Barriers and bridges to infection prevention and control: results of a qualitative case study of a Netherlands' surgical unit.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the study are to observe the overall work environment including infection prevention and control (IP&C) practices on the target surgical unit; to analyse the policies and procedures in the hospital and unit environments; to analyse the barriers and bridges to IP&C that practitioners identify in visual narratives of their unit environment and to collect monthly specific IP&C-related anonymised data. DESIGN: In this qualitative case study analysis, a socio-ecological approach on health systems informed the research design and provided a framework to better understand the complexity of implementing effective IP&C. SETTING: The study was conducted on a surgical unit at a Netherlands' hospital that reported successful reductions in the prevalence of targeted multidrug-resistant organisms. METHODS: Research methods included unit observations (n=3), review of relevant policies and procedures, five practitioner-led photo walkabouts of the unit (n=7), three photo elicitation focus groups with practitioners (n=13) and the review of related IP&C data. RESULTS: The findings indicate some conditions and processes present that may influence the low prevalence of multidrug-resistant organisms, including the 'search and destroy' active surveillance strategy, low occupancy rates, a centralised bed cleaning system and the presence of an active grass roots Hygiene in Practice group, which engages practitioners in several ongoing activities to promote IP&C on the units. CONCLUSIONS: Further research on the benefits of practitioner-led community of practices on IP&C practices such as the Hygiene in Practice group is also recommended. Additional case studies to compare theses practices with other acute care hospital around the world would be a valuable way to better understand what IP&C programmes are most effective in which contexts and for what reasons. Further data are available by contacting the primary author directly.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carriage among patients after hospital discharge.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: At the University Medical Center Utrecht (UMCU), follow-up implies an inventory of risk factors and screening for MRSA colonization among all MRSA-positive patients for at least 6 months. If risk factors or positive cultures persist or re-emerge, longer follow-up is indicated and isolation at readmission. This study investigated how long MRSA-positive patients remained colonized after hospital discharge and which risk factors were important. Furthermore, the results of eradication therapy were evaluated. DESIGN: All patients who were positive for MRSA at the UMCU between January 1991 and January 2001 were analyzed regarding carriage state, presence of risk factors for prolonged carriage of Staphylococcus aureus, and eradication treatment. RESULTS: A total of 135 patients were included in the study. The median follow-up time was 1.2 years. Eighteen percent of the patients were dismissed from follow-up 1 year after discharge. Only 5 patients were dismissed after 6 months. Among patients with no risk factors, eradication treatment was effective for 95% within 1 year. Among patients with persistent risk factors, treatment was effective for 89% within 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings, eradication therapy should be prescribed for all MRSA carriers, independent of the presence of risk factors. MRSA-positive patients should be evaluated for 6 months for the presence of risk factors and MRSA carriage. Screening for risk factors is important because intermittent MRSA carriage was found in a significant number of our patients. Patients with negative MRSA cultures and without risk factors for 12 months can be safely dismissed from follow-up.

Role of healthcare workers in outbreaks of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a 10-year evaluation from a Dutch university hospital.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The benefit of screening healthcare workers (HCWs) at risk for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) carriage and furloughing MRSA-positive HCWs to prevent spread to patients is controversial. We evaluated our MRSA program for HCWs between 1992 and 2002. SETTING: A university medical center in The Netherlands, where methicillin resistance has been kept below 0.5% of all nosocomial S. aureus infections using active surveillance cultures and isolation of colonized patients. DESIGN: HCWs caring for MRSA-positive patients or patients in foreign hospitals were screened for MRSA. MRSA-positive HCWs had additional cultures, temporary exclusion from patient-related work, assessment of risk factors for persisting carriage, decolonization therapy with mupirocin intranasally and chlorhexidine baths for skin and hair, and follow-up cultures. RESULTS: Fifty-nine HCWs were colonized with MRSA. Seven of 840 screened employees contracted MRSA in foreign hospitals; 36 acquired MRSA after contact with MRSA-positive patients despite isolation precautions (attack rate per outbreak varied from less than 1% to 15%). Our hospital experienced 17 MRSA outbreaks, including 13 episodes in which HCWs were involved. HCWs were index cases of at least 4 outbreaks. In 8 outbreaks, HCWs acquired MRSA after caring for MRSA-positive patients despite isolation precautions. CONCLUSION: Postexposure screening of HCWs allowed early detection of MRSA carriage and prevention of subsequent transmission to patients. Where the MRSA prevalence is higher, the role of HCWs may be greater. In such settings, an adapted version of our program could help prevent dissemination.

Surveillance for hospital-acquired infections on surgical wards in a Dutch university hospital.

OBJECTIVES: To determine incidence rates of hospital-acquired infections and to develop preventive measures to reduce the risk of hospital-acquired infections. METHODS: Prospective surveillance for hospital-acquired infections was performed during a 5-year period in the wards housing general and vascular, thoracic, orthopedic, and general gynecologic and gynecologic-oncologic surgery of the University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands. Data were collected from patients with and without infections, using criteria of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. RESULTS: The infection control team recorded 648 hospital-acquired infections affecting 550 (14%) of 3,845 patients. The incidence density was 17.8 per 1,000 patient-days. Patients with hospital-acquired infections were hospitalized for 19.8 days versus 7.7 days for patients without hospital-acquired infections. Prolongation of stay among patients with hospital-acquired infections may have resulted in 664 fewer admissions due to unavailable beds. Different specialties were associated with different infection rates at different sites, requiring a tailor-made approach. Interventions were recommended for respiratory tract infections in the thoracic surgery ward and for surgical-site infections in the orthopedic and gynecologic surgery wards. CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance in four surgical wards showed that each had its own prominent infection, risk factors, and indications for specific recommendations. Because prospective surveillance requires extensive resources, we considered a modified approach based on a half-yearly point-prevalence survey of hospital-acquired infections in all wards of our hospital. Such surveillance can be extended with procedure-specific prospective surveillance when indicated.