Assessing the impact of a cleaning programme on environmental hygiene in labour and neonatal wards: an exploratory study in The Gambia.

BACKGROUND: Effective surface cleaning in hospitals is crucial to prevent the transmission of pathogens. However, hospitals in low- and middle-income countries face cleaning challenges due to limited resources and inadequate training. METHODS: We assessed the effectiveness of a modified TEACH CLEAN programme for trainers in reducing surface microbiological contamination in the newborn unit of a tertiary referral hospital in The Gambia. We utilised a quasi-experimental design and compared data against those from the labour ward. Direct observations of cleaning practices and key informant interviews were also conducted to clarify the programme's impact. RESULTS: Between July and September 2021 (pre-intervention) and October and December 2021 (post-intervention), weekly surface sampling was performed in the newborn unit and labour ward. The training package was delivered in October 2021, after which their surface microbiological contamination deteriorated in both clinical settings. While some cleaning standards improved, critical aspects such as using fresh cleaning cloths and the one-swipe method did not. Interviews with senior departmental and hospital management staff revealed ongoing challenges in the health system that hindered the ability to improve cleaning practices, including COVID-19, understaffing, disruptions to water supply and shortages of cleaning materials. CONCLUSIONS: Keeping a hospital clean is fundamental to good care, but training hospital cleaning staff in this low-income country neonatal unit failed to reduce surface contamination levels. Further qualitative investigation revealed multiple external factors that challenged any possible impact of the cleaning programme. Further work is needed to address barriers to hospital cleaning in low-income hospitals.

Mandating indoor air quality for public buildings.

If some countries lead by example, standards may increasingly become normalized.

Hospital cleaning: past, present, and future.

INTRODUCTION: The importance of hospital cleaning for controlling healthcare-associated infection (HAI) has taken years to acknowledge. This is mainly because the removal of dirt is inextricably entwined with gender and social status, along with lack of evidence and confusion over HAI definitions. Reducing so-called endogenous infection due to human carriage entails patient screening, decolonisation and/or prophylaxis, whereas adequate ventilation, plumbing and cleaning are needed to reduce exogenous infection. These infection types remain difficult to separate and quantitate. Patients themselves demonstrate wide-ranging vulnerability to infection, which further complicates attempted ranking of control interventions, including cleaning. There has been disproportionate attention towards endogenous infection with less interest in managing environmental reservoirs. QUANTIFYING CLEANING AND CLEANLINESS: Finding evidence for cleaning is compromised by the fact that modelling HAI rates against arbitrary measurements of cleaning/cleanliness requires universal standards and these are not yet established. Furthermore, the distinction between cleaning (soil removal) and cleanliness (soil remaining) is usually overlooked. Tangible bench marking for both cleaning methods and all surface types within different units, with modification according to patient status, would be invaluable for domestic planning, monitoring and specification. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This narrative review will focus on recent history and current status of cleaning in hospitals. While its importance is now generally accepted, cleaning practices still need attention in order to determine how, when and where to clean. Renewed interest in removal and monitoring of surface bioburden would help to embed risk-based practice in hospitals across the world.

Risk of organism acquisition from prior room occupants: An updated systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from a previous systematic review indicates that patients admitted to a room where the previous occupant had a multidrug-resistant bacterial infection resulted in an increased risk of subsequent colonisation and infection with the same organism for the next room occupant. In this paper, we have sought to expand and update this review. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken. A search using Medline/PubMed, Cochrane and CINHAL databases was conducted. Risk of bias was assessed by the ROB-2 tool for randomised control studies and ROBIN-I for non-randomised studies. RESULTS: From 5175 identified, 12 papers from 11 studies were included in the review for analysis. From 28,299 patients who were admitted into a room where the prior room occupant had any of the organisms of interest, 651 (2.3%) were shown to acquire the same species of organism. In contrast, 981,865 patients were admitted to a room where the prior occupant did not have an organism of interest, 3818 (0.39%) acquired an organism(s). The pooled acquisition odds ratio (OR) for all the organisms across all studies was 2.45 (95% CI: 1.53-3.93]. There was heterogeneity between the studies (I2 89%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The pooled OR for all the pathogens in this latest review has increased since the original review. Findings from our review provide some evidence to help inform a risk management approach when determining patient room allocation. The risk of pathogen acquisition appears to remain high, supporting the need for continued investment in this area.

