Ebola Preparedness Resources for Acute-Care Hospitals in the United States: A Cross-Sectional Study of Costs, Benefits, and Challenges.

OBJECTIVE To assess resource allocation and costs associated with US hospitals preparing for the possible spread of the 2014-2015 Ebola virus disease (EVD) epidemic in the United States. METHODS A survey was sent to a stratified national probability sample (n=750) of US general medical/surgical hospitals selected from the American Hospital Association (AHA) list of hospitals. The survey was also sent to all children's general hospitals listed by the AHA (n=60). The survey assessed EVD preparation supply costs and overtime staff hours. The average national wage was multiplied by labor hours to calculate overtime labor costs. Additional information collected included challenges, benefits, and perceived value of EVD preparedness activities. RESULTS The average amount spent by hospitals on combined supply and overtime labor costs was $80,461 (n=133; 95% confidence interval [CI], $56,502-$104,419). Multivariate analysis indicated that small hospitals (mean, $76,167) spent more on staff overtime costs per 100 beds than large hospitals (mean, $15,737; P<.0001). The overall cost for acute-care hospitals in the United States to prepare for possible EVD cases was estimated to be $361,108,968. The leading challenge was difficulty obtaining supplies from vendors due to shortages (83%; 95% CI, 78%-88%) and the greatest benefit was improved knowledge about personal protective equipment (89%; 95% CI, 85%-93%). CONCLUSIONS The financial impact of EVD preparedness activities was substantial. Overtime cost in smaller hospitals was >3 times that in larger hospitals. Planning for emerging infectious disease identification, triage, and management should be conducted at regional and national levels in the United States to facilitate efficient and appropriate allocation of resources in acute-care facilities. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:405-410.

Cleaning and disinfecting environmental surfaces in health care: Toward an integrated framework for infection and occupational illness prevention.

BACKGROUND: The Cleaning and Disinfecting in Healthcare Working Group of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, National Occupational Research Agenda, is a collaboration of infection prevention and occupational health researchers and practitioners with the objective of providing a more integrated approach to effective environmental surface cleaning and disinfection (C&D) while protecting the respiratory health of health care personnel. METHODS: The Working Group, comprised of >40 members from 4 countries, reviewed current knowledge and identified knowledge gaps and future needs for research and practice. RESULTS: An integrated framework was developed to guide more comprehensive efforts to minimize harmful C&D exposures without reducing the effectiveness of infection prevention. Gaps in basic knowledge and practice that are barriers to an integrated approach were grouped in 2 broad areas related to the need for improved understanding of the (1) effectiveness of environmental surface C&D to reduce the incidence of infectious diseases and colonization in health care workers and patients and (2) adverse health impacts of C&D on health care workers and patients. Specific needs identified within each area relate to basic knowledge, improved selection and use of products and practices, effective hazard communication and training, and safer alternatives. CONCLUSION: A more integrated approach can support multidisciplinary teams with the capacity to maximize effective and safe C&D in health care.

Timing of antimicrobial prophylaxis and the risk of surgical site infections: results from the Trial to Reduce Antimicrobial Prophylaxis Errors.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to determine the optimal timing for surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: National AMP guidelines should be supported by evidence from large contemporary data sets. METHODS: Twenty-nine hospitals prospectively obtained information on AMP from 4472 randomly selected cardiac, hip/knee arthroplasty, and hysterectomy cases. Surgical site infections (SSIs) were ascertained through routine surveillance, using National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance system methodology. The association between the prophylaxis timing and the occurrence of SSI was assessed using conditional logistic regression (conditioning on hospital). RESULTS: One-hundred thirteen SSI were detected in 109 patients. SSI risk increased incrementally as the interval of time between antibiotic infusion and the incision increased (overall association between timing and infection risk P = 0.04). When antibiotics requiring long infusion times (vancomycin and fluoroquinolones) were excluded, the infection risk following administration of antibiotic within 30 minutes prior to incision was 1.6% compared with 2.4% associated with administration of antibiotic between 31 to 60 minutes prior to surgery (OR: 1.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-3.04). The infection risk increased as the time interval between preoperative antibiotic and incision increased or if the antibiotic was first infused after incision. Intraoperative redosing (performed in only 21% of long operations) appeared to reduce SSI risk in operations lasting more than 4 hours (OR of 3.08 with no redosing; 95% confidence interval 0.74-12.90), but only when the preoperative dose was given correctly. CONCLUSIONS: These data from a large multicenter collaborative study confirm and extend previous observations and show a consistent relationship between the timing of AMP and SSI risk with a trend toward lower risk occurring when AMP with cephalosporins and other antibiotics with short infusion times were given within 30 minutes prior to incision.

Measuring adherence to hand hygiene guidelines: a field survey for examples of effective practices.

