A surveillance program for long-term central venous access-associated infections in outpatient chemotherapy services.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we described the first results of a surveillance system for infections associated with long-term central venous catheters (LT-CVC) in patients under outpatient chemotherapy. DESIGN: This was a multicentric, prospective study. SETTING: Outpatient chemotherapy services. PARTICIPANTS: The study included 8 referral cancer centers in the State of São Paulo. INTERVENTION: These services were invited to participate in a newly created surveillance program for patients under chemotherapy. Several meetings were convened to share previous experiences on LT-CVC infection surveillance and to define the surveillance method. Once the program was implemented, all bloodstream infection (LT-CVC BSIs), tunnel infection, and exit-site infections associated with LT-CVC were reported. Data from January to May 2021 were analyzed. The median monthly number of chemotherapy sessions per clinic was 925 (IQR, 270-5,855). We used Poisson regression to analyze the association of rates with the characteristics of the services. RESULTS: In total, 107 LT-CVC infections were reported, of which 95% were BSIs, mostly associated with totally implantable devices (76%). Infections occurred a median of 4 days after the last catheter manipulation and 116 after the LT-CVC insertion. Also, 102 microorganisms were isolated from LT-CVC BSIs; the most common pathogen was Staphylococcus epidermidis, at 22%. Moreover, 44 infections (44%) fulfilled the criteria for CVC-related LT-CVC BSI and 27 infections (27%) met the criteria for mucosal barrier injury. The 1-year cumulative LT-CVC BSI rate was 1.94 per 1,000 CVC days of use. The rates were higher in public hospitals (IRR, 6.00; P < .001) and in hospitals that already had in place surveillance for LT-CVC infections (IRR, 2.01; P < .01). CONCLUSION: Our study describes an applicable surveillance method for infections in cancer outpatients using LT-CVC.

Nosocomial outbreaks: A review of governmental reporting systems.

OBJECTIVE: Identifying and describing components of existent governmental reporting systems of NO aiming at informing the design of the implementation of NO reporting systems in countries where they were not fully established. DESIGN: A systematic search was carried out on PubMed, Embase, and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database. We included studies published from January 2007 to June 2019 describing NO governmental reporting systems. Additionally, we included studies from the list of references in the identified papers, to gather more information about NO reporting systems. We also reviewed documents published in the governmental health department's Web sites, such as outbreak management guidelines and surveillance protocols, provided they were cited in the papers. RESULTS: NO reporting systems were reported in France (Alsace Region), Germany, Norway, United Kingdom, United States (New York State; New York City), Australia (Victoria State), Sweden (Skane Region), Ireland, Scotland (Lothian Region), and Canada (Winnipeg; Ontario). These systems vary according to the type of targeted NO event, such as gastroenteritis, influenza-like illness, invasive group A streptococcal disease or all-health care-acquired infection NO. Germany, Norway, New York City, New York State, Ireland, Winnipeg, and Ontario have established a mandatory reporting for NO. CONCLUSIONS: There is high variability among countries regarding governmental NO reporting systems. This may hinder opportune inter- and intracountries communication concerning NO of potential international public health relevance.

How new molecular tools can help bugbusters: a Burkholderia cepacia complex outbreak investigation.

An outbreak of bloodstream infection (BSI) caused by members of the Burkholderia cepacia complex (Bcc) took place from March 2012 until April 2014 involving thirteen patients. AIM: To describe an outbreak investigation of BSI Bcc and showing how genetic sequencing tools contributed to confirm the hypothesis of extrinsic contamination proposed by an observational study. METHODS: The Infection Control Department revised and reinforced good practices of infusion therapy and catheter care, visits to affected wards, a case control study, and environmental screening based on the case-control findings. RESULTS: Data from the case-control study found an association of cases with central venous catheter (OR 1.36; CI 1.15-1.67) and intravenous cisatracurium use (OR 10.75; CI 1.67-68.89). Visits to the operatory block revealed problems related to the cold chain used for the preservation of thermolabile cisatracurium. We could not retrieve Bcc from environmental samples using classic microbiology. New samples from the same surfaces were obtained for genetic sequencing. Bcc was identified in the cooler box, refrigerator and reusable ice packages. CONCLUSION: Environmental screening using genetic sequencing proved to be a useful tool for confirming our hypothesis of extrinsic contamination raised by the case-control study.

Limitações para investigação e notificação de surtos de infecções relacionadas à assistência à saúde no Estado de São Paulo: uma abordagem de métodos mistos / Barriers to investigate and to report nosocomial outbreaks to health authorities in São Paulo, Brazil: a mixed method approach