Airborne transmission of respiratory viruses including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has had a wide-ranging and profound impact on how we think about the transmission of respiratory viruses This review outlines the basis on which we should consider all respiratory viruses as aerosol-transmissible infections, in order to improve our control of these pathogens in both healthcare and community settings. RECENT FINDINGS: We present recent studies to support the aerosol transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and some older studies to demonstrate the aerosol transmissibility of other, more familiar seasonal respiratory viruses. SUMMARY: Current knowledge on how these respiratory viruses are transmitted, and the way we control their spread, is changing. We need to embrace these changes to improve the care of patients in hospitals and care homes including others who are vulnerable to severe disease in community settings.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Airborne Transmission: Science Rejected, Lives Lost. Can Society Do Better?

This is an account that should be heard of an important struggle: the struggle of a large group of experts who came together at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic to warn the world about the risk of airborne transmission and the consequences of ignoring it. We alerted the World Health Organization about the potential significance of the airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and the urgent need to control it, but our concerns were dismissed. Here we describe how this happened and the consequences. We hope that by reporting this story we can raise awareness of the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and the need to be open to new evidence, and to prevent it from happening again. Acknowledgement of an issue, and the emergence of new evidence related to it, is the first necessary step towards finding effective mitigation solutions.

Insights into the Spectrum of Activity and Mechanism of Action of MGB-BP-3.

MGB-BP-3 is a potential first-in-class antibiotic, a Strathclyde Minor Groove Binder (S-MGB), that has successfully completed Phase IIa clinical trials for the treatment of Clostridioides difficile associated disease. Its precise mechanism of action and the origin of limited activity against Gram-negative pathogens are relatively unknown. Herein, treatment with MGB-BP-3 alone significantly inhibited the bacterial growth of the Gram-positive, but not Gram-negative, bacteria as expected. Synergy assays revealed that inefficient intracellular accumulation, through both permeation and efflux, is the likely reason for lack of Gram-negative activity. MGB-BP-3 has strong interactions with its intracellular target, DNA, in both Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria, revealed through ultraviolet-visible (UV-vis) thermal melting and fluorescence intercalator displacement assays. MGB-BP-3 was confirmed to bind to dsDNA as a dimer using nano-electrospray ionization mass spectrometry and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. Type II bacterial topoisomerase inhibition assays revealed that MGB-BP-3 was able to interfere with the supercoiling action of gyrase and the relaxation and decatenation actions of topoisomerase IV of both Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli. However, no evidence of stabilization of the cleavage complexes was observed, such as for fluoroquinolones, confirmed by a lack of induction of DSBs and the SOS response in E. coli reporter strains. These results highlight additional mechanisms of action of MGB-BP-3, including interference of the action of type II bacterial topoisomerases. While MGB-BP-3's lack of Gram-negative activity was confirmed, and an understanding of this presented, the recognition that MGB-BP-3 can target DNA of Gram-negative organisms will enable further iterations of design to achieve a Gram-negative active S-MGB.

What were the historical reasons for the resistance to recognizing airborne transmission during the COVID-19 pandemic?