BACKGROUND: Measuring adherence to hand hygiene guidelines is resource intensive and complicated by lack of standardized methodology. The multiplicity of approaches in use makes it difficult to meaningfully compare performance across health care organizations. The goal of this project was to identify promising and effective practices for measuring adherence with hand hygiene guidelines across a variety of settings. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted electronically in February 2007 to collect information on aspects of hand hygiene measured (eg, frequency, thoroughness of technique, glove use, product consumption), data collection approaches, training and resources, reports, and others. Invitations to respond were widely distributed through Web site announcements and list-serve messages of The Joint Commission and collaborating organizations. A panel of national experts developed and applied criteria for evaluating the methods. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-two responses were submitted from a variety of settings and countries. Most (approximately 75%) measured frequency of hand hygiene; approximately 50% measured thoroughness, glove use, product usage, patient and provider satisfaction, or other aspects. Seventy-two percent relied exclusively on manual data collection, and most methods (80%) had been in use for less than 3 years. Most (65%) spent less than 1 hour in training data collectors, and few had evidence of reliability or validity. Forty submissions met most criteria for inclusion in an educational monograph. CONCLUSION: Among respondents who considered their approach to be an example of an effective practice, there was substantial variation in methods and little evidence of reliability. Standardization of methods is needed to compare performance across organizations or within an organization over time.

The effect of a quality improvement collaborative to improve antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgical patients: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement collaboratives are used to improve health care quality, but their efficacy remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of a quality improvement collaborative on preoperative antimicrobial prophylaxis. DESIGN: Longitudinal cluster randomized trial, with the quality improvement collaborative as the intervention. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: 44 acute care hospitals, each of which randomly sampled approximately 100 selected surgical cases (cardiac, hip or knee replacement, and hysterectomy) at both the baseline and remeasurement phases. INTERVENTION: All hospitals received a comparative feedback report. Hospitals randomly assigned to the intervention group (n = 22) participated in a quality improvement collaborative comprising 2 in-person meetings led by experts, monthly teleconferences, and receipt of supplemental materials over 9 months. MEASUREMENTS: Change in the proportion of patients receiving at least 1 antibiotic dose within 60 minutes of surgery (primary outcome) and change in the proportions of patients given any antibiotics, given antibiotics for 24 hours or less, given an appropriate drug, and given a single preoperative dose and receipt of any of the 5 measures (secondary outcome). RESULTS: The groups did not differ in the change in proportion of patients who received a properly timed antimicrobial prophylaxis dose (-3.8 percentage points [95% CI, -13.9 to 6.2 percentage points]) after adjustment for region, hospital size, and surgery type. Similarly, the groups did not differ in individual measures of antibiotic duration; use of appropriate drug; receipt of a single preoperative dose; or an all-or-none measure combining timing, duration, and selection. LIMITATIONS: Hospitals volunteered for the effort, thereby resulting in selection for participants who were motivated to change. Implementation of the surgical infection prevention measure reporting requirements by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and The Joint Commission may have motivated improvement in prophylaxis performance. CONCLUSION: At a time of heightened national attention toward measures of antimicrobial prophylaxis performance, the trial did not demonstrate a benefit of participation in a quality improvement collaborative over performance feedback for improvement of these measures.

The impact of hospital practice on central venous catheter associated bloodstream infection rates at the patient and unit level: a multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about factors driving variation in bloodstream infection (BSI) rates between institutions. The objectives of this study are to (1) identify patient, process of care, and hospital factors that influence intensive care unit (ICU)-level BSI rates and (2) compare those factors to individual risk factors identified in a cohort analysis. DESIGN: In this multicenter prospective observational study, the authors measured the process of care for 2970 randomly sampled central venous catheter insertions over 13 months. SETTING: Medical, surgical, and medical/surgical ICUs of 37 domestic and 13 international hospitals. RESULTS: Significant correlates of unit-level BSI rates were percentage of female patients, patients on dialysis, ICU bed size, percentage of practitioners with low numbers of previous insertions, and percentage inserted by nurses. Patient-level analysis identified gender, age, posttransplant, postsurgery, and use of the line for parenteral nutrition. CONCLUSIONS: Factors that influence unit-to-unit variation may differ from factors identified in studies of individual patient risk.

Comparing bloodstream infection rates: the effect of indicator specifications in the evaluation of processes and indicators in infection control (EPIC) study.

OBJECTIVE: Bloodstream infection (BSI) rates are used as comparative clinical performance indicators; however, variations in definitions and data-collection approaches make it difficult to compare and interpret rates. To determine the extent to which variation in indicator specifications affected infection rates and hospital performance rankings, we compared absolute rates and relative rankings of hospitals across 5 BSI indicators. DESIGN: Multicenter observational study. BSI rate specifications varied by data source (clinical data, administrative data, or both), scope (hospital wide or intensive care unit specific), and inclusion/exclusion criteria. As appropriate, hospital-specific infection rates and rankings were calculated by processing data from each site according to 2-5 different specifications. SETTING: A total of 28 hospitals participating in the EPIC study. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitals submitted deidentified information about all patients with BSIs from January through September 1999. RESULTS: Median BSI rates for 2 indicators based on intensive care unit surveillance data ranged from 2.23 to 2.91 BSIs per 1000 central-line days. In contrast, median rates for indicators based on administrative data varied from 0.046 to 7.03 BSIs per 100 patients. Hospital-specific rates and rankings varied substantially as different specifications were applied; the rates of 8 of 10 hospitals were both greater than and less than the mean. Correlations of hospital rankings among indicator pairs were generally low (rs=0-0.45), except when both indicators were based on intensive care unit surveillance (rs = 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Although BSI rates seem to be a logical indicator of clinical performance, the use of various indicator specifications can produce remarkably different judgments of absolute and relative performance for a given hospital. Recent national initiatives continue to mix methods for specifying BSI rates; this practice is likely to limit the usefulness of such information for comparing and improving performance.