Introdução:A detecção de surtos de infecções relacionadas à assistência à saúde (IRAS) e sua investigação são atividades de extrema importância para a Comissão de Controle de Infecção Hospitalar, pois os resultados da investigação podem identificar a fonte e o veículo do foco de transmissão, contribuir para implantação de medidas apropriadas para a prevenção de casos novos, fornecer informações para o avanço da epidemiologia hospitalar e traduzir a qualidade da vigilância epidemiológica do serviço de saúde.Embora a notificação de surtos seja obrigatória desde 1998, um estudo mostrou que apenas 25% dos eventos são notificados para as autoridades sanitárias. Objetivos: Identificar, segundo a percepção dos profissionais de controle de IRAS, quais são as limitações para investigação de surto de IRAS e as restrições para notificação do evento às autoridades sanitárias. Métodos: O estudo utilizou uma abordagem de métodos mistos, sob o desenho convergente paralelo. Para a abordagem quantitativa foi realizado um inquérito utilizando-se um questionário eletrônico na plataforma do DATASUS (FormSUS) e foram incluídos profissionais de controle de IRAS que atuam no Estado de São Paulo. Para a abordagem qualitativa foram realizados grupos focais nas cidades de São Paulo, Campinas e Ribeirão Preto e foram incluídos os profissionais de controle de IRAS que atuam nessas cidades. Para os resultados do inquérito foi realizada uma análise descritiva e para os achados dos grupos focais foi aplicada a análise de conteúdo.Após a análise das abordagens os resultados foram comparados. Resultados: Participaram 87 profissionais de controle de infecção no inquérito e 22 profissionais nos grupos focais, sendo a participação de (60%) enfermeiros e (40%) médicos similar nas duas abordagens. Houve convergência nos seguintes temas:i) Profissionais de controle de infecção têm dificuldade em aplicar conhecimento em investigação de surtos na prática; ii) Recursos humanos e materiais são suficientes, mas há falta de planejamento de trabalho; iii) Apoio institucional frágil para questões relativas ao controle de IRAS; iv) Profissionais de controle de infecção sabem como notificar (84%), mas não sabem a relevância da notificação dos surtos para a saúde pública; vi) Profissionais de controle de infecção não notificam por medo de punição (64%) ou exposição da imagem da instituição (52%). Em dois temas houve a divergência entre as abordagens quantitativas e qualitativas: i) Laboratório: no inquérito a maioria relatou um bom suporte laboratorial, mas nos grupos focais houve queixas sobre o serviço; ii) Relação com autoridades sanitárias: no inquérito profissionais de controle de infecção citaram uma boa interação (50%) e não punitiva (84%), mas nos grupos focais citaram como insuficiente e punitiva. Conclusão: O estudo mostrou que as barreiras à investigação de surtos de IRAS e notificação às autoridades sanitárias são conhecimentos, habilidades e apoio institucional. As autoridades sanitárias devem superar estas barreiras, reconstruindo suas estratégias para aproximar os serviços de saúde, bem como fornecer programas educativos translacionais para apoiar a melhoria dos processos de investigação de surto.

Introduction: Nosocomial outbreak investigations provide relevant insights into the field of healthcare-associated infection prevention. Nevertheless, in a previous study, it were detected that only a quarter of all published nosocomial outbreak investigations were reported to the health authorities in São Paulo State, Brazil in the last ten years. Objectives: The study aimed at to identify barriers to investigate and to report nosocomial outbreak investigations to the health authorities in São Paulo. Methods: A mixed methods approach was performed in a convergent parallel design. The quantitative branch of the study was a statewide survey by means of an electronic questionnaire. Only infection control practitioners working in São Paulo State were included. The qualitative branch was carried out by means of focus groups focus group conducted in three major cities (São Paulo, Campinas and Ribeirão Preto).Only infection control practitioners working in these three cities were included in focus groups sessions. Data obtained from the survey and focus groups were individually processed in a descriptive analysis and content analysis, respectively. Results: Infection control practitioners enrolled were 87 and 22 respectively in the electronic survey and focus group. A similar proportion of nurses (60%) and physicians (40%) were observed in both branches of the study. Data from the survey and FG were convergent regarding to: i) although most infection control practitioners believe themselves with enough knowledge on nosocomial outbreak investigations, they find difficult to translate this knowledge into practice;ii) the perception is that sufficient human and material resources are present in hospitals, but they perceive overall weak planning in infection control activities; iii) infection control practitioners do not feel supported by hospital managers; iv)The infection control practitioners know the channels to report outbreaks to health authorities (84%), but they see it meaningless; vi) infection control practitioners don\'t report to health authorities because they are mainly concerned about potential punition (64%)or denigration of institutional image (52%).The quantitative and qualitative branch of the study resulted divergent in issues regarding laboratory support and the interaction with health authorities. In the survey the majority of infection control practitioners informed to have good laboratory support (59%), however in focus group participants complained about that. In addition, in the electronic survey participants referred good interaction (50%) and no punishment (84%) related to health authorities, but in focus group they declared a very poor interaction. Conclusion: The study showed that barriers to nosocomial outbreak investigations and reporting to health authorities are knowledge, skills and hospital manager support. Health authorities should overcome these barriers by rebuilding its strategies to approach health care services as well as delivering translational educational programs to support improvement nosocomial outbreak investigations skills.

Evaluating the quality of outbreak reports on health care-associated infections in São Paulo, Brazil, during 2000-2010 using the ORION statement findings and recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The standard of outbreak reports must be improved to a level where they are robust enough to properly influence preventive strategies. We aimed to verify compliance with mandatory outbreak notification, describing epidemiologic characteristics and management, and evaluating the quality of outbreak reports on health care-associated infections in São Paulo State, Brazil. METHODS: A systematic search was carried out on PubMed, the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database, Embase, Outbreak Database, the Annals of Brazilian Conferences on Healthcare-Associated Infection Prevention and Infectious Diseases, and reports from the São Paulo State Hospital Infection Division. The quality of reports was evaluated according to the Outbreak Reports and Intervention studies of Nosocomial Infection (ORION) statement guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 87 outbreak reports were identified; however, only 15 outbreaks (17.2%) were reported to the São Paulo State Hospital Infection Division. Bloodstream infection and neonatal intensive care units were mostly implicated (23% and 19.5%, respectively). Quality, evaluated according to ORION statement recommendations, was generally poor. The ORION categories of Background, Objectives, Participants, Setting, Infection-Related Outcomes, and Generality were properly described in 32.2%, 74.7%, 2.3%, 46%, 2.3%, and 12.6% of reports, respectively. Interventions and Culture-Typing were described with details in 51.9% and 55.2% of outbreak reports, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings pointed out the need for strategies to improve competence in outbreak reports, and the ORION statement guidelines may help in this matter. Efforts to promote confidence and consequent compliance with mandatory notification of outbreak reports are essential.