Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
N Engl J Med ; 389(19): 1766-1777, 2023 Nov 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37815935

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Nursing home residents are at high risk for infection, hospitalization, and colonization with multidrug-resistant organisms. METHODS: We performed a cluster-randomized trial of universal decolonization as compared with routine-care bathing in nursing homes. The trial included an 18-month baseline period and an 18-month intervention period. Decolonization entailed the use of chlorhexidine for all routine bathing and showering and administration of nasal povidone-iodine twice daily for the first 5 days after admission and then twice daily for 5 days every other week. The primary outcome was transfer to a hospital due to infection. The secondary outcome was transfer to a hospital for any reason. An intention-to-treat (as-assigned) difference-in-differences analysis was performed for each outcome with the use of generalized linear mixed models to compare the intervention period with the baseline period across trial groups. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 28 nursing homes with a total of 28,956 residents. Among the transfers to a hospital in the routine-care group, 62.2% (the mean across facilities) were due to infection during the baseline period and 62.6% were due to infection during the intervention period (risk ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96 to 1.04). The corresponding values in the decolonization group were 62.9% and 52.2% (risk ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.88), for a difference in risk ratio, as compared with routine care, of 16.6% (95% CI, 11.0 to 21.8; P<0.001). Among the discharges from the nursing home in the routine-care group, transfer to a hospital for any reason accounted for 36.6% during the baseline period and for 39.2% during the intervention period (risk ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.12). The corresponding values in the decolonization group were 35.5% and 32.4% (risk ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88 to 0.96), for a difference in risk ratio, as compared with routine care, of 14.6% (95% CI, 9.7 to 19.2). The number needed to treat was 9.7 to prevent one infection-related hospitalization and 8.9 to prevent one hospitalization for any reason. CONCLUSIONS: In nursing homes, universal decolonization with chlorhexidine and nasal iodophor led to a significantly lower risk of transfer to a hospital due to infection than routine care. (Funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Protect ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03118232.).


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents, Local , Asymptomatic Infections , Chlorhexidine , Cross Infection , Nursing Homes , Povidone-Iodine , Humans , Administration, Cutaneous , Administration, Intranasal , Anti-Infective Agents, Local/administration & dosage , Anti-Infective Agents, Local/therapeutic use , Baths , Chlorhexidine/administration & dosage , Chlorhexidine/therapeutic use , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Cross Infection/therapy , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Nursing Homes/statistics & numerical data , Patient Transfer/statistics & numerical data , Povidone-Iodine/administration & dosage , Povidone-Iodine/therapeutic use , Skin Care/methods , Asymptomatic Infections/therapy
2.
Milbank Q ; 100(2): 464-491, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35315955

ABSTRACT

Policy Points Clarifications to Senate Bill (SB) 1152 are necessary to address the differences between inpatient and emergency department (ED) discharge processes, determine how frequently an ED must deliver the SB 1152 bundle of services to a single patient, and establish expectations for compliance during off-hours when social services are unavailable. Because homelessness cannot be resolved in a single ED visit, the state should provide funding to support housing-focused case workers that will follow patients experiencing homelessness (PEH) through the transition from temporary shelters to permanent supportive housing. Medi-Cal could fund the delivery of the SB 1152 bundle of services to defray the costs to public hospitals that provide care for high numbers of PEH. California legislators should consider complementary legislation to increase funding for shelters so that sufficient capacity is available to accept PEH from EDs and hospitals, and to fund alternative strategies to prevent poverty and the upstream root causes of homelessness itself. CONTEXT: Prompted by stories of "patient dumping," California enacted Senate Bill (SB) 1152, which mandates that hospitals offer patients experiencing homelessness (PEH) a set of resources at discharge to ensure safety and prevent dumping. METHODS: To evaluate interventions to meet the requirements of SB 1152 across three emergency departments (EDs) of a Los Angeles County public hospital system with a combined annual census of 260,000 visits, we used an explanatory sequential mixed methods approach, focusing first on quantitative evaluation and then using information from qualitative interviews to explain the quantitative findings. FINDINGS: In total, 2.9% (1,515/52,607) of encounters involved PEH. Documentation of compliance with the eight required components of SB 1152 was low, ranging from 9.0% to 33.9%. Twenty-five provider interviews confirmed support for providing assistance to PEH in the ED, but the participants described barriers to compliance, including challenges in implementing universal screening for homelessness, incongruity of the requirements with the ED setting, the complexity of the patients, and the limitations of SB 1152 as a health policy. CONCLUSIONS: Despite operationalizing universal screening for homelessness, we found poor compliance with SB 1152 and identified multiple barriers to implementation.


Subject(s)
Ill-Housed Persons , Emergency Service, Hospital , Hospitals, Public , Housing , Humans , Poverty
3.
J Am Med Dir Assoc ; 21(12): 1937-1943.e2, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32553489

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Determine the prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. (VRE), extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing organisms (ESBLs), and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) among residents and in the environment of nursing homes (NHs). DESIGN: Point prevalence sampling of residents and environmental sampling of high-touch objects in resident rooms and common areas. SETTING: Twenty-eight NHs in Southern California from 2016 to 2017. PARTICIPANTS: NH participants in Project PROTECT, a cluster-randomized trial of enhanced bathing and decolonization vs routine care. METHODS: Fifty residents were randomly sampled per NH. Twenty objects were sampled, including 5 common room objects plus 5 objects in each of 3 rooms (ambulatory, total care, and dementia care residents). RESULTS: A total of 2797 swabs were obtained from 1400 residents in 28 NHs. Median prevalence of multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) carriage per NH was 50% (range: 24%-70%). Median prevalence of specific MDROs were as follows: MRSA, 36% (range: 20%-54%); ESBL, 16% (range: 2%-34%); VRE, 5% (range: 0%-30%); and CRE, 0% (range: 0%-8%). A median of 45% of residents (range: 24%-67%) harbored an MDRO without a known MDRO history. Environmental MDRO contamination was found in 74% of resident rooms and 93% of common areas. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: In more than half of the NHs, more than 50% of residents were colonized with MDROs of clinical and public health significance, most commonly MRSA and ESBL. Additionally, the vast majority of resident rooms and common areas were MDRO contaminated. The unknown submerged portion of the iceberg of MDRO carriers in NHs may warrant changes to infection prevention and control practices, particularly high-fidelity adoption of universal strategies such as hand hygiene, environmental cleaning, and decolonization.


Subject(s)
Cross Infection , Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus , Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci , Cross Infection/drug therapy , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial , Humans , Nursing Homes , Prevalence
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...