RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: About 60% of antibiotic prescribing in primary care is for respiratory tract infections (RTIs), some of which is likely unnecessary. There is limited evidence on the association between reduced antibiotic prescribing and adverse events. We aimed to identify associations between practice-level prescribing rates for RTIs in general practice, and patient-level adverse outcomes. METHODS: We included 1471 English General Practitioner (GP) practices, linked to hospital admissions in England, from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink for 2005 to 2019. Outcomes were hospitalisations, RTI-related re-consultations and additional antibiotic prescriptions, adjusted for practice level case-mix prescribing. RESULTS: Prescribing rates for practices falling within the lowest and highest prescribing quintiles were 52 and 139 prescriptions per 1000 RTI-related consultations. Patients from practices in the lowest prescribing quintile did not have significantly higher risk of hospitalisation, adjusted odds ratio 0·99 (95% CI 0·96 to 1·02). Re-consultations within 30 days were significantly higher for the lowest prescribing practices, adjusted odds ratio 1·209 (1·206 to 1·212). Additional antibiotic prescriptions and subsequent prescriptions upon re-consultation were significantly lower for the lowest prescribing practices, adjusted odds ratio 0·317 (0·314 to 0·321) and 0·706 (0·699 to 0·712), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results contribute to evidence on the safety of reduced antibiotic prescribing for RTIs in primary care. Results suggest that for the majority of practices, further reductions in RTI-related antibiotic prescribing should be possible without an increase in hospitalisation for pneumonia.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Prior to September 2021, 55,000-90,000 hospital inpatients in England were identified as having a potentially nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection. This includes cases that were likely missed due to pauci- or asymptomatic infection. Further, high numbers of healthcare workers (HCWs) are thought to have been infected, and there is evidence that some of these cases may also have been nosocomially linked, with both HCW to HCW and patient to HCW transmission being reported. From the start of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic interventions in hospitals such as testing patients on admission and universal mask wearing were introduced to stop spread within and between patient and HCW populations, the effectiveness of which are largely unknown. MATERIALS/METHODS: Using an individual-based model of within-hospital transmission, we estimated the contribution of individual interventions (together and in combination) to the effectiveness of the overall package of interventions implemented in English hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. A panel of experts in infection prevention and control informed intervention choice and helped ensure the model reflected implementation in practice. Model parameters and associated uncertainty were derived using national and local data, literature review and formal elicitation of expert opinion. We simulated scenarios to explore how many nosocomial infections might have been seen in patients and HCWs if interventions had not been implemented. We simulated the time period from March-2020 to July-2022 encompassing different strains and multiple doses of vaccination. RESULTS: Modelling results suggest that in a scenario without inpatient testing, infection prevention and control measures, and reductions in occupancy and visitors, the number of patients developing a nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection could have been twice as high over the course of the pandemic, and over 600,000 HCWs could have been infected in the first wave alone. Isolation of symptomatic HCWs and universal masking by HCWs were the most effective interventions for preventing infections in both patient and HCW populations. Model findings suggest that collectively the interventions introduced over the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in England averted 400,000 (240,000 - 500,000) infections in inpatients and 410,000 (370,000 - 450,000) HCW infections. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to reduce the spread of nosocomial infections have varying impact, but the package of interventions implemented in England significantly reduced nosocomial transmission to both patients and HCWs over the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Infección Hospitalaria , Personal de Salud , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , COVID-19/transmisión , COVID-19/prevención & control , COVID-19/epidemiología , Infección Hospitalaria/prevención & control , Infección Hospitalaria/transmisión , Inglaterra/epidemiología , Simulación por Computador , Control de Infecciones/métodos , Medicina Estatal , Máscaras/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
