ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE To study the association between gastrointestinal colonization of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). METHODS We analyzed 31,526 patients with prospective collection of fecal specimens for CPE screening: upon admission (targeted screening) and during hospitalization (opportunistic screening, safety net screening, and extensive contact tracing), in our healthcare network with 3,200 beds from July 1, 2011, through December 31, 2015. Specimens were collected at least once weekly during hospitalization for CPE carriers and subjected to broth enrichment culture and multiplex polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS Of 66,672 fecal specimens collected, 345 specimens (0.5%) from 100 patients (0.3%) had CPE. The number and prevalence (per 100,000 patient-days) of CPE increased from 2 (0.3) in 2012 to 63 (8.0) in 2015 (P<.001). Male sex (odds ratio, 1.91 [95% CI, 1.15-3.18], P=.013), presence of wound or drain (3.12 [1.70-5.71], P<.001), and use of cephalosporins (3.06 [1.42-6.59], P=.004), carbapenems (2.21 [1.10-4.48], P=.027), and PPIs (2.84 [1.72-4.71], P<.001) in the preceding 6 months were significant risk factors by multivariable analysis. Of 79 patients with serial fecal specimens, spontaneous clearance of CPE was noted in 57 (72.2%), with a median (range) of 30 (3-411) days. Comparing patients without use of antibiotics and PPIs, consumption of both antibiotics and PPIs after CPE identification was associated with later clearance of CPE (hazard ratio, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.17-0.73], P=.005). CONCLUSIONS Concomitant use of antibiotics and PPIs prolonged duration of gastrointestinal colonization by CPE. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;1418-1425.
Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/microbiology , Enterobacteriaceae Infections/epidemiology , Proton Pump Inhibitors/adverse effects , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae/isolation & purification , Child , Child, Preschool , Feces/microbiology , Female , Hong Kong/epidemiology , Hospitalization , Humans , Infant , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Proton Pump Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Risk Factors , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The importance of compliance with hand hygiene by patients is increasingly recognized to prevent health care-associated infections. METHODS: This descriptive study observed the effects of an education campaign, targeted to increase patients' self-initiated hand hygiene, and a hand hygiene ambassador-initiated directly observed hand hygiene program on patients' hand hygiene compliance in a university-affiliated hospital. RESULTS: The overall audited compliance of patients' self-initiated hand hygiene was only 37.5%, with a rate of 26.9% (112/416 episodes) before meals and medications, 27.5% (19/69 episodes) after using a urinal or bedpan, and 89.7% (87/97 episodes) after attending toilet facilities. Patients referred from a residential care home for older adults had significantly lower hand hygiene compliance (P = .007). Comparatively, the overall audited compliance of ambassador-initiated directly observed hand hygiene was 97.3% (428/440 episodes), which was significantly higher than patients' self-initiated hand hygiene via a patient education program (37.5%, 218/582 episodes, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Directly observed hand hygiene can play an important role in improving compliance with hand hygiene by hospitalized patients.
Subject(s)
Behavior Observation Techniques/methods , Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Hand Hygiene/methods , Patient Compliance , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Female , Hong Kong , Hospitals, University , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Hospital outbreaks of epidemiologically important pathogens are usually caused by lapses in infection control measures and result in increased morbidity, mortality, and cost. However, there is no benchmark to compare the occurrence of hospital outbreaks across hospitals. METHODS: We implemented proactive infection control measures with an emphasis on timely education of health care workers and hospitalized patients at Queen Mary Hospital, a teaching hospital. Our benchmarked performance (outbreak episodes per 1 million patient discharges and 1 million patient-days) was compared with those of other regional public hospitals without these additional proactive measures in place between 2010 and 2014. RESULTS: During the study period, Queen Mary Hospital had 1 hospital outbreak resulting in 1.48 and 0.45 outbreak episodes per 1 million patient discharges and patient-days, respectively, values significantly lower than the corresponding overall rates in the 7 acute regional hospitals (24.26 and 6.70 outbreak episodes per 1 million patient discharges and patient-days, respectively; P < .001) and that of all 42 public hospitals in Hong Kong (41.62 and 8.65 outbreak episodes per 1 million patient discharges and patient-days, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this large study on benchmarked rate of hospital outbreaks per patient discharges or patient-days suggests that proactive infection control interventions may minimize the risk of hospital outbreaks.