Cross-border differences in the prevalence and risk factors for carriage of antimicrobial resistance in children attending daycare centers: a point prevalence study in the Netherlands and Belgium.

BACKGROUND: Day care centres (DCCs) are ideal settings for drug-resistant bacteria to emerge. Prevalence numbers of faecal carriage of antimicrobial resistant bacteria in these settings are rare. We aimed to determine the prevalence of faecal antimicrobial resistant bacteria carriage in children attending DCCs and to assess and identify infection risk factors within DCCs in The Netherlands and Belgium. METHODS: A point-prevalence study was conducted in 28 Dutch (499 children) and 18 Belgian (448 children) DCCs. Stool samples were taken from the children's diapers and a questionnaire was filled in by their parents. Hygiene related to stool and toilet use, hygiene related to food, environmental contamination, hand hygiene and hygiene guidelines were assessed conform a standardized questionnaire by the infection prevention and control expert visiting the DCC. Multilevel logistical regression analyses were used to define which characteristics predicted the presence of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-E), carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), and ciprofloxacin-resistant Enterobacterales (CipR-E). RESULTS: The ESBL-E prevalence was 16% (n = 71) in Belgium and 6% (n = 30) in the Netherlands. The CipR-E prevalence was 17% (n = 78) in Belgium and 8% (n = 38) in the Netherlands. Antimicrobial use (RR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.33-0.48) and hospital admissions (RR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.25-0.54) were lower in the Netherlands. Children travelling to Asia were at higher risk of being an ESBL-E carrier. Children using antimicrobials were at higher risk of being a CipR-E carrier. Cleaning the changing mat after each use was found as a protective factor for CipR-E carriage. CONCLUSIONS: We established a significant difference in ESBL-E and CipR-E carriage and antimicrobial use and hospital admissions between the Netherlands and Belgium among children attending DCCs. The differences between both countries should be further studied to improve the policy on anti-microbial use and hospital admissions in children.

Establishing an ad hoc COVID-19 mortality surveillance during the first epidemic wave in Belgium, 1 March to 21 June 2020.

BackgroundCOVID-19-related mortality in Belgium has drawn attention for two reasons: its high level, and a good completeness in reporting of deaths. An ad hoc surveillance was established to register COVID-19 death numbers in hospitals, long-term care facilities (LTCF) and the community. Belgium adopted broad inclusion criteria for the COVID-19 death notifications, also including possible cases, resulting in a robust correlation between COVID-19 and all-cause mortality.AimTo document and assess the COVID-19 mortality surveillance in Belgium.MethodsWe described the content and data flows of the registration and we assessed the situation as of 21 June 2020, 103 days after the first death attributable to COVID-19 in Belgium. We calculated the participation rate, the notification delay, the percentage of error detected, and the results of additional investigations.ResultsThe participation rate was 100% for hospitals and 83% for nursing homes. Of all deaths, 85% were recorded within 2 calendar days: 11% within the same day, 41% after 1 day and 33% after 2 days, with a quicker notification in hospitals than in LTCF. Corrections of detected errors reduced the death toll by 5%.ConclusionBelgium implemented a rather complete surveillance of COVID-19 mortality, on account of a rapid investment of the hospitals and LTCF. LTCF could build on past experience of previous surveys and surveillance activities. The adoption of an extended definition of 'COVID-19-related deaths' in a context of limited testing capacity has provided timely information about the severity of the epidemic.

Increasing risk of breakthrough COVID-19 in outbreaks with high attack rates in European long-term care facilities, July to October 2021.

We collected data from 10 EU/EEA countries on 240 COVID-19 outbreaks occurring from July-October 2021 in long-term care facilities with high vaccination coverage. Among 17,268 residents, 3,832 (22.2%) COVID-19 cases were reported. Median attack rate was 18.9% (country range: 2.8-52.4%), 17.4% of cases were hospitalised, 10.2% died. In fully vaccinated residents, adjusted relative risk for COVID-19 increased with outbreak attack rate. Findings highlight the importance of early outbreak detection and rapid containment through effective infection prevention and control measures.