Recognizing and diagnosing the avoidance symptom cluster of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in young children has been challenging. This study examines caregivers' descriptions of young children's avoidance reactions. By describing parents' examples of childhood avoidance, clinicians, researchers, and educators may be able to provide more specific psychoeducation which may improve identification of avoidance behaviors in young children. Caregivers (N=73) of young children (age 3-7 years) participated in a semi-structured diagnostic clinical interview prior to enrolling in a clinical trial for childhood trauma. The assessment regarding the caregiver's description of the child's avoidance was audio recorded and transcribed for a thematic analysis. Most caregivers reported that the child experienced avoidance. Avoidance of conversation and places were the most reported type of child avoidance. Other types of avoidance included avoiding people, things, interpersonal situations, and activities. Some caregivers thought that their child avoided thoughts and feelings, but other caregivers were unsure if their child was avoiding these types of private experiences. Caregiver avoidance and non-avoidance also emerged as a main theme. Diagnosis for PTSD in young children relies on accurate symptom identification. Current results provide insight into how caregivers describe avoidant reactions in their children which may help professionals with accurate diagnoses, as well as help caregivers become better reporters themselves.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 testing of hospitalised patients began in April-2020, with twice weekly healthcare worker (HCW) testing introduced in November-2020. Guidance recommending asymptomatic testing was withdrawn in August-2022. Assessing the impact of this decision from data alone is challenging due to concurrent changes in infection prevention and control practices, community transmission rates, and a reduction in ascertainment rate from reduced testing. Computational modelling is an effective tool for estimating the impact of this change. METHODS: Using a computational model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in an English hospital we estimate the effectiveness of several asymptomatic testing strategies, namely; (1) Symptomatic testing of patients and HCWs, (2) testing of all patients on admission with/without repeat testing on days 3 and 5-7, and (3) symptomatic testing plus twice weekly asymptomatic HCW testing with 70% compliance. We estimate the number of patient and HCW infections, HCW absences, number of tests, and tests per case averted or absence avoided, with differing community prevalence rates over a 12-week period. RESULTS: Testing asymptomatic patients on admission reduces the rate of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection by 8.1-21.5%. Additional testing at days 3 and 5-7 post admission does not significantly reduce infection rates. Twice weekly asymptomatic HCW testing can reduce the proportion of HCWs infected by 1.0-4.4% and monthly absences by 0.4-0.8%. Testing asymptomatic patients repeatedly requires up to 5.5 million patient tests over the period, and twice weekly asymptomatic HCW testing increases the total tests to almost 30 million. The most efficient patient testing strategy (in terms of tests required to prevent a single patient infection) was testing asymptomatic patients on admission across all prevalence levels. The least efficient was repeated testing of patients with twice weekly asymptomatic HCW testing in a low prevalence scenario, and in all other prevalence levels symptomatic patient testing with regular HCW testing was least efficient. CONCLUSIONS: Testing patients on admission can reduce the rate of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection but there is little benefit of additional post-admission testing. Asymptomatic HCW testing has little incremental benefit for reducing patient cases at low prevalence but has a potential role at higher prevalence or with low community transmission. A full health-economic evaluation is required to determine the cost-effectiveness of these strategies.