The question of whether SARS-CoV-2 is mainly transmitted by droplets or aerosols has been highly controversial. We sought to explain this controversy through a historical analysis of transmission research in other diseases. For most of human history, the dominant paradigm was that many diseases were carried by the air, often over long distances and in a phantasmagorical way. This miasmatic paradigm was challenged in the mid to late 19th century with the rise of germ theory, and as diseases such as cholera, puerperal fever, and malaria were found to actually transmit in other ways. Motivated by his views on the importance of contact/droplet infection, and the resistance he encountered from the remaining influence of miasma theory, prominent public health official Charles Chapin in 1910 helped initiate a successful paradigm shift, deeming airborne transmission most unlikely. This new paradigm became dominant. However, the lack of understanding of aerosols led to systematic errors in the interpretation of research evidence on transmission pathways. For the next five decades, airborne transmission was considered of negligible or minor importance for all major respiratory diseases, until a demonstration of airborne transmission of tuberculosis (which had been mistakenly thought to be transmitted by droplets) in 1962. The contact/droplet paradigm remained dominant, and only a few diseases were widely accepted as airborne before COVID-19: those that were clearly transmitted to people not in the same room. The acceleration of interdisciplinary research inspired by the COVID-19 pandemic has shown that airborne transmission is a major mode of transmission for this disease, and is likely to be significant for many respiratory infectious diseases.

A Better Disinfectant for Low-Resourced Hospitals? A Multi-Period Cluster Randomised Trial Comparing Hypochlorous Acid with Sodium Hypochlorite in Nigerian Hospitals: The EWASH Trial.

Environmental hygiene in hospitals is a major challenge worldwide. Low-resourced hospitals in African countries continue to rely on sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) as major disinfectant. However, NaOCl has several limitations such as the need for daily dilution, irritation, and corrosion. Hypochlorous acid (HOCl) is an innovative surface disinfectant produced by saline electrolysis with a much higher safety profile. We assessed non-inferiority of HOCl against standard NaOCl for surface disinfection in two hospitals in Abuja, Nigeria using a double-blind multi-period randomised cross-over study. Microbiological cleanliness [Aerobic Colony Counts (ACC)] was measured using dipslides. We aggregated data at the cluster-period level and fitted a linear regression. Microbiological cleanliness was high for both disinfectant (84.8% HOCl; 87.3% NaOCl). No evidence of a significant difference between the two products was found (RD = 2%, 90%CI: -5.1%-+0.4%; p-value = 0.163). We cannot rule out the possibility of HOCl being inferior by up to 5.1 percentage points and hence we did not strictly meet the non-inferiority margin we set ourselves. However, even a maximum difference of 5.1% in favour of sodium hypochlorite would not suggest there is a clinically relevant difference between the two products. We demonstrated that HOCl and NaOCl have a similar efficacy in achieving microbiological cleanliness, with HOCl acting at a lower concentration. With a better safety profile, and potential applicability across many healthcare uses, HOCl provides an attractive and potentially cost-efficient alternative to sodium hypochlorite in low resource settings.

Modeling fomite-mediated SARS-CoV-2 exposure through personal protective equipment doffing in a hospital environment.

Self-contamination during doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE) is a concern for healthcare workers (HCW) following SARS-CoV-2-positive patient care. Staff may subconsciously become contaminated through improper glove removal; so, quantifying this exposure is critical for safe working procedures. HCW surface contact sequences on a respiratory ward were modeled using a discrete-time Markov chain for: IV-drip care, blood pressure monitoring, and doctors' rounds. Accretion of viral RNA on gloves during care was modeled using a stochastic recurrence relation. In the simulation, the HCW then doffed PPE and contaminated themselves in a fraction of cases based on increasing caseload. A parametric study was conducted to analyze the effect of: (1a) increasing patient numbers on the ward, (1b) the proportion of COVID-19 cases, (2) the length of a shift, and (3) the probability of touching contaminated PPE. The driving factors for the exposure were surface contamination and the number of surface contacts. The results simulate generally low viral exposures in most of the scenarios considered including on 100% COVID-19 positive wards, although this is where the highest self-inoculated dose is likely to occur with median 0.0305 viruses (95% CI =0-0.6 viruses). Dose correlates highly with surface contamination showing that this can be a determining factor for the exposure. The infection risk resulting from the exposure is challenging to estimate, as it will be influenced by the factors such as virus variant and vaccination rates.

