articles evaluating the effect of IPC measures in the LTCF setting since 2017, as earlier reviews on this topic covered the timeframe up to this date. Cross-referenced studies from identified articles and from mentioned earlier reviews were also evaluated. We included randomized-controlled trials, quasi-experimental, observational studies, and outbreak reports. The included studies were analyzed regarding study design, type of intervention, description of intervention, outcomes and quality. We distinguished between non-outbreak and outbreak settings. RESULTS: We included 74 studies, 34 (46%) in the non-outbreak setting and 40 (54%) in the outbreak setting. The most commonly studied interventions in the non-outbreak setting included the effect of hand hygiene (N = 10), oral hygiene (N = 6), antimicrobial stewardship (N = 4), vaccination of residents (N = 3), education (N = 2) as well as IPC bundles (N = 7). All but one study assessing hand hygiene interventions reported a reduction of infection rates. Further successful interventions were oral hygiene (N = 6) and vaccination of residents (N = 3). In outbreak settings, studies mostly focused on the effects of IPC bundles (N = 24) or mass testing (N = 11). In most of the studies evaluating an IPC bundle, containment of the outbreak was reported. Overall, only four articles (5.4%) were rated as high quality. CONCLUSION: In the non-outbreak setting in LTCF, especially hand hygiene and oral hygiene have a beneficial effect on infection rates. In contrast, IPC bundles, as well as mass testing seem to be promising in an outbreak setting.

Comparison between fish and linseed oils administered orally for the treatment of experimentally induced keratoconjunctivitis sicca in rabbits.

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of two sources of omega 3 and 6, fish oil (FO) and linseed oil (LO), orally administered, alone or in combination, for treating experimentally induced keratoconjunctivitis sicca (KCS) in rabbits. Twenty-eight New Zealand rabbits were used in this study. Seven animals were allocated to the C group (negative control), and KCS was induced in 21 animals by topically applying 1% atropine sulfate drops for 7 days. Treatment with atropine was maintained throughout the study period (12 weeks). The rabbits were divided into 3 treatment groups containing 7 animals each: FO group, LO group and FLO group (FO and LO). The animals were evaluated using the Schirmer Tear Test I (STT I), Rose Bengal Test (RBT), fluorescein test (FT), tear film break-up time (TBUT), and conjunctival and histopathological analysis. There was a significant increase in STT I and TBUT values in treatment groups, but the increase occurred earlier in the FO group. The results of the RBT and FT were similar among treatment groups, except FT, in the FLO group, negative staining was only in 12 weeks. There was a significant decrease in the number of goblet cells in the FLO group compared with the other groups. The results demonstrated that orally administered of FO and LO improved the clinical signs of KCS. However, improvement occurred earlier in the FO group. Using oils in combination did not provide additional benefits. These results contribute to the future development of new oral formulations as adjuvant therapies for KCS.