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Infección Hospitalaria , Humanos , COVID-19/diagnóstico , COVID-19/epidemiología , Prueba de COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Medicina Estatal , Personal de Salud , Hospitales , Infección Hospitalaria/diagnóstico , Infección Hospitalaria/prevención & controlRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: There is evidence that during the COVID pandemic, a number of patient and HCW infections were nosocomial. Various measures were put in place to try to reduce these infections including developing asymptomatic PCR (polymerase chain reaction) testing schemes for healthcare workers. Regularly testing all healthcare workers requires many tests while reducing this number by only testing some healthcare workers can result in undetected cases. An efficient way to test as many individuals as possible with a limited testing capacity is to consider pooling multiple samples to be analysed with a single test (known as pooled testing). METHODS: Two different pooled testing schemes for the asymptomatic testing are evaluated using an individual-based model representing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in a 'typical' English hospital. We adapt the modelling to reflect two scenarios: a) a retrospective look at earlier SARS-CoV-2 variants under lockdown or social restrictions, and b) transitioning back to 'normal life' without lockdown and with the omicron variant. The two pooled testing schemes analysed differ in the population that is eligible for testing. In the 'ward' testing scheme only healthcare workers who work on a single ward are eligible and in the 'full' testing scheme all healthcare workers are eligible including those that move across wards. Both pooled schemes are compared against the baseline scheme which tests only symptomatic healthcare workers. RESULTS: Including a pooled asymptomatic testing scheme is found to have a modest (albeit statistically significant) effect, reducing the total number of nosocomial healthcare worker infections by about 2[Formula: see text] in both the lockdown and non-lockdown setting. However, this reduction must be balanced with the increase in cost and healthcare worker isolations. Both ward and full testing reduce HCW infections similarly but the cost for ward testing is much less. We also consider the use of lateral flow devices (LFDs) for follow-up testing. Considering LFDs reduces cost and time but LFDs have a different error profile to PCR tests. CONCLUSIONS: Whether a PCR-only or PCR and LFD ward testing scheme is chosen depends on the metrics of most interest to policy makers, the virus prevalence and whether there is a lockdown.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Infección Hospitalaria , Humanos , COVID-19/diagnóstico , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Estudios Retrospectivos , Hospitales , Personal de Salud , Infección Hospitalaria/diagnóstico , Infección Hospitalaria/epidemiología , Infección Hospitalaria/prevención & controlRESUMEN
Introduction: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic 293,204 inpatients in England tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. It is estimated that 1% of these cases were hospital-associated using European centre for disease prevention and control (ECDC) and Public Health England (PHE) definitions. Guidelines for preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitals have developed over time but the effectiveness and efficiency of testing strategies for preventing nosocomial transmission has not been explored. Methods: Using an individual-based model, parameterised using multiple datasets, we simulated the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to patients and healthcare workers between March and August 2020 and evaluated the efficacy of different testing strategies. These strategies were: 0) Testing only symptomatic patients on admission; 1) Testing all patients on admission; 2) Testing all patients on admission and again between days 5 and 7, and 3) Testing all patients on admission, and again at days 3, and 5-7. In addition to admissions testing, patients that develop a symptomatic infection while in hospital were tested under all strategies. We evaluated the impact of testing strategy, test characteristics and hospital-related factors on the number of nosocomial patient infections. Results: Modelling suggests that 84.6% (95% CI: 84.3, 84.7) of community-acquired and 40.8% (40.3, 41.3) of hospital-associated SARS-CoV-2 infections are detectable before a patient is discharged from hospital. Testing all patients on admission and retesting after 3 or 5 days increases the proportion of nosocomial cases detected by 9.2%. Adding discharge testing increases detection by a further 1.5% (relative increase). Increasing occupancy rates, number of beds per bay, or the proportion of admissions wrongly suspected of having COVID-19 on admission and therefore incorrectly cohorted with COVID-19 patients, increases the rate of nosocomial transmission. Over 30,000 patients in England could have been discharged while incubating a non-detected SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, of which 3.3% could have been identified by discharge screening. There was no significant difference in the rates of nosocomial transmission between testing strategies or when the turnaround time of the test was increased. Discussion: This study provides insight into the efficacy of testing strategies in a period unbiased by vaccines and variants. The findings are relevant as testing programs for SARS-CoV-2 are scaled back, and possibly if a new vaccine escaping variant emerges.
