Pneumococcal bacteraemia in adults over a 10-year period (2011-2020): a clinical and serotype analysis.

BACKGROUND: Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus) is a human nasopharyngeal tract coloniser responsible for invasive pneumococcal disease, which is largely vaccine preventable. Vaccination is recommended from birth for all, and through adulthood for those with risk conditions. AIMS: To describe the clinical and serotype analysis of pneumococcus bacteraemia over a 10-year period. METHODS: A 10-year (February 2011-December 2020) retrospective review was performed on all adult (age ≥18 years) pneumococcus bacteraemia presenting to the four public hospitals in Western Sydney, Australia. Comorbidities and risk factors were recorded. RESULTS: Three hundred unique episodes of S. pneumoniae bloodstream infection (SPBI) were identified during the study period. The median age for SPBI was 63 years with 31.7% aged 70 years or older. A 94.7% had one or more risks factors for SPBI. Pneumonia was reported in 80% of all SPBI, whereas meningitis was reported in 6% and infective endocarditis in <1%. Asplenia was noted in 2.4%. Seven- and 30-day mortality was 6.6% and 11.9%, with a higher 30-day mortality in those aged ≥70 years (24.4%). The serotype distribution showed 7-valent conjugate vaccine covered 11.0% of all isolates, whereas 13-valent conjugate vaccine (13vPCV) and a 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine (23vPPV) covered 41.7% and 69.0% respectively. Immunisation details were available for 110 individuals, of whom, only 7.3% had received pneumococcal vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with pneumococcal bacteraemia had age- or comorbidity-related risk factors but were not vaccinated. Two-thirds of cases occurred in people aged <70 years. 13vPCV and 23vPPV covered 41.7% and 69.0% of bacteraemic isolates.

Why ethical frameworks fail to deliver in a pandemic: Are proposed alternatives an improvement?

In the past decade, numerous ethical frameworks have been developed to support public health decision-making in challenging areas. Before the COVID-19 pandemic began, members of the authorship team were involved in research programmes, in which the development of ethical frameworks was planned, to guide (a) the use of new technologies for emerging infectious disease surveillance; and (b) the allocation of scarce supplies of pandemic influenza vaccine. However, as the pandemic evolved, significant practical challenges emerged that led to our questioning the value of these frameworks. We now believe that a normative instrument, such as a framework, cannot adequately or reliably provide the ethical guidance that needs to be incorporated into public health decision-making during natural disasters or infectious disease emergencies. Recently it has been suggested that there are potentially more dynamic, flexible, and effective ways to navigate decisions involving complex considerations entailed in policies and practices during a public health emergency. In this paper, we first outline the key functions of a public health ethics framework, before describing why we believe it would not be fit for purpose during a crisis. We end by considering whether proposed alternative methods to promote ethical public health decision-making goals have the potential to meet these objectives.

Experiences of risk in Australian hotel quarantine: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In response to the threat of COVID-19 infection, Australia mandated a 14 day quarantine period in a designated facility for all travellers returning from overseas from late March 2020. These facilities were usually hotels, or hotel-like serviced apartments, and also included a repurposed former mining village in the Northern Territory. This paper aimed to investigate the experiences of risk of people quarantined in designated supervised facilities in Australia, which has not been systematically explored before. METHODS: In this qualitative study semi-structured interviews were conducted with 58 participants quarantined between March 2020 and January 2021. Participants were returned Australian citizens and residents who were required to undergo mandatory supervised quarantine for COVID-19. Interviews were conducted using video teleconferencing (via Zoom), transcribed and coded, then analysed thematically. RESULTS: While participants generally supported the concept of quarantine to protect the Australian public, they were critical of elements of it where they felt exposed to risk (COVID-related or not). They also described instances where infection control within the system seemed inadequate. For some, particularly those quarantined with small children, they reported that the facilities were inadequate or inappropriate for health and wellbeing. Using thematic analysis, three major themes were identified that related to problems in the existing system: perception of being subjected to high risk through lax standards of COVID protection in the quarantine process; risks to the community identified in quarantine; and risk in non-hotel managed quarantine facilities. CONCLUSIONS: There are systemic issues with infection control in hotel quarantine, which can be further undermined by individual non-compliance. Risks to safety for those in quarantine can be reduced, both in terms of infection control within hotel quarantine and, in the case of the Northern Territory facility, timely in-person medical care as needed for non-COVID conditions. Systems of infection control need ongoing review to ensure that people entering quarantine are protected from known risks of infection at every stage. Medical services in quarantine facilities should be examined to ensure timely and appropriate non-COVID medical services are available.

