Why psychiatry is different - challenges and difficulties in managing a nosocomial outbreak of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in hospital care.

OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was officially declared a pandemic in March 2020. Many cases of COVID-19 are nosocomial, but to the best of our knowledge, no nosocomial outbreaks on psychiatric departments of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been reported in Europe. The different nature of psychiatry makes outbreak management more difficult. This study determines which psychiatry specific factors contributed to a nosocomial outbreak taking place in a psychiatric department. This will provide possible interventions in future outbreak management. METHOD: A case series describing a nosocomial outbreak in a psychiatric department of an acute care hospital in the Netherlands between March 13, 2020 and April, 14 2020. The outbreak was analyzed by combining data from standardized interviews, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests and whole genome sequencing (WGS). RESULTS: The nosocomial outbreak in which 43% of staff of the psychiatric department and 19% of admitted patients were involved, was caused by healthcare worker (HCW)-to-HCW transmissions, as well as patient-to-HCW-to-patient transmission. We identified four aspects associated with the mental health care system which might have made our department more susceptible to an outbreak. CONCLUSIONS: Infection control measures designed for hospitals are not directly applicable to psychiatric departments. Psychiatric patients should be considered a high-risk group for infectious diseases and customized measures should be designed and implemented. Extra attention for psychiatric departments is necessary during a pandemic as psychiatric HCWs are less familiar with outbreak management. Clear communication and governance is crucial in correctly implementing these measures.

Product dose considerations for real-world hand sanitiser efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol based hand rubs (ABHR) are extremely effective at reducing microbial contamination and have an essential role in best practice hand hygiene described by the World Health Organization. METHODS: We determined ABHR drying time when performing hand hygiene in a laboratory setting. Which was followed by identifying the amount of ABHR needed for complete hand coverage. When the aforementioned was analyzed real-time data were gathered to examine the amount used for hand hygiene in a hospital setting. In parallel hands of healthcare workers (HCWs) were monitored for drying time and perception on ABHR use. RESULTS: In 86% (24,446,397/28,280,383) of the events a single dose of ABHR was used on clinical wards. Twenty-four HCWs expected hand hygiene to take 7.5 seconds (median; range 3-30 seconds). Forty-three HCWs show that 1.5 mL ABHR dose achieves the desired drying time according to World Health Organization guidelines (av. median 26 seconds), but is consistently perceived to have a longer drying time than expected (av. median 18 seconds). In-vivo results (n = 10) indicate that 2.25 mL ABHR is required for adequate coverage (82%-90%) of both sides of the hand. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that set standards for the use of ABHR do not match "in-vivo" behaviour of HCWs. Perceived drying times are shorter than actual drying time. The needed drying time to reach acceptable antimicrobial efficacy of ABHRs should be revisited.

Worldwide practices on flexible endoscope reprocessing.

Background: Endoscopy related infections represent an important threat for healthcare systems worldwide. Recent outbreaks of infections with multidrug resistant micro-organisms have highlighted the problems of contaminated endoscopes. Endoscopes at highest risk for contamination have intricate mechanisms, multiple internal channels and narrow lumens that are especially problematic to clean. In light of raised awareness about the necessity for meticulous reprocessing of all types of endoscopes, a call for international collaboration is needed. An overview is presented on current practices for endoscope reprocessing in facilities worldwide. Method: An electronic survey was developed and disseminated by the International Society for Antimicrobials and Chemotherapy. The survey consisted of 50 questions aimed at assessing the reprocessing of flexible endoscopes internationally. It covered three core elements: stakeholder involvement, assessment of perceived risks, and reprocessing process. Results: The survey received a total of 165 completed responses from 39 countries. It is evident that most facilities, 82% (n = 136), have a standard operating procedure. There is, however a lot of variation within the flexible endoscope reprocessing practices observed. The need for regular training and education of reprocessing practitioners were identified by 50% (n = 83) of the respondents as main concerns that need to be addressed in order to increase patient safety in endoscope reprocessing procedures. Conclusion: This international survey on current flexible endoscope reprocessing identified a large variation for reprocessing practices among different health care facilities/countries. A standardised education and training programme with a competency assessment is essential to prevent reprocessing lapses and improve patient safety.

An international survey of cleaning and disinfection practices in the healthcare environment.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance has become an urgent global health priority. Basic hygiene practices and cleaning and disinfection of the hospital environment are key in preventing pathogen cross-transmission. AIM: To our knowledge no studies have assessed the worldwide differences in cleaning and disinfection practices in healthcare facilities. The electronic survey described here was developed in order to evaluate differences in healthcare facility cleaning practices around the world. METHODS: The International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (ISAC, formerly ISC), Infection Prevention and Control work group developed a survey with 30 multiple-choice questions. The questions were designed to assess the current cleaning practices in healthcare settings around the world. FINDINGS: A total of 110 healthcare professionals, representing 23 countries, participated in the online survey. In 96% of the facilities a written cleaning policy was present. Training of cleaning staff occurred in 70% of the facilities at the start of employment. Cleaning practices and monitoring of these practices varied. CONCLUSIONS: The survey enabled assessment and recognition of widely differing global practices in approaches to environmental cleaning and disinfection. Development of guideline recommendations for cleaning and disinfection could improve practices and set minimum standards worldwide.

Effectiveness of various cleaning and disinfectant products on Clostridium difficile spores of PCR ribotypes 010, 014 and 027.

BACKGROUND: In healthcare facilities, Clostridium difficile infections spread by transmission of bacterial spores. Appropriate sporicidal disinfectants are needed to prevent development of clusters and outbreaks. In this study different cleaning/disinfecting wipes and sprays were tested for their efficacy against spores of distinctive C. difficile PCR ribotypes. METHODS: Four different products were tested; 1) hydrogen peroxide 1.5%; 2) glucoprotamin 1.5%; 3) a mixture of ethanol, propane and N-alkyl amino propyl glycine; and 4) a mixture of didecyldimonium chloride, benzalkonium chloride, polyaminopropyl, biguanide and dimenthicone as active ingredients. Tiles were contaminated with a test solution containing a concentration of 5x106CFU/ml spores of C. difficile strains belonging to PCR ribotypes 010, 014 or 027. The tiles were left to dry for an hour and then wiped or sprayed with one of the sprays or wipes as intended by the manufacturers. When products neutralized after 5 min, microbiological cultures and ATP measures were performed. RESULTS: Irrespective of the disinfection method, the microbial count log10 reduction of C. difficile PCR ribotype 010 was highest, followed by the reduction of C. difficile 014 and C. difficile 027. Overall, the wipes performed better than the sprays with the same active ingredient. On average, although not significantly, a difference in relative light units (RLU) reduction between the wipes and sprays was found. The wipes had a higher RLU log10 reduction, but no significant difference for RLU reduction was observed between the different C. difficile strains (p = 0.16). CONCLUSION: C. difficile spores of PCR ribotypes 014 and 027 strains are more difficult to eradicate than non-toxigenic PCR ribotype 010. In general, impregnated cleaning/disinfection wipes performed better than ready-to-use sprays. Wipes with hydrogen peroxide (1.5%) showed the highest bactericidal activity.