RESUMEN
Hospital-based transmission had a dominant role in Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) epidemics1,2, but large-scale studies of its role in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic are lacking. Such transmission risks spreading the virus to the most vulnerable individuals and can have wider-scale impacts through hospital-community interactions. Using data from acute hospitals in England, we quantify within-hospital transmission, evaluate likely pathways of spread and factors associated with heightened transmission risk, and explore the wider dynamical consequences. We estimate that between June 2020 and March 2021 between 95,000 and 167,000 inpatients acquired SARS-CoV-2 in hospitals (1% to 2% of all hospital admissions in this period). Analysis of time series data provided evidence that patients who themselves acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospital were the main sources of transmission to other patients. Increased transmission to inpatients was associated with hospitals having fewer single rooms and lower heated volume per bed. Moreover, we show that reducing hospital transmission could substantially enhance the efficiency of punctuated lockdown measures in suppressing community transmission. These findings reveal the previously unrecognized scale of hospital transmission, have direct implications for targeting of hospital control measures and highlight the need to design hospitals better equipped to limit the transmission of future high-consequence pathogens.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Infección Hospitalaria , Transmisión de Enfermedad Infecciosa , Pacientes Internos , Pandemias , Humanos , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/transmisión , Infección Hospitalaria/epidemiología , Infección Hospitalaria/prevención & control , Infección Hospitalaria/transmisión , Transmisión de Enfermedad Infecciosa/prevención & control , Transmisión de Enfermedad Infecciosa/estadística & datos numéricos , Inglaterra/epidemiología , Hospitales , Pandemias/prevención & control , Pandemias/estadística & datos numéricos , Cuarentena/estadística & datos numéricos , SARS-CoV-2RESUMEN
This qualitative study aimed to describe and explore the pre and post-mastectomy experiences of women choosing flat closure after a breast cancer diagnosis. Aesthetic flat closure creates a flat contoured chest wall after a mastectomy. There is limited research on women's flat closure experiences. To fill this gap, we interviewed 19 women (Mage = 53, range 31-72) with breast cancer who underwent a bilateral mastectomy with flat closure, examining decision-making, mirror-viewing, and flat closure experiences. Using a hermeneutic phenomenological design, we generated seven themes. Broadly, women choosing flat closure experienced pressure from their clinicians to undergo breast reconstruction. We found flat closure information to be consistently lacking. Mirror-viewing experiences of women obtaining suboptimal flat closure outcomes led to shattered expectations, mirror avoidance, psychological distress, and body image disturbances. Women negotiated their new reality by discovering ways to feel comfortable with their flat bodies. Regardless of surgical outcome, decision satisfaction was high. These findings illustrate the importance of bodily autonomy and supportive healthcare environments for women making flat closure decisions. Providing comprehensive information on all surgical options and addressing post-operative expectations can improve women's decision-making and mirror-viewing experiences and assist women in adapting to their new body image.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama , Mamoplastia , Femenino , Humanos , Mastectomía/psicología , Neoplasias de la Mama/cirugía , Neoplasias de la Mama/psicología , Imagen Corporal/psicología , Mamoplastia/psicología , Investigación CualitativaRESUMEN
Background. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global public health threat. The wider implications of AMR, such as the impact of antibiotic resistance (ABR) on surgical procedures, are yet to be quantified. The objective of this study was to produce a conceptual modeling framework to provide a basis for estimating the current and potential future consequences of ABR for surgical procedures in England. Design. A framework was developed using literature-based evidence and structured expert elicitation. This was applied to populations undergoing emergency repair of the neck of the femur and elective colorectal resection surgery. Results. The framework captures the implications of increasing ABR by allowing for higher rates of surgical site infection (SSI) as the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis wanes and worsened outcomes following SSIs to reflect reduced antibiotic treatment effectiveness. The expert elicitation highlights the uncertainty in quantifying the impact of ABR, reflected in the results. A hypothetical SSI rate increase of 14% in a person undergoing emergency repair of the femur could increase costs by 39% (-2% to 108% credible interval [CI]) and decrease quality-adjusted life-years by 11% (0.4% to 62% CI) over 15 y. Conclusions. The modeling framework is a starting point for addressing the implication of ABR on the outcomes and costs of surgeries. Due to clinical uncertainty highlighted in the expert elicitation process, the numerical outputs of the case studies should not be focused on but rather the framework itself, illustration of the evidence gaps, the benefit of expert elicitation in quantifying parameters with limited data, and the potential magnitude of the impact of ABR on surgical procedures. Implications. The framework can be used to support research surrounding the health and cost burden of ABR in England. Highlights: The modeling framework is a starting point for assessing the health and cost impacts of antibiotic resistance on surgeries in England.Formulating a framework and synthesizing evidence to parameterize data gaps provides targets for future research.Once data gaps are addressed, this modeling framework can be used to feed into overall estimates of the health and cost burden of antibiotic resistance and evaluate control policies.