What is needed to sustain improvements in hospital practices post-COVID-19? a qualitative study of interprofessional dissonance in hospital infection prevention and control.

BACKGROUND: Hospital infection prevention and control (IPC) depends on consistent practice to achieve its purpose. Standard precautions are embedded in modern healthcare policies, but not uniformly observed by all clinicians. Well-documented differences in attitudes to IPC, between doctors and nurses, contribute to suboptimal IPC practices and persistence of preventable healthcare-associated infections. The COVID-19 pandemic has seriously affected healthcare professionals' work-practices, lives and health and increased awareness and observance of IPC. Successful transition of health services to a 'post-COVID-19' future, will depend on sustainable integration of lessons learnt into routine practice. METHODS: The aim of this pre-COVID-19 qualitative study was to investigate factors influencing doctors' IPC attitudes and practices, whether they differ from those of nurses and, if so, how this affects interprofessional relationships. We hypothesised that better understanding would guide new strategies to achieve more effective IPC. We interviewed 26 senior clinicians (16 doctors and 10 nurses) from a range of specialties, at a large Australian tertiary hospital. Interview transcripts were reviewed iteratively, and themes identified inductively, using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants from both professions painted clichéd portraits of 'typical' doctors and nurses and recounted unflattering anecdotes of their IPC behaviours. Doctors were described as self-directed and often unaware or disdainful of IPC rules; while nurses were portrayed as slavishly following rules, ostensibly to protect patients, irrespective of risk or evidence. Many participants believed that doctors object to being reminded of IPC requirements by nurses, despite many senior doctors having limited knowledge of correct IPC practice. Overall, participants' comments suggested that the 'doctor-nurse game'-described in the 1960s, to exemplify the complex power disparity between professions-is still in play, despite changes in both professions, in the interim. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that interprofessional differences and inconsistencies constrain IPC practice improvement. IPC inconsistencies and failures can be catastrophic, but the common threat of COVID-19 has promoted focus and unity. Appropriate implementation of IPC policies should be context-specific and respect the needs and expertise of all stakeholders. We propose an ethical framework to guide interprofessional collaboration in establishing a path towards sustained improvements in IPC and bio-preparedness.

Exploring healthcare workers' perspectives of video feedback for training in the use of powered air purifying respirators (PAPR) at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: With the advent of COVID-19, many healthcare workers (HWs) in Australia requested access to powered air purifying respirators (PAPR) for improved respiratory protection, comfort and visibility. The urgency of the response at our hospital required rapid deployment of innovative training to ensure the safe use of PAPRs, in particular, a video-feedback training option to prepare HWs for PAPR competency. AIM: To explore the feasibility, acceptability, and utility of video-feedback in PAPR training and competency assessment. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 HWs, including clinicians from Intensive Care, Anaesthetics and Respiratory Medicine, at a large teaching hospital in Australia. FINDINGS: Participants believed that the use of video-feedback in PAPR training was feasible, acceptable and useful. They described a variety of benefits to learning and retention, from a variety of ways in which they engaged with the personal video-feedback. Participants also described the impact of reviewing personalised practice footage, compared to generic footage of an ideal performance. CONCLUSION: By conceptualising video-feedback using a pedagogical approach, this study contributes to knowledge around optimising methods for training HWs in PPE use, particularly when introducing a new and complex PPE device during an infectious disease outbreak.

