How to improve hospital admission screening for patients at risk of multidrug-resistant organism carriage: a before-and-after interventional study and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Infection prevention and control (IPC) is a prioritised task for healthcare workers in emergency department (ED). Here, we examined compliance with admission screening (AS) and additional precautions (AP) measures for patients at risk of infection with multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) by using a two-stage, multifaceted educational intervention, also comparing the cost of a developed automated indicator for AS and AP compliance and clinical audits to sustain observed findings. METHODS: In the first stage, staff in the ED of the University Hospitals of Geneva, Switzerland, were briefed on IPC measures (AS and AP). A cross-sectional survey was then conducted to assess barriers to IPC measures. In the second stage, healthcare workers underwent training sessions, and an electronic patient record 'order-set' including AS and AP compliance indicators was designed. We compared the cost-benefit of the audits and the automated indicators for AS and AP compliance. RESULTS: Compliance significantly improved after training, from 36.2% (95% CI 23.6% to 48.8%) to 78.8% (95% CI 67.1% to 90.3%) for AS (n=100, p=0.0050) and from 50.2% (95% CI 45.3% to 55.1%) to 68.5% (95% CI 60.1% to 76.9%) for AP (n=125, p=0.0092). Healthcare workers recognised MDRO screening as an ED task (70.2%), with greater acknowledgment of risk factors at AS considered an ED duty. The monthly cost was higher for clinical audits than the automated indicator, with a reported yearly cost of US$120 203. The initial cost of developing the automated indicator was US$18 290 and its return on investment US$3.44 per US$1 invested. CONCLUSION: Training ED staff increased compliance with IPC measures when accompanied by team discussions for optimal effectiveness. An automated indicator of compliance is cheaper and closer to real-time than a clinical audit.

Effects of a pressure-ulcer audit and feedback regional programme at 1 and 2 years in nursing homes: A prospective longitudinal study.

INTRODUCTION: Pressure ulcer is a frequent complication in patients hospitalized in nursing homes and has a serious impact on quality of life and overall health. Moreover, ulcer treatment is highly expensive. Several studies have shown that pressure ulcer prevention is cost-effective. Audit and feedback programmes can help improve professional practices in pressure ulcer prevention and thus reduce their occurrence. The aim of this study was to analyze, with a prospective longitudinal study, the effectiveness of an audit and feedback programme at 1- and 2-year follow-up for reducing pressure ulcer prevalence and enhancing adherence to preventive practices in nursing homes. METHODS: Pressure ulcer point prevalence and preventive practices were measured in 2015, 2016 and 2017 in nursing homes of the Canton of Geneva (Switzerland). Oral and written feedback was provided 2 months after every survey to nursing home reference nurses. RESULTS: A total of 27 nursing homes participated in the programme in 2015 and 2016 (4607 patients) and 15 continued in 2017 (1357 patients). Patients were mostly females, with mean age > 86 years and median length of stay about 2 years. The programme significantly improved two preventive measures: patient repositioning and anti-decubitus bed or mattress. It also reduced acquired pressure ulcers prevalence in nursing homes that participated during all 3 years (from 4.5% in 2015 to 2.9% in 2017, p 0.035), especially in those with more patients with pressure ulcers. CONCLUSION: Audit and feedback is relatively easy to implement at the regional level in nursing homes and can enhance adherence to preventive measures and reduce pressure ulcers prevalence in the homes.

Is the Surgical Safety Checklist successfully conducted? An observational study of social interactions in the operating rooms of a tertiary hospital.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the items on the Time Out and the Sign Out of the Surgical Safety Checklist are properly checked by operating room (OR) staff and to explore whether the number of checked items is influenced by the severity of the intervention and the use of the checklist as a memory tool during the Time Out and the Sign Out periods. METHODS: From March to July 2010, data were collected during elective surgery at the Geneva University Hospitals, Switzerland. The main outcome was to assess whether each item of the Time Out and the Sign Out checklists have been checked, that is, 'confirmed' by at least one member of the team and 'validated' by at least one other member of the team. The secondary outcome was the number of validated items during the Time Out and the Sign Out. RESULTS: Time Outs (N=80) and Sign Outs (N=81) were conducted quasi systematically (99%). Items were mostly confirmed during the Time Out (range 100-72%) but less often during the Sign Out (range 86-19%). Validation of the items was far from optimal: only 13% of Time Outs and 3% of Sign Outs were properly checked (all items validated). During the Time Out, the validation process was significantly improved among the highest risk interventions (29% validation vs 15% among interventions at lower risk). During the Sign Out, a similar effect was observed (19% and 8%, respectively). A small but significant benefit was observed when using a printed checklist as a memory tool during the Sign Out, the proportion of interventions with almost all validated items being higher compared with those without the memory tool (20% and 0%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Training on the proper completion of the checklist must be provided to OR teams. The severity of the interventions influenced the number of items properly checked.