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The prevalence of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) has been shown to vary markedly between European countries, both in hospitals and in the community. Determining the true prevalence has proven challenging. Without systematic testing in hospitals, the unchecked transmission of CDI can lead to large outbreaks in more susceptible cohorts. We investigate the success of CDI surveillance and control measures across Europe, by examining the dynamics of disease spread from the community into a hospital setting. We focus on national differences, such as variability in testing and sampling, disease prevalence in communities and hospitals, and antimicrobial usage. METHODS: We developed a stochastic, compartmental, dynamic mathematical model parameterized using sampling and testing rate data from COMBACTE-CDI, a multicountry study in which all diarrhoeal stool samples (N = 3163) from European laboratories were tested for CDI, and data for antimicrobial usage and incidence of hospital cases sourced from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. RESULTS: The framework estimates the prevalence of CDI among hospital patients across European countries and explores how national differences impact the dynamics, transmission, and relative incidence of CDI within the hospital setting. The model illustrates the mechanisms influencing these national differences, namely, antimicrobial usage rates, national sampling and testing rates, and community prevalence of CDI. DISCUSSION: Differential costs for testing and practicalities of scaling up testing mean every country needs to consider balancing CDI testing costs against the costs of treatment and care of patients with CDI.
Asunto(s)
Clostridioides difficile , Infecciones por Clostridium , Infección Hospitalaria , Humanos , Europa (Continente)/epidemiología , Infecciones por Clostridium/diagnóstico , Infecciones por Clostridium/epidemiología , Infecciones por Clostridium/microbiología , Hospitales , Modelos Teóricos , Infección Hospitalaria/diagnóstico , Infección Hospitalaria/epidemiología , Infección Hospitalaria/microbiologíaRESUMEN
Introduction: The language of medicine is constantly evolving, typically to better describe a new understanding of disease, adjust to changing social sensibilities, or simply to reflect a new drug class or category. We address the need for an updated language around monoclonal antibodies, or "mAbs" - a widely used medical term, but one which is now too general to accurately reflect the range of mAb pharmaceuticals, their effects, and the intended patients. Methods: The question of "what should we call a monoclonal antibody immunisation against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) to ensure accurate understanding of the product?" was the basis for a virtual advisory panel in May 2022. The panel was convened by Sanofi with the intention of reviewing appropriate language in terminology in the context of mAb-based prophylaxis for RSV. The panel comprised several global experts on RSV and vaccination, a trained linguist specialising in doctor-patient interactions and medical language, and several experts in marketing and communications. Results: We suggest the term "Direct Long-acting Antibody" (DLA) for a specific sub-class of mAbs for use in prevention of RSV disease in infants. This terminology should differentiate from other mAbs, which are generally not used as therapies in infants. Discussion and Conclusions: This change will more accurately convey the specific mode of action of a mAb in infants, and how it could impact the prevention of communicable diseases: this class of mAbs is not an active treatment, but rather will offer direct and rapid protection lasting at least 5 months.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones por Virus Sincitial Respiratorio , Virus Sincitial Respiratorio Humano , Lactante , Humanos , Anticuerpos Antivirales , Anticuerpos Monoclonales/uso terapéutico , Anticuerpos Monoclonales/farmacología , Infecciones por Virus Sincitial Respiratorio/prevención & control , InmunizaciónRESUMEN