High impact of COVID-19 in long-term care facilities, suggestion for monitoring in the EU/EEA, May 2020.

Residents in long-term care facilities (LTCF) are a vulnerable population group. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-related deaths in LTCF residents represent 30-60% of all COVID-19 deaths in many European countries. This situation demands that countries implement local and national testing, infection prevention and control, and monitoring programmes for COVID-19 in LTCF in order to identify clusters early, decrease the spread within and between facilities and reduce the size and severity of outbreaks.

Hospitalized patients' vs. nurses' assessments of pain intensity and barriers to pain management.

AIMS: The aim of the study was to identify if nurses and patients equally assessed pain intensity and patient-related barriers to pain management in hospitalized patients. BACKGROUND: Several studies reported poor to moderate agreement between patient- and nurse-reported pain assessment. Many of these studies focused on a specific patient group. So far, no study studied the level of agreement in the assessment of patient-related barriers between patients and nurses. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was performed in two hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion criteria for patients were: (1) being at least 18 years; (2) understanding the Dutch language; and (3) giving informed consent. All nurses responsible for the participating patients and present at the time of the survey were invited to participate. METHODS: Data were collected between October 2012 - April 2013. Patients and nurses completed the Numeric Rating Scale to measure pain intensity. Patient-related barriers to pain management were measured using the barriers to pain assessment and management scale developed by Elcigil et al. (Journal of Pediatric Hematology Oncology 2011, 33:S33). RESULTS: A moderate agreement between patients and nurses was found for the assessment of pain intensity. Multiple logistic regressions showed a significant association between pain intensity reported by patients and the under-, over- and adequate estimation of pain by nurses. Nurses significantly underrated the belief patients had about pain management. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses should be educated about these beliefs and should be encouraged to actively explore patient-related barriers to pain management with their individual patients. Routine pain assessments should also be encouraged and should be explained to patients.

Pain Intensity in Hospitalized Adults: A Multilevel Analysis of Barriers and Facilitators of Pain Management.

BACKGROUND: Despite an enhanced interest and evolution in pain management, prevalence remains high. Interventions to optimize pain-related care can only be effective if barriers are identified and accounted for. AIM: To assess pain intensity and examine its association with patient- (including health literacy defined in this study as "requiring help to read health information"), nurse-, and system-related (including social capital defined as "the importance of network and norms at work") barriers/facilitators to pain management. METHODS: A two-center, cross-sectional study was performed between October 2012 and April 2013. The study included patients and nurses of 39 noncritical wards of two hospitals in Belgium. Patients who were 18 years of age or older and without impaired cognition or consciousness were eligible to take part. All nurses working in the included ward were invited to participate. Pain intensity and patient-related barriers were collected by a structured and standardized questionnaire, completed in dialogue with the patient. Nurses completed the questionnaire on the nurse- and system-related barriers and the social capital scale. Multilevel analysis was used to analyze the data because of the hierarchical structure of the data. RESULTS: The average pain of all patients across all wards on a 0-10 scale was 2.2 (SD = 3.6). The multilevel analysis indicates that pain intensity can be explained by variables at patient and ward levels. A significant independent association was found between higher pain intensity and younger age, receiving pain medication, the conviction of patients that pain medication does not improve pain, inadequate health literacy in patients, nurses without advanced education, and nurse's concerns about side effects. Social capital did not emerge as predictor of pain intensity. DISCUSSION: Patient and nurse level factors should be taken into account in hospitals when setting up strategies to improve pain management.

COVID-19 Clusters in Belgian Nursing Homes: Impact of Facility Characteristics and Vaccination on Cluster Occurrence, Duration and Severity.

