Impact of surgical-site infection on health utility values: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Surgical-site infections (SSIs) are recognized as negatively affecting patient quality of life. No meta-analysis of SSI utility values is available in the literature to inform estimates of this burden and investment decisions in prevention. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database was performed in April 2022 in accordance with PROSPERO registration CRD 42021262633. Studies were included where quality-of-life data were gathered from adults undergoing surgery, and such data were presented for those with and without an SSI at similar time points. Two researchers undertook data extraction and quality appraisal independently, with a third as arbiter. Utility values were converted to EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D™) estimates. Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model across all relevant studies, with subgroup analyses on type and timing of the SSI. RESULTS: In total, 15 studies with 2817 patients met the inclusion criteria. Six studies across seven time points were used in the meta-analysis. The pooled mean difference in EQ-5D™ utility in all studies combined was -0.08 (95 per cent c.i. -0.11 to -0.05; prediction interval -0.16 to -0.01; I2 = 40 per cent). The mean difference in EQ-5D™ utility associated with deep SSI was -0.10 (95 per cent c.i. -0.14 to -0.06; I2 = 0 per cent) and the mean difference in EQ-5D™ utility persisted over time. CONCLUSION: The present study provides the first synthesized estimate of SSI burden over the short and long term. EQ-5D™ utility estimates for a range of SSIs are essential for infection prevention planning and future economic modelling.

Non-susceptibility of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., Pseudomonas spp., Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus in the UK: temporal trends in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

OBJECTIVES: To monitor and compare trends in the non-susceptibility of bloodstream isolates of pathogens to key antibiotics in the constituent countries of the UK between 2010 and 2014. METHODS: Routinely generated antibiotic susceptibility test results for bloodstream isolates of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Klebsiella oxytoca, Pseudomonas spp., Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus were collected from hospital microbiology laboratories in each country. RESULTS: With the exception of a decrease in the proportion of S. aureus that were MRSA, non-susceptibility to key antibiotics among the pathogens studied remained largely unchanged over the 5 year study period, with any increases in non-susceptibility being small. Although some intercountry variation in the proportions of non-susceptible isolates was seen, apart from MRSA, the differences were generally small (<5%) and fluctuated from year to year, with no country showing consistently higher or lower rates of resistance. CONCLUSIONS: Collaboration between the constituent countries of the UK allows an integrated approach to nationwide surveillance of antibiotic resistance.

Comparing national point prevalence surveys of healthcare-associated infection and antimicrobial prescribing: a methodological approach to adjust for differences in case-mix.

BACKGROUND: National point prevalence surveys (PPS) of healthcare-associated infection (HAI) and antimicrobial prescribing in hospitals were conducted in 2011 and 2016 in Scotland. When comparing results of PPS, it is important to adjust for any differences in patient case-mix that may confound the comparison. AIM: To describe the methodology used to compare prevalence for the two surveys and illustrate the importance of taking case-mix (patient and hospital stay characteristics) into account. METHODS: Multivariate models (clustered logistic regression) that adjusted for differences in patient case-mix were used to describe the difference in prevalence of six outcomes (HAI, antimicrobial prescribing and four devices: central vascular catheter, peripheral vascular catheter, urinary catheterisation and intubation) between the 2011 and 2016 PPS. Univariate models that did not adjust for these differences were also developed for comparison to show the importance of adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: Without adjustment for case-mix, HAI and intubation prevalence estimates were not significantly different in 2016 compared with 2011 although with adjustment, the prevalence of both was significantly lower (P=0.03 and P=0.02, respectively). These associations were only identified after adjustment for confounding by case-mix. CONCLUSIONS: While prevalence surveys do not provide intelligence on temporal trends as an incidence-based surveillance system would, if limitations and caveats are acknowledged, it is possible to compare two prevalence surveys to describe changing epidemiology. Adjusting for differences in case-mix is essential for robust comparisons. This methodology may be useful for other countries that are conducting large, repeated prevalence surveys.

A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial of 6-Step vs 3-Step Hand Hygiene Technique in Acute Hospital Care in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the microbiologic effectiveness of the World Health Organization's 6-step and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 3-step hand hygiene techniques using alcohol-based handrub. DESIGN A parallel group randomized controlled trial. SETTING An acute care inner-city teaching hospital (Glasgow). PARTICIPANTS Doctors (n=42) and nurses (n=78) undertaking direct patient care. INTERVENTION Random 1:1 allocation of the 6-step (n=60) or the 3-step (n=60) technique. RESULTS The 6-step technique was microbiologically more effective at reducing the median log10 bacterial count. The 6-step technique reduced the count from 3.28 CFU/mL (95% CI, 3.11-3.38 CFU/mL) to 2.58 CFU/mL (2.08-2.93 CFU/mL), whereas the 3-step reduced it from 3.08 CFU/mL (2.977-3.27 CFU/mL) to 2.88 CFU/mL (-2.58 to 3.15 CFU/mL) (P=.02). However, the 6-step technique did not increase the total hand coverage area (98.8% vs 99.0%, P=.15) and required 15% (95% CI, 6%-24%) more time (42.50 seconds vs 35.0 seconds, P=.002). Total hand coverage was not related to the reduction in bacterial count. CONCLUSIONS Two techniques for hand hygiene using alcohol-based handrub are promoted in international guidance, the 6-step by the World Health Organization and 3-step by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The study provides the first evidence in a randomized controlled trial that the 6-step technique is superior, thus these international guidance documents should consider this evidence, as should healthcare organizations using the 3-step technique in practice. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:661-666.

Nasal swab screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus--how well does it perform? A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) detections identified by nasal swabbing using agar culture in comparison with multiple body site testing using agar and nutrient broth culture. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PATIENTS: Adult patients admitted to 36 general specialty wards of 2 large hospitals in Scotland. METHODS: Patients were screened for MRSA via multiple body site swabs (nasal, throat, axillary, perineal, and wound/invasive device sites) cultured individually on chromogenic agar and pooled in nutrient broth. Combined results from all sites and cultures provided a gold-standard estimate of true MRSA prevalence. RESULTS: This study found that nasal screening performed better than throat, axillary, or perineal screening but at best identified only 66% of true MRSA carriers against the gold standard at an overall prevalence of 2.9%. Axillary screening performed least well. Combining nasal and perineal swabs gave the best 2-site combination (82%). When combined with realistic screening compliance rates of 80%-90%, nasal swabbing alone probably detects just over half of true colonization in practice. Swabbing of clinically relevant sites (wounds, indwelling devices, etc) is important for a small but high-prevalence group. CONCLUSIONS: Nasal swabbing is the standard method in many locations for MRSA screening. Its diagnostic efficiency in practice appears to be limited, however, and the resource implications of multiple body site screening have to be balanced against a potential clinical benefit whose magnitude and nature remains unclear.