Probabilistic microsimulation to examine the cost-effectiveness of hospital admission screening strategies for carbapenemase-producing enterobacteriaceae (CPE) in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance has been recognised as a global threat with carbapenemase- producing-Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) as a prime example. CPE has similarities to COVID-19 where asymptomatic patients may be colonised representing a source for onward transmission. There are limited treatment options for CPE infection leading to poor outcomes and increased costs. Admission screening can prevent cross-transmission by pre-emptively isolating colonised patients. OBJECTIVE: We assess the relative cost-effectiveness of screening programmes compared with no- screening. METHODS: A microsimulation parameterised with NHS Scotland date was used to model scenarios of the prevalence of CPE colonised patients on admission. Screening strategies were (a) two-step screening involving a clinical risk assessment (CRA) checklist followed by microbiological testing of high-risk patients; and (b) universal screening. Strategies were considered with either culture or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. All costs were reported in 2019 UK pounds with a healthcare system perspective. RESULTS: In the low prevalence scenario, no screening had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness. Among screening strategies, the two CRA screening options were the most likely to be cost-effective. Screening was more likely to be cost-effective than no screening in the prevalence of 1 CPE colonised in 500 admitted patients or more. There was substantial uncertainty with the probabilities rarely exceeding 40% and similar results between strategies. Screening reduced non-isolated bed-days and CPE colonisation. The cost of screening was low in relation to total costs. CONCLUSION: The specificity of the CRA checklist was the parameter with the highest impact on the cost-effectiveness. Further primary data collection is needed to build models with less uncertainty in the parameters.

Reducing the risk of COVID-19 transmission in hospitals: focus on additional infection control strategies.

Hospitals under pressure from the COVID-19 pandemic have experienced an additional challenge due to clusters of hospital-acquired COVID-19 infection occurring on non-COVID-19 wards. These clusters have involved both staff and patients and compromise staffing, bed management and routine care, especially delivery of elective surgical procedures. They have also contributed towards the overall morbidity and mortality of the pandemic. COVID-19 infection rates are rising again, so it is important to consider implementing additional activities designed to impede transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in acute hospitals. These aim to protect staff, patients and visitors, and conserve safe and continued access for patients needing routine and emergency surgical interventions. Current infection prevention strategies include hand hygiene; patient and staff screening; surveillance; personal protective equipment; cohorting and isolation; and enhanced cleaning. Additional activities include restriction of staff and patient movement; COVID-19 pathways for wards, operating theatres and outpatient services; bathroom management; and ensuring fresh air in the absence of effective mechanical ventilation systems. Seasonal pressures and spread of more contagious and/or vaccine-tolerant variants will continue to disrupt routine and emergency care of non-COVID-19 patients, as well as increase the risk of COVID-19 infection for staff and patients. Supplementary practical and cost-effective actions to limit spread in hospitals are explored in this article.

Staphylococcus aureus nasal colonization among dental health care workers in Northern Germany (StaphDent study).

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) can colonize dental patients and students, however, studies on the prevalence of MRSA and methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) among dental health care workers (DHCW) including use of personal protective equipment (PPE) are scarce. We conducted an observational study (StaphDent study) to (I) determine the prevalence of MRSA and MSSA colonization in DHCW in the region of Mecklenburg Western-Pomerania, Germany, (II) resolve the S. aureus population structure to gain hints on possible transmission events between co-workers, and (III) clarify use of PPE. Nasal swabs were obtained from dentists (n = 149), dental assistants (n = 297) and other dental practice staff (n = 38). Clonal relatedness of MSSA isolates was investigated using spa typing and, in some cases, whole genome sequencing (WGS). PPE use was assessed by questionnaire. While 22.3% (108/485) of the participants were colonized with MSSA, MRSA was not detected. MSSA prevalence was not associated with size of dental practices, gender, age, or duration of employment. The identified 61 spa types grouped into 17 clonal complexes and four sequence types. Most spa types (n = 47) were identified only once. In ten dental practices one spa type occurred twice. WGS data analysis confirmed a close clonal relationship for 4/10 isolate pairs. PPE was regularly used by most dentists and assistants. To conclude, the failure to recover MRSA from DHCW reflects the low MRSA prevalence in this region. Widespread PPE use suggests adherence to routine hygiene protocols. Compared to other regional HCW MRSA rates the consequent usage of PPE seems to be protective.