COVID-19 severely affected nursing home residents from March 2020 onwards in Belgium. This study aimed to model the impact of vaccination and facility characteristics on cluster occurrence, duration and severity in this setting. Possible clusters were identified between June 2020 and January 2022, based on the Belgian COVID-19 surveillance in nursing homes. Median attack rates (AR) among residents and staff, case hospitalization rates (CHR) and case fatality rates (CFR) were calculated. A negative binomial model was used to identify the association between nursing home characteristics and the number of cases, hospital admissions and deaths and the duration of the cluster. A total of 2239 clusters were detected in more than 80% of nursing homes. Most of these (62%) occurred before the start of COVID-19 vaccination (end of December 2020). After vaccination, the number of clusters, the AR among residents and staff, the CHR and the CFR dropped. Previous cluster(s) and vaccination decreased the number of cases, hospital admissions and deaths among residents. Previous cluster experience and having started vaccination were protective factors. We recommend continued implementation of targeted interventions such as vaccination, large-scale screening and immediate implementation of additional infection prevention and control measures.

Effect of COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign in Belgian Nursing Homes on COVID-19 Cases, Hospital Admissions, and Deaths among Residents.

In view of the grave situation during the first two waves of SARS-CoV-2 virus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2), nursing homes (NHs) were prioritised for vaccination once vaccines became available in Belgium. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of the COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) vaccination campaign on COVID-19 cases, hospital admissions, and deaths among residents living in Belgian NHs. All 1545 Belgian NHs were invited to participate in a COVID-19 surveillance program. In Belgium, before vaccination, COVID-19 morbidity and mortality rates were driven by the situation in the NHs. Shortly after the COVID-19 vaccination campaign, and later the booster campaign, the number of hospital admissions and deaths among NH residents dropped, while clear peaks could be observed among the general population. The impact of vaccination on virus circulation was less effective than expected. However, due to the high vaccination coverage, NH residents remain well protected against hospital admission and death due to COVID-19 more than one year after being vaccinated.

COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations and deaths in Belgian nursing homes: results of a surveillance conducted between April and December 2020.

BACKGROUND: In Belgium, the first COVID-19 death was reported on 10 March 2020. Nursing home (NH) residents are particularly vulnerable for COVID-19, making it essential to follow-up the spread of COVID-19 in this setting. This manuscript describes the methodology of surveillance and epidemiology of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations and deaths in Belgian NHs. METHODS: A COVID-19 surveillance in all Belgian NHs (n = 1542) was set up by the regional health authorities and Sciensano. Aggregated data on possible/confirmed COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations and case-based data on deaths were reported by NHs at least once a week. The study period covered April-December 2020. Weekly incidence/prevalence data were calculated per 1000 residents or staff members. RESULTS: This surveillance has been launched within 14 days after the first COVID-19 death in Belgium. Automatic data cleaning was installed using different validation rules. More than 99% of NHs participated at least once, with a median weekly participation rate of 95%. The cumulative incidence of possible/confirmed COVID-19 cases among residents was 206/1000 in the first wave and 367/1000 in the second wave. Most NHs (82%) reported cases in both waves and 74% registered ≥10 possible/confirmed cases among residents at one point in time. In 51% of NHs, at least 10% of staff was absent due to COVID-19 at one point. Between 11 March 2020 and 3 January 2021, 11,329 COVID-19 deaths among NH residents were reported, comprising 57% of all COVID-19 deaths in Belgium in that period. CONCLUSIONS: This surveillance was crucial in mapping COVID-19 in this vulnerable setting and guiding public health interventions, despite limitations of aggregated data and necessary changes in protocol over time. Belgian NHs were severely hit by COVID-19 with many fatal cases. The measure of not allowing visitors, implemented in the beginning of the pandemic, could not avoid the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the NHs during the first wave. The virus was probably often introduced by staff. Once the virus was introduced, it was difficult to prevent healthcare-associated outbreaks. Although, in contrast to the first wave, personal protective equipment was available in the second wave, again a high number of cases were reported.