RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Carbapenems are a family of end line antibiotics with increasing levels of resistance that are a cause for concern. AIM: To ascertain whether the CPE screening programme employed in an acute tertiary hospital is fit for purpose. METHOD: We outlined the current working algorithm employed using a universal screening programme over a 26-month screening period. Rectal swabs are cultured on arrival. Those with suspicious growth are further investigated using NG-Carba 5 lateral flow tests and Vitek 2.0 sensitivity cards. These practices were compared with NHS guidelines. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS: In all, 53 true positives were detected from 45 patients since the screening was implemented in early 2018 (46 OXA-48, 6 KPC, 1 NDM). As the rate of screening increased, the number of positive screens decreased over time. There were a lot of similarities between the HSE guidelines and the published NHS CPE toolkit. It was evident that there is no standard practice being employed across all hospitals. Comparing the MUH to national guidelines it appears to be quicker and more effective with universal screening in place at reducing the potential contacts and identifying carriers. Cost analysis indicates that the need to confirm all positive strains in a reference lab is costly, unnecessary and time consuming. There are adequate confirmatory tests available in-house for routine positive screens. It was concluded that infection prevention and control are key to identifying and controlling possible outbreaks in a hospital setting.
RESUMEN
Background: Carbapenemase Producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) has spread rapidly and presents a growing challenge in antimicrobial resistance (AMR) management internationally. Screening for CPE may involve a rectal swab, there are limited treatment options for affected patients, and colonised patients are cared for in isolation to protect others. These measures are sound infection prevention precautions; however, the acceptability of CPE screening and its consequences are currently unknown.The aim of this study was 'To determine factors influencing acceptability of CPE screening from the perspectives of nursing staff and the general public.' Methods: National cross-sectional surveys of nursing staff (n = 450) and the general public (n = 261). The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) guided data collection and analysis. Regression modelling was used to identify factors that predicted acceptability of CPE screening. Results: For nursing staff, the following predictor variables were significant: intention to conduct CPE screening (OR 14.19, CI 5.14-39.22); belief in the severity of the consequences of CPE (OR 7.13, CI 3.26-15.60); knowledge of hospital policy for screening (OR 3.04, CI 1.45-6.34); preference to ask patients to take their own rectal swab (OR 2.89, CI 1.39-6.0); awareness that CPE is an organism of growing concern (OR 2.44, CI 1.22-4.88). The following predictor variables were significant for the general public: lack of knowledge of AMR (ß - .11, p = .01); social influences (ß .14,p = .032); social norms (ß .21p = .00); acceptability of being isolated if colonised (ß .22, p = .000), beliefs about the acceptability of rectal swabbing (ß .15, p = .00), beliefs about the impact of careful explanation about CPE screening from a health professional (ß .32, p = .00).Integrating results from staff and public perspectives points to the importance of knowledge of AMR, environmental resources, and social influences in shaping acceptability. Conclusions: This is the first study to systematically examine the acceptability of CPE screening across nursing staff and the public. The use of TDF enabled identification of the mechanisms of action, or theoretical constructs, likely to be important in understanding and changing CPE related behaviour amongst professionals and public alike.