RESUMEN
For pandemic influenza planning, realistic estimates of personal protective equipment (PPE) and antiviral medication required for hospital healthcare workers (HCWs) are vital. In this simulation study, a patient with suspected avian or pandemic influenza (API) sought treatment at 9 Australian hospital emergency departments where patient-staff interactions during the first 6 hours of hospitalization were observed. Based on World Health Organization definitions and guidelines, the mean number of "close contacts" of the API patient was 12.3 (range 6-17; 85% HCWs); mean "exposures" were 19.3 (range 15-26). Overall, 20-25 PPE sets were required per patient, with variable HCW compliance for wearing these items (93% N95 masks, 77% gowns, 83% gloves, and 73% eye protection). Up to 41% of HCW close contacts would have qualified for postexposure antiviral prophylaxis. These data indicate that many current national stockpiles of PPE and antiviral medication are likely inadequate for a pandemic.
Asunto(s)
Control de Infecciones/métodos , Control de Infecciones/normas , Transmisión de Enfermedad Infecciosa de Paciente a Profesional/prevención & control , Subtipo H5N1 del Virus de la Influenza A , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Antivirales/uso terapéutico , Australia , Adhesión a Directriz , Humanos , Gripe Humana/tratamiento farmacológico , Simulación de Paciente , Personal de Hospital , Estudios Prospectivos , Ropa de Protección/estadística & datos numéricos , Garantía de la Calidad de Atención de SaludRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of a multifaceted hand hygiene culture-change program on health care worker behaviour, and to reduce the burden of nosocomial methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections. DESIGN AND SETTING: Timetabled introduction of interventions (alcohol/chlorhexidine hand hygiene solution [ACHRS], improved cleaning of shared ward equipment, targeted patient decolonisation, comprehensive "culture change" package) to five clinical areas of a large university teaching hospital that had high levels of MRSA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Health care worker hand hygiene compliance; volume of ACHRS used; prevalence of patient and health care worker MRSA colonisation; environmental MRSA contamination; rates of clinical MRSA infection; and rates of laboratory detection of ESBL-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp. RESULTS: In study wards, health care worker hand hygiene compliance improved from a pre-intervention mean of 21% (95% CI, 20.3%-22.9%) to 42% (95% CI, 40.2%-43.8%) 12 months post-intervention (P < 0.001). ACHRS use increased from 5.7 to 28.6 L/1000 bed-days. No change was observed in patient MRSA colonisation or environmental colonisation/contamination, and, except in the intensive care unit, colonisation of health care workers was unchanged. Thirty-six months post-intervention, there had been significant reductions in hospital-wide rates of total clinical MRSA isolates (40% reduction; P < 0.001), patient-episodes of MRSA bacteraemia (57% reduction; P = 0.01), and clinical isolates of ESBL-producing E. coli and Klebsiella spp (90% reduction; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of ACHRS and a detailed culture-change program was effective in improving hand hygiene compliance and reducing nosocomial MRSA infections, despite high-level MRSA endemicity.