Factors associated with hospital mortality in community-acquired legionellosis in France.

The aims of this study were to describe the clinical, biological and radiological features of community-acquired (CA) Legionnaires' disease (LD) and identify the predictors of mortality in hospitalised patients. Demographic data, risk factors, clinical and biological features, medical management, complications, and outcome from 540 hospitalised patients with confirmed CA LD were prospectively recorded. 8.1% of patients (44 out of 540) died. The predictors of survival after Kaplan-Meier analysis were male sex (p = 0.01), age <60 yrs (p = 0.02), general symptoms (p = 0.006), intensive care unit (ICU) stay (p<0.001), and class II-III Pneumonia Severity Index score (p = 0.004). Six predictors of death were identified by multivariate analysis: age (per 10-yr increment) (relative hazard (RH) 1.50, 95% CI 1.21-1.87), female sex (RH 2.00, 95% CI 1.08-3.69), ICU admission (RH 3.31, 95% CI 1.67-6.56), renal failure (RH 2.73, 95% CI 1.42-5.27), corticosteroid therapy (RH 2.54, 95% CI 1.04-6.20) and C-reactive protein (CRP) >500 mg · L(-1) (RH 2.14, 95% CI 1.02-4.48). Appropriate antibiotic therapy was prescribed for 70.8% (292 out of 412) of patients after admission and for 99.8% (537 out of 538) of patients after diagnosis confirmation. In conclusion, female sex, age, ICU stay, renal failure, corticosteroid treatment and increased level of CRP are significant risk factors for mortality in CA LD.

[Orion (Outbreak Reports and Intervention studies of Nosocomial Infection) used for evaluating interventions and investigations of nosocomial infection outbreaks]. / Orion (Outbreak Reports and Intervention Studies of Nosocomial Infection) pour l'évaluation des interventions et des investigations d'épidémie dans le domaine des infections nosocomiales.

INTRODUCTION: British colleagues have developed the Outbreak Reports and Intervention studies of Nosocomial Infection (Orion) guidelines with the aim to promote transparency of publications in the field of health-care associated infections and particularly for reports of outbreak investigation or intervention studies. The aim of this study was to translate the Orion criteria and to promote their use in France. RESULTS: The Orion guidelines include a checklist of 22 commented items related to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of a scientific article. Specific points for each item are developed to enhance its relevance. CONCLUSION: The use of Orion guidelines by authors and editors should be encouraged and should improve the quality of standards in research, intervention studies, and publications on nosocomial infections and health-care associated infections.

Field test comparison of two dermal tolerance assessment methods of hand hygiene products.

This study aimed to compare the sensitivity and workload requirement of two dermal tolerance assessment methods of hand hygiene products, in order to select a suitable pilot testing method for field tests. An observer-rating method and a self-assessment method were compared in 12 voluntary hospital departments (autumn/winter of 2005-2006). Three test-periods of three weeks were separated by two-week intervals during which the routine products were reintroduced. The observer rating method scored dryness and irritation on four-point scales. In the self-assessment method, the user rated appearance, intactness, moisture content, and sensation on a visual analogue scale which was converted into a 10-point numerical scale. Eleven products (soaps) were tested (223/250 complete reports for observer rating, 131/251 for self-assessment). Two products were significantly less well tolerated than the routine product according to the observers, four products according to the self-assessments. There was no significant difference between the two methods when products were classified according to tolerance (Fisher's test: P=0.491). For the symptom common to both assessment methods (dryness), there is a good correlation between the two methods (Spearman's Rho: P=0.032). The workload was higher for observer rating method (288 h of observer time plus 122 h of prevention team and pharmacist time compared with 15 h of prevention team and pharmacist time for self-assessment). In conclusion, the self-assessment method was considered more suitable for pilot testing, although further time should be allocated for educational measures as the return rate of complete self-assessment forms was poor.