Should Digital Contact Tracing Technologies be used to Control COVID-19? Perspectives from an Australian Public Deliberation.

Mobile phone-based applications (apps) can promote faster targeted actions to control COVID-19. However, digital contact tracing systems raise concerns about data security, system effectiveness, and their potential to normalise privacy-invasive surveillance technologies. In the absence of mandates, public uptake depends on the acceptability and perceived legitimacy of using technologies that log interactions between individuals to build public health capacity. We report on six online deliberative workshops convened in New South Wales to consider the appropriateness of using the COVIDSafe app to enhance Australian contact tracing systems. All groups took the position (by majority) that the protections enacted in the app design and supporting legislation were appropriate. This support is contingent on several system attributes including: the voluntariness of the COVIDSafe app; that the system relies on proximity rather than location tracking; and, that data access is restricted to local public health practitioners undertaking contact tracing. Despite sustained scepticism in media coverage, there was an underlying willingness to trust Australian governing institutions such that in principle acceptance of the new contact tracing technology was easy to obtain. However, tensions between the need to prove system effectiveness through operational transparency and requirements for privacy protections could be limiting public uptake. Our study shows that informed citizens are willing to trade their privacy for common goods such as COVID-19 suppression. But low case numbers and cautionary public discourses can make trustworthiness difficult to establish because some will only do so when it can be demonstrated that the benefits justify the costs to individuals.

Assessing the impact of the 13 valent pneumococcal vaccine on childhood empyema in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Empyema is a serious complication of pneumonia frequently caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae (SP). We assessed the impact of the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (13vPCV) on childhood pneumonia and empyema after inclusion in the Australian National Immunisation Program. METHODS: For bacterial pneumonia and empyema hospitalisations, we ascertained incidence rates (IRs) using the National Hospital Morbidity Database International Statistical Classification of Disease discharge codes and relevant population denominators, and calculated incidence rate ratios (IRR) comparing the 13vPCV period (June 2012-May 2017) with the 7vPCV period (June 2007-May 2011). Blood and pleural fluid (PF) cultures and PF PCR of 401 children with empyema from 11 Australian hospitals during the 13vPCV period were compared with our previous study in the 7vPCV period. FINDINGS: Across 7vPCV and 13vPCV periods, IRs per million children (95% CIs) were 1605 (1588 to 1621) and 1272 (1259 to 1285) for bacterial pneumonia, and 14.23 (12.67 to 15.79) and 17.89 (16.37 to 19.42) for empyema hospitalisations. IRRs were 0.79 (0.78 to 0.80) for bacterial pneumonia and 1.25 (1.09 to 1.44) for empyema. Of 161 empyema cases with SP serotypes, 147 (91.3%) were vaccine types. ST3 accounted for 76.4% of identified serotypes in the 13vPCV period, more than double than the 7vPCV period (p<0.001); ST19A decreased from 36.4% to 12.4%. No cases of ST1 empyema were identified in the 13vPCV period versus 14.5% in the 7vPCV period. INTERPRETATION: 13vPCV resulted in a significant reduction in all-cause hospitalisations for bacterial pneumonia but empyema hospitalisations significantly increased, with emergence of pneumococcal ST3 as the dominant serotype in empyema. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN 12614000354684.

Hospital infection control: old problem - evolving challenges.

Hospital infection prevention and control (IPC) is often regarded by doctors as mundane and unnecessarily rigid, but the continued occurrence of preventable healthcare-associated infections, increasing antimicrobial resistance (to which hospitals are major contributors) and rare, but potentially devastating hospital outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases, suggest that IPC must be taken seriously. Healthcare professionals often fail to comply with effective, evidence-based IPC practices and there is ample evidence that doctors, generally, do so less consistently than nurses. However, doctors' practices are highly variable, apparently because of a perceived entitlement to clinical autonomy. In practice, most doctors observe safe IPC practices, most of the time. However, some are ignorant or dismissive of IPC policies and some respond angrily, when reminded. Among a small proportion of senior consultants, negative attitudes to IPC are perceived by their peers to correlate with a more general failure to meet their public hospital commitments, apparently because of conflicting demands, including private practice. The fact that breaches of IPC practice have significant, although often hidden, consequences indicates a need for continued improvement based on new strategies that might include: better surveillance, to identify and inform doctors of the true burdens of healthcare-associated infections; professional self-reflection on falsely dichotomous claims of medical professionalism namely: clinical autonomy versus regard for patient welfare by complying with 'rules' designed to protect them; and review of the consequences of recent changes in healthcare delivery, including proliferation of multiple, part-time consultant contracts at the expense of public hospital culture and status.

