Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros












Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
NEJM Evid ; 3(5): EVIDoa2300342, 2024 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38815164

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Detection and containment of hospital outbreaks currently depend on variable and personnel-intensive surveillance methods. Whether automated statistical surveillance for outbreaks of health care-associated pathogens allows earlier containment efforts that would reduce the size of outbreaks is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized trial in 82 community hospitals within a larger health care system. All hospitals followed an outbreak response protocol when outbreaks were detected by their infection prevention programs. Half of the hospitals additionally used statistical surveillance of microbiology data, which alerted infection prevention programs to outbreaks. Statistical surveillance was also applied to microbiology data from control hospitals without alerting their infection prevention programs. The primary outcome was the number of additional cases occurring after outbreak detection. Analyses assessed differences between the intervention period (July 2019 to January 2022) versus baseline period (February 2017 to January 2019) between randomized groups. A post hoc analysis separately assessed pre-coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and Covid-19 pandemic intervention periods. RESULTS: Real-time alerts did not significantly reduce the number of additional outbreak cases (intervention period versus baseline: statistical surveillance relative rate [RR]=1.41, control RR=1.81; difference-in-differences, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 1.52; P=0.46). Comparing only the prepandemic intervention with baseline periods, the statistical outbreak surveillance group was associated with a 64.1% reduction in additional cases (statistical surveillance RR=0.78, control RR=2.19; difference-in-differences, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.99). There was no similarly observed association between the pandemic versus baseline periods (statistical surveillance RR=1.56, control RR=1.66; difference-in-differences, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.46 to 1.92). CONCLUSIONS: Automated detection of hospital outbreaks using statistical surveillance did not reduce overall outbreak size in the context of an ongoing pandemic. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04053075. Support for HCA Healthcare's participation in the study was provided in kind by HCA.).


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Infección Hospitalaria , Brotes de Enfermedades , Humanos , Brotes de Enfermedades/prevención & control , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Infección Hospitalaria/epidemiología , Infección Hospitalaria/prevención & control , Control de Infecciones/métodos , SARS-CoV-2 , Hospitales Comunitarios
2.
Clin Infect Dis ; 69(9): 1566-1573, 2019 10 15.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30753383

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) spread between hospitals, nursing homes (NHs), and long-term acute care facilities (LTACs) via patient transfers. The Shared Healthcare Intervention to Eliminate Life-threatening Dissemination of MDROs in Orange County is a regional public health collaborative involving decolonization at 38 healthcare facilities selected based on their high degree of patient sharing. We report baseline MDRO prevalence in 21 NHs/LTACs. METHODS: A random sample of 50 adults for 21 NHs/LTACs (18 NHs, 3 LTACs) were screened for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. (VRE), extended-spectrum ß-lactamase-producing organisms (ESBL), and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) using nares, skin (axilla/groin), and peri-rectal swabs. Facility and resident characteristics associated with MDRO carriage were assessed using multivariable models clustering by person and facility. RESULTS: Prevalence of MDROs was 65% in NHs and 80% in LTACs. The most common MDROs in NHs were MRSA (42%) and ESBL (34%); in LTACs they were VRE (55%) and ESBL (38%). CRE prevalence was higher in facilities that manage ventilated LTAC patients and NH residents (8% vs <1%, P < .001). MDRO status was known for 18% of NH residents and 49% of LTAC patients. MDRO-colonized adults commonly harbored additional MDROs (54% MDRO+ NH residents and 62% MDRO+ LTACs patients). History of MRSA (odds ratio [OR] = 1.7; confidence interval [CI]: 1.2, 2.4; P = .004), VRE (OR = 2.1; CI: 1.2, 3.8; P = .01), ESBL (OR = 1.6; CI: 1.1, 2.3; P = .03), and diabetes (OR = 1.3; CI: 1.0, 1.7; P = .03) were associated with any MDRO carriage. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of NH residents and LTAC patients harbor MDROs. MDRO status is frequently unknown to the facility. The high MDRO prevalence highlights the need for prevention efforts in NHs/LTACs as part of regional efforts to control MDRO spread.


Asunto(s)
Cuidados a Largo Plazo/estadística & datos numéricos , Casas de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , California/epidemiología , Enterobacteriaceae Resistentes a los Carbapenémicos/patogenicidad , Clorhexidina/uso terapéutico , Farmacorresistencia Bacteriana Múltiple , Infecciones por Enterobacteriaceae/epidemiología , Humanos , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente a Meticilina/patogenicidad , Prevalencia , Salud Pública , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/epidemiología , Enterococos Resistentes a la Vancomicina/patogenicidad
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...