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) may negatively impact surgery patients through reducing the efficacy of treatment of surgical site infections, also known as the "primary effects" of AMR. Previous estimates of the burden of AMR have largely ignored the potential "secondary effects," such as changes in surgical care pathways due to AMR, such as different infection prevention procedures or reduced access to surgical procedures altogether, with literature providing limited quantifications of this potential burden. Former conceptual models and approaches for quantifying such impacts are available, though they are often high-level and difficult to utilize in practice. We therefore expand on this earlier work to incorporate heterogeneity in antimicrobial usage, AMR, and causative organisms, providing a detailed decision-tree-Markov-hybrid conceptual model to estimate the burden of AMR on surgery patients. We collate available data sources in England and describe how routinely collected data could be used to parameterise such a model, providing a useful repository of data systems for future health economic evaluations. The wealth of national-level data available for England provides a case study in describing how current surveillance and administrative data capture systems could be used in the estimation of transition probability and cost parameters. However, it is recommended that such data are utilized in combination with expert opinion (for scope and scenario definitions) to robustly estimate both the primary and secondary effects of AMR over time. Though we focus on England, this discussion is useful in other settings with established and/or developing infectious diseases surveillance systems that feed into AMR National Action Plans.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Transmisibles , Farmacorresistencia Bacteriana , Antibacterianos , Inglaterra , Humanos , Almacenamiento y Recuperación de la InformaciónRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To describe the incidence of, risk factors for, and impact of vaccines on primary SARS-CoV-2 infection during the second wave of the covid-19 pandemic in susceptible hospital healthcare workers in England. DESIGN: Multicentre prospective cohort study. SETTING: National Health Service secondary care health organisations (trusts) in England between 1 September 2020 and 30 April 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Clinical, support, and administrative staff enrolled in the SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation (SIREN) study with no evidence of previous infection. Vaccination status was obtained from national covid-19 vaccination registries and self-reported. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by polymerase chain reaction. Mixed effects logistic regression was conducted to determine demographic and occupational risk factors for infection, and an individual based mathematical model was used to predict how large the burden could have been if vaccines had not been available from 8 December 2020 . RESULTS: During England's second wave, 12.9% (2353/18 284) of susceptible SIREN participants became infected with SARS-CoV-2. Infections peaked in late December 2020 and decreased from January 2021, concurrent with the cohort's rapid vaccination coverage and a national lockdown. In multivariable analysis, factors increasing the likelihood of infection in the second wave were being under 25 years old (20.3% (132/651); adjusted odds ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.69), living in a large household (15.8% (282/1781); 1.54, 1.23 to 1.94, for participants from households of five or more people), having frequent exposure to patients with covid-19 (19.2% (723/3762); 1.79, 1.56 to 2.06, for participants with exposure every shift), working in an emergency department or inpatient ward setting (20.8% (386/1855); 1.76, 1.45 to 2.14), and being a healthcare assistant (18.1% (267/1479); 1.43, 1.16 to 1.77). Time to first vaccination emerged as being strongly associated with infection (P<0.001), with each additional day multiplying a participant's adjusted odds ratio by 1.02. Mathematical model simulations indicated that an additional 9.9% of all patient facing hospital healthcare workers would have been infected were it not for the rapid vaccination coverage. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid covid-19 vaccine rollout from December 2020 averted infection in a large proportion of hospital healthcare workers in England: without vaccines, second wave infections could have been 69% higher. With booster vaccinations being needed for adequate protection from the omicron variant, and perhaps the need for further boosters for future variants, ensuring equitable delivery to healthcare workers is essential. The findings also highlight occupational risk factors that persisted in healthcare workers despite vaccine rollout; a greater understanding of the transmission dynamics responsible for these is needed to help to optimise the infection prevention and control policies that protect healthcare workers from infection and therefore to support staffing levels and maintain healthcare provision. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN11041050.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Vacunas , Adulto , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles , Personal de Salud , Humanos , Modelos Teóricos , Pandemias/prevención & control , Estudios Prospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , Medicina EstatalRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 is known to transmit in hospital settings, but the contribution of infections acquired in hospitals to the epidemic at a national scale is unknown. METHODS: We used comprehensive national English datasets to determine the number of COVID-19 patients with identified hospital-acquired infections (with symptom onset > 7 days after admission and before discharge) in acute English hospitals up to August 2020. As patients may leave the hospital prior to detection of infection or have rapid symptom onset, we combined measures of the length of stay and the incubation period distribution to estimate how many hospital-acquired infections may have been missed. We used simulations to estimate the total number (identified and unidentified) of symptomatic hospital-acquired infections, as well as infections due to