Nasal Iodophor Antiseptic vs Nasal Mupirocin Antibiotic in the Setting of Chlorhexidine Bathing to Prevent Infections in Adult ICUs: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Universal nasal mupirocin plus chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) bathing in intensive care units (ICUs) prevents methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections and all-cause bloodstream infections. Antibiotic resistance to mupirocin has raised questions about whether an antiseptic could be advantageous for ICU decolonization. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of iodophor vs mupirocin for universal ICU nasal decolonization in combination with CHG bathing. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two-group noninferiority, pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial conducted in US community hospitals, all of which used mupirocin-CHG for universal decolonization in ICUs at baseline. Adult ICU patients in 137 randomized hospitals during baseline (May 1, 2015-April 30, 2017) and intervention (November 1, 2017-April 30, 2019) were included. Intervention: Universal decolonization involving switching to iodophor-CHG (intervention) or continuing mupirocin-CHG (baseline). Main Outcomes and Measures: ICU-attributable S aureus clinical cultures (primary outcome), MRSA clinical cultures, and all-cause bloodstream infections were evaluated using proportional hazard models to assess differences from baseline to intervention periods between the strategies. Results were also compared with a 2009-2011 trial of mupirocin-CHG vs no decolonization in the same hospital network. The prespecified noninferiority margin for the primary outcome was 10%. Results: Among the 801 668 admissions in 233 ICUs, the participants' mean (SD) age was 63.4 (17.2) years, 46.3% were female, and the mean (SD) ICU length of stay was 4.8 (4.7) days. Hazard ratios (HRs) for S aureus clinical isolates in the intervention vs baseline periods were 1.17 for iodophor-CHG (raw rate: 5.0 vs 4.3/1000 ICU-attributable days) and 0.99 for mupirocin-CHG (raw rate: 4.1 vs 4.0/1000 ICU-attributable days) (HR difference in differences significantly lower by 18.4% [95% CI, 10.7%-26.6%] for mupirocin-CHG, P < .001). For MRSA clinical cultures, HRs were 1.13 for iodophor-CHG (raw rate: 2.3 vs 2.1/1000 ICU-attributable days) and 0.99 for mupirocin-CHG (raw rate: 2.0 vs 2.0/1000 ICU-attributable days) (HR difference in differences significantly lower by 14.1% [95% CI, 3.7%-25.5%] for mupirocin-CHG, P = .007). For all-pathogen bloodstream infections, HRs were 1.00 (2.7 vs 2.7/1000) for iodophor-CHG and 1.01 (2.6 vs 2.6/1000) for mupirocin-CHG (nonsignificant HR difference in differences, -0.9% [95% CI, -9.0% to 8.0%]; P = .84). Compared with the 2009-2011 trial, the 30-day relative reduction in hazards in the mupirocin-CHG group relative to no decolonization (2009-2011 trial) were as follows: S aureus clinical cultures (current trial: 48.1% [95% CI, 35.6%-60.1%]; 2009-2011 trial: 58.8% [95% CI, 47.5%-70.7%]) and bloodstream infection rates (current trial: 70.4% [95% CI, 62.9%-77.8%]; 2009-2011 trial: 60.1% [95% CI, 49.1%-70.7%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Nasal iodophor antiseptic did not meet criteria to be considered noninferior to nasal mupirocin antibiotic for the outcome of S aureus clinical cultures in adult ICU patients in the context of daily CHG bathing. In addition, the results were consistent with nasal iodophor being inferior to nasal mupirocin. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03140423.

A bundled approach to reduce methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in a system of community hospitals.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections pose a significant challenge to U.S. healthcare facilities, but there has been limited study of initiatives to reduce infection and increase patient safety in community hospitals. To address this need, a multifaceted program for MRSA infection prevention was developed for implementation in 159 acute care facilities. This program featured five distinct tools-active MRSA surveillance of high-risk patients, enhanced barrier precautions, compulsive hand hygiene, disinfection and cleaning, and executive champions and patient empowerment-and was implemented during 1Q-2Q 2007. Postintervention (3Q 2007-2Q 2008), 10.2% of patients with high-risk for infection or complications due to MRSA had nasal colonization. Volume of disposable gown and alcohol-based hand sanitizer use increased substantially following program implementation. Self-reported rates, based on NHSN definitions, of healthcare-associated central line-associated bloodstream infections and ventilator-associated pneumonia due to MRSA decreased 39% (p < .001) and 54% (p < .001), respectively. Infection rates continued to decrease during the follow-up period (1Q-4Q 2009). This sustained improvement demonstrates that reducing healthcare-associated MRSA infections in a large number of diverse facilities is possible and that a "bundled" approach that translates science into clinical and executive performance expectations may aid in overcoming traditional barriers to implementation.

Developing a program to increase seasonal influenza vaccination of healthcare workers: lessons from a system of community hospitals.

Patient safety is positively influenced by widespread seasonal influenza vaccination of healthcare workers, but yearly vaccination rates have been unacceptably low. As a result, mandatory vaccination programs have been widely discussed as a means of increasing vaccination rates. In the HCA Inc. healthcare system, the multifaceted Influenza Patient Safety Program was designed to encourage the vaccination of over 160,000 employees across the United States. This program included human resources policies, various patient safety strategies, and a vaccination policy featuring the choice of free seasonal influenza vaccination or wearing a mask. With 100% compliance with the policy, the vaccination rate increased from a mean of 58% to over 90% for three consecutive influenza seasons. As healthcare worker vaccination is part of a larger culture of accountability related to quality and infection prevention, this program was resource intense, required a multidisciplinary approach, and was not without challenges to implementation. Essential components included steadfast leadership support, continuous education and communication efforts, and consistent data collection and feedback. This manuscript describes the approach and processes used in this program as well as lessons learned over three seasons in order to aid other providers in developing patient safety programs that include influenza vaccination for healthcare workers.