What is the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 from the use of public toilets?

Public toilets and bathrooms may act as a contact hub point where community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurs between users. The mechanism of spread would arise through three mechanisms: inhalation of faecal and/or urinary aerosol from an individual shedding SARS-CoV-2; airborne transmission of respiratory aerosols between users face-to-face or during short periods after use; or from fomite transmission via frequent touch sites such as door handles, sink taps, lota or toilet roll dispenser. In this respect toilets could present a risk comparable with other high throughput enclosed spaces such as public transport and food retail outlets. They are often compact, inadequately ventilated, heavily used and subject to maintenance and cleaning issues. Factors such as these would compound the risks generated by toilet users incubating or symptomatic with SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, toilets are important public infrastructure since they are vital for the maintenance of accessible, sustainable and comfortable urban spaces. Given the lack of studies on transmission through use of public toilets, comprehensive risk assessment relies upon the compilation of evidence gathered from parallel studies, including work performed in hospitals and prior work on related viruses. This narrative review examines the evidence suggestive of transmission risk through use of public toilets and concludes that such a risk cannot be lightly disregarded. A range of mitigating actions are suggested for both users of public toilets and those that are responsible for their design, maintenance and management.

What is the relationship between indoor air quality parameters and airborne microorganisms in hospital environments? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Airborne microorganisms in hospitals have been associated with several hospital-acquired infections (HAIs), and various measures of indoor air quality (IAQ) parameters such as temperature, relative humidity, carbon dioxide (CO2 ), particle mass concentration, and particle size have been linked to pathogen survival or mitigation of pathogen spread. To investigate whether there are quantitative relationships between the concentration of airborne microorganisms and the IAQ in the hospital environment. Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed databases were searched for studies reporting airborne microbial levels and any IAQ parameter(s) in hospital environments, from database inception to October 2020. Pooled effect estimates were determined via random-effects models. Seventeen of 654 studies were eligible for the meta-analysis. The concentration of airborne microbial measured as aerobic colony count (ACC) was significantly correlated with temperature (r = 0.25 [95% CI = 0.06-0.42], p = 0.01), CO2 concentration (r = 0.53 [95% CI = 0.40-0.64], p Ë‚ 0.001), particle mass concentration (≤5 µg/m3 ; r = 0.40 [95% CI = 0.04-0.66], p = 0.03), and particle size (≤5 and ˃5 µm), (r = 0.51 [95% CI = 0.12-0.77], p = 0.01 and r = 0.55 [95% CI = 0.20-0.78], p = 0.003), respectively, while not being significantly correlated with relative humidity or particulate matter of size >5 µm. Conversely, airborne total fungi (TF) were not significantly correlated with temperature, relative humidity, or CO2 level. However, there was a significant weak correlation between ACC and TF (r = 0.31 [95% CI = 0.07-0.52], p = 0.013). Although significant correlations exist between ACC and IAQ parameters, the relationship is not definitive; the IAQ parameters may affect the microorganisms but are not responsible for the presence of airborne microorganisms. Environmental parameters could be related to the generating source, survival, dispersion, and deposition rate of microorganisms. Future studies should record IAQ parameters and factors such as healthcare worker presence and the activities carried out such as cleaning, sanitizing, and disinfection protocols. Foot traffic would influence both the generation of microorganisms and their deposition rate onto surfaces in the hospital environment. These data would inform models to improve the understanding of the likely concentration of airborne microorganisms and provide an alternative approach for real-time monitoring of the healthcare environment.