onward community transmission from missed hospital-acquired infections, to 31st July 2020. RESULTS: In our dataset of hospitalised COVID-19 patients in acute English hospitals with a recorded symptom onset date (n = 65,028), 7% were classified as hospital-acquired. We estimated that only 30% (range across weeks and 200 simulations: 20-41%) of symptomatic hospital-acquired infections would be identified, with up to 15% (mean, 95% range over 200 simulations: 14.1-15.8%) of cases currently classified as community-acquired COVID-19 potentially linked to hospital transmission. We estimated that 26,600 (25,900 to 27,700) individuals acquired a symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in an acute Trust in England before 31st July 2020, resulting in 15,900 (15,200-16,400) or 20.1% (19.2-20.7%) of all identified hospitalised COVID-19 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to hospitalised patients likely caused approximately a fifth of identified cases of hospitalised COVID-19 in the "first wave" in England, but less than 1% of all infections in England. Using time to symptom onset from admission for inpatients as a detection method likely misses a substantial proportion (> 60%) of hospital-acquired infections.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Infección Hospitalaria , COVID-19/epidemiología , Infección Hospitalaria/epidemiología , Hospitalización , Hospitales , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 outbreaks still occur in English care homes despite the interventions in place. METHODS: We developed a stochastic compartmental model to simulate the spread of SARS-CoV-2 within an English care home. We quantified the outbreak risk with baseline non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) already in place, the role of community prevalence in driving outbreaks, and the relative contribution of all importation routes into a fully susceptible care home. We also considered the potential impact of additional control measures in care homes with and without immunity, namely: increasing staff and resident testing frequency, using lateral flow antigen testing (LFD) tests instead of polymerase chain reaction (PCR), enhancing infection prevention and control (IPC), increasing the proportion of residents isolated, shortening the delay to isolation, improving the effectiveness of isolation, restricting visitors and limiting staff to working in one care home. We additionally present a Shiny application for users to apply this model to their facility of interest, specifying care home, outbreak and intervention characteristics. RESULTS: The model suggests that importation of SARS-CoV-2 by staff, from the community, is the main driver of outbreaks, that importation by visitors or from hospitals is rare, and that the past testing strategy (monthly testing of residents and daily testing of staff by PCR) likely provides negligible benefit in preventing outbreaks. Daily staff testing by LFD was 39% (95% 18-55%) effective in preventing outbreaks at 30 days compared to no testing. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing the frequency of testing in staff and enhancing IPC are important to preventing importations to the care home. Further work is needed to understand the impact of vaccination in this population, which is likely to be very effective in preventing outbreaks.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Brotes de Enfermedades/prevención & control , Humanos , Control de Infecciones , VacunaciónRESUMEN
Background SARS-CoV-2 is known to transmit in hospital settings, but the contribution of infections acquired in hospitals to the epidemic at a national scale is unknown. Methods We used comprehensive national English datasets to determine the number of COVID-19 patients with identified hospital-acquired infections (with symptom onset >7 days after admission and before discharge) in acute English hospitals up to August 2020. As patients may leave the hospital prior to detection of infection or have rapid symptom onset, we combined measures of the length of stay and the incubation period distribution to estimate how many hospital-acquired infections may have been missed. We used simulations to estimate the total number (identified and unidentified) of symptomatic hospital-acquired infections, as well as infections due to onward community transmission from missed hospital-acquired infections, to 31 st July 2020. Results In our dataset of hospitalised COVID-19 patients in acute English hospitals with a recorded symptom onset date (n = 65,028), 7% were classified as hospital-acquired. We estimated that only 30% (range across weeks and 200 simulations: 20-41%) of symptomatic hospital-acquired infections would be identified, with up to 15% (mean, 95% range over 200 simulations: 14.1%-15.8%) of cases currently classified as community-acquired COVID-19 potentially linked to hospital transmission. We estimated that 26,600 (25,900 to 27,700) individuals acquired a symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in an acute Trust in England before 31st July 2020, resulting in 15,900 (15,200-16,400) or 20.1% (19.2%-20.7%) of all identified hospitalised COVID-19 cases. Conclusions Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to hospitalised patients likely caused approximately a fifth of identified cases of hospitalised COVID-19 in the "first wave" in England, but less than 1% of all infections in England. Using time to symptom onset from admission for inpatients as a detection method likely misses a substantial proportion (>60%) of hospital-acquired infections.