Community perspectives on the benefits and risks of technologically enhanced communicable disease surveillance systems: a report on four community juries.

BACKGROUND: Outbreaks of infectious disease cause serious and costly health and social problems. Two new technologies - pathogen whole genome sequencing (WGS) and Big Data analytics - promise to improve our capacity to detect and control outbreaks earlier, saving lives and resources. However, routinely using these technologies to capture more detailed and specific personal information could be perceived as intrusive and a threat to privacy. METHOD: Four community juries were convened in two demographically different Sydney municipalities and two regional cities in New South Wales, Australia (western Sydney, Wollongong, Tamworth, eastern Sydney) to elicit the views of well-informed community members on the acceptability and legitimacy of: making pathogen WGS and linked administrative data available for public health researchusing this information in concert with data linkage and machine learning to enhance communicable disease surveillance systems Fifty participants of diverse backgrounds, mixed genders and ages were recruited by random-digit-dialling and topic-blinded social-media advertising. Each jury was presented with balanced factual evidence supporting different expert perspectives on the potential benefits and costs of technologically enhanced public health research and communicable disease surveillance and given the opportunity to question experts. RESULTS: Almost all jurors supported data linkage and WGS on routinely collected patient isolates for the purposes of public health research, provided standard de-identification practices were applied. However, allowing this information to be operationalised as a syndromic surveillance system was highly contentious with three juries voting in favour, and one against by narrow margins. For those in favour, support depended on several conditions related to system oversight and security being met. Those against were concerned about loss of privacy and did not trust Australian governments to run secure and effective systems. CONCLUSIONS: Participants across all four events strongly supported the introduction of data linkage and pathogenomics to public health research under current research governance structures. Combining pathogen WGS with event-based data surveillance systems, however, is likely to be controversial because of a lack of public trust, even when the potential public health benefits are clear. Any suggestion of private sector involvement or commercialisation of WGS or surveillance data was unanimously rejected.

Medical interns' reflections on their training in use of personal protective equipment.

BACKGROUND: The current COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that personal protective equipment (PPE) is essential, to prevent the acquisition and transmission of infectious diseases, yet its use is often sub-optimal in the clinical setting. Training and education are important to ensure and sustain the safe and effective use of PPE by medical interns, but current methods are often inadequate in providing the relevant knowledge and skills. The purpose of this study was to explore medical graduates' experiences of the use of PPE and identify opportunities for improvement in education and training programmes, to improve occupational and patient safety. METHODS: This study was undertaken in 2018 in a large tertiary-care teaching hospital in Sydney, Australia, to explore medical interns' self-reported experiences of PPE use, at the beginning of their internship. Reflexive groups were conducted immediately after theoretical and practical PPE training, during hospital orientation. Transcripts of recorded discussions were analysed, using a thematic approach that drew on the COM-B (capability, opportunity, motivation - behaviour) framework for behaviour. RESULTS: 80% of 90 eligible graduates participated. Many interns had not previously received formal training in the specific skills required for optimal PPE use and had developed potentially unsafe habits. Their experiences as medical students in clinical areas contrasted sharply with recommended practice taught at hospital orientation and impacted on their ability to cultivate correct PPE use. CONCLUSIONS: Undergraduate teaching should be consistent with best practice PPE use, and include practical training that embeds correct and safe practices.