RESUMEN
ABSTRACT: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning (or queer), and other sexual and gender minority (LGBTQ+) youth face various forms of bullying and mistreatment that may lead to suicide. Nurses can help recognize, address, and mitigate challenges associated with suicide among LGBTQ+ youth.
Asunto(s)
Homosexualidad Femenina , Minorías Sexuales y de Género , Prevención del Suicidio , Personas Transgénero , Adolescente , Bisexualidad , Femenino , Humanos , ViolenciaRESUMEN
Many infection prevention and control (IPC) interventions have been adopted by hospitals to limit nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this systematic review is to identify evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions. We conducted a literature search of five databases (OVID MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, COVID-19 Portfolio (pre-print), Web of Science). SWIFT ActiveScreener software was used to screen English titles and abstracts published between 1st January 2020 and 6th April 2021. Intervention studies, defined by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care, that evaluated IPC interventions with an outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in either patients or healthcare workers were included. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was excluded as this intervention had been previously reviewed. Risks of bias were assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomised trials (RoB2) and non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I). From 23,156 screened articles, we identified seven articles that met the inclusion criteria, all of which evaluated interventions to prevent infections in healthcare workers and the majority of which were focused on effectiveness of prophylaxes. Due to heterogeneity in interventions, we did not conduct a meta-analysis. All agents used for prophylaxes have little to no evidence of effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infections. We did not find any studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions including but not limited to screening, isolation and improved ventilation. There is limited evidence from interventional studies, excluding PPE, evaluating IPC measures for SARS-CoV-2. This review calls for urgent action to implement such studies to inform policies to protect our most vulnerable populations and healthcare workers.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Despite evidence of the nosocomial transmission of novel coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in hospitals worldwide, the contributions of the pathways of transmission are poorly quantified. METHODS: We analysed national records of hospital admissions and discharges, linked to data on SARS-CoV-2 testing, using an individual-based model that considers patient-to-patient, patient-to-healthcare worker (HCW), HCW-to-patient and HCW-to-HCW transmission. RESULTS: Between 1 March 2020 and 31 December 2020, SARS-CoV-2 infections that were classified as nosocomial were identified in 0.5% (0.34-0.74) of patients admitted to an acute National Health Service trust. We found that the most likely route of nosocomial transmission to patients was indirect transmission from other infected patients, e.g. through HCWs acting as vectors or contaminated fomites, followed by direct transmission between patients in the same bay. The risk of transmission to patients from HCWs over this time period is low, but can contribute significantly when the number of infected inpatients is low. Further, the risk of a HCW acquiring SARS-CoV-2 in hospital is approximately equal to that in the community, thereby doubling their overall risk of infection. The most likely route of transmission to HCWs is transmission from other infected HCWs. CONCLUSIONS: Current control strategies have successfully reduced the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 between patients and HCWs. In order to reduce the burden of nosocomial COVID-19 infections on health services, stricter measures should be enforced that would inhibit the spread of the virus between bays or wards in the hospital. There should also be a focus on inhibiting the spread of SARS-CoV-2 between HCWs. The findings have important implications for infection-control procedures in hospitals.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Infección Hospitalaria , COVID-19/epidemiología , Prueba de COVID-19 , Infección Hospitalaria/epidemiología , Personal de Salud , Hospitales , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , Medicina EstatalRESUMEN
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.613638.].