Mpox: Risks and approaches to prevention.

Since early May 2022, an outbreak due to Mpox virus (formerly called monkeypox) has occurred in many countries around the world. On July 23, the World Health Organization declared the outbreak 'Public Health Emergency of International Concern'. In order to combat the outbreak, it is important to have effective infection prevention and control plans. The first step is to qualitatively and quantitatively determine the risks of infections, followed by the design and implementation of infection prevention and control measures. Mpox is transmitted through direct, indirect, and prolonged contact, through sexual transmission, and via the respiratory route. Men who have sex with men are identified as the most vulnerable population. Home pet-raisers, and health care workers are at risk of catching the disease. The outcome of infection is catastrophic among the elderly, immunocompromised individuals, pregnant female and children. The spillover to animals is of great concern. It is important to communicate the risks and have community engagement in the control of this outbreak. The availability of vaccines will add to the capability of containing the outbreak. It is critical to prevent the virus from spreading further. Hence, we review the recent findings on the risk management of Mpox along with the preventive strategies.

Pattern of anaesthetic equipment contamination and infection prevention in anaesthesia practice at university hospitals.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Infection control is essential in anaesthetic practice for both personnel and equipment used. This study aims to evaluate knowledge of anaesthesiologists about infection control practices and to detect the pattern of anaesthetic devices contamination. METHODS: Cross-sectional observational study at two university hospitals was done. Self-administered questionnaires were distributed to 80 anaesthesiologists and 90 nursing staff. Forty-four samples were taken from rigid laryngoscopes (22 pairs from handle and blade) for detection of bacterial or fungal contamination. Same laryngoscopes were tested for occult blood. RESULTS: The response rate among the physicians was 72% while for nurses 94.4%. The responses were variable reflecting lack of adequate knowledge and unsatisfactory compliance to infection control practices. Tested samples showed no fungal growth. Fourteen (31.8%) samples were negative for bacteriological contamination and 5/44 (11.4%) showed gram-positive bacilli; gram-positive cocci were isolated from 12 samples (27.3%) where Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus, respectively, shared 18.2% and 9.1% of the total samples. Gram-negative bacilli were isolated from 13 samples (29.5%), of which Klebsiella spp. were most frequent (11.4%). Both Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii were isolated from 6.8% each. Citerobacter spp. was isolated from 4.5%. Occult blood was found in 45.5% of samples. CONCLUSION: The current study showed contamination of ready-to-use laryngoscopes in operative theatres and ICUs.

Reprocessing practices for gastrointestinal endoscopes: a multicentre study in Egyptian university hospitals.

The aim of this study was to assess the practices of health care workers during gasterointestinal endoscope reprocessing, evaluate their knowledge about reprocessing, and verify their compliance with laboratory and microbiological tests in endoscopy units at Zagazig University and Fayoum University hospitals. All nursing staff on duty from 10 endoscopy units, with 16 flexible endoscopes, were included. Knowledge and practice were assessed by a questionnaire and a checklist. The mean knowledge score was 7.5 (SD 1.9), which was poor. Compliance was 90% for disinfection and 74% for endoscope processing after disinfection. Before reuse after cleaning, no organisms were detected in 5 endoscopes, while 8 colony forming units were found in 2. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the most common organism isolated. Strict implementation of the reprocessing guidelines are needed, especially the pre-cleaning stage and leak testing. Repeating high level disinfection after storage and before use must be followed.

Hospital outpatient clinics as a potential hazard for healthcare associated infections.

Healthcare acquired infections are no longer confined to the hospital environment. Recently, many reported outbreaks have been linked to outpatient settings and attributed to non-adherence to recommended infection-prevention procedures. This study was divided into two parts: The first is a descriptive cross-sectional part, to assess the healthcare personnel's knowledge and compliance with Standard Precautions (SP). The second is an intervention part to assess the role of health education on reducing the level of environmental and reusable medical equipment bacterial contamination. Assessment of the doctors' and nurses' knowledge and compliance with SP was performed using a self-administered questionnaire. Assessment of environmental cleaning (EC) and reusable medical equipment disinfection has been performed using aseptic swabbing method. The extent of any growth was recorded according to the suggested standards: (A) Presence of indicator organisms, with the proposed standard being <1cfu/cm(2). These include Staphylococcus aureus (including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, MRSA), Enterococci, including vancomycin-resistant Enterococci (VRE) and various multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli. (B) Aerobic colony count, the suggested standard is <5cfu/cm(2). The effect of health education intervention on cleaning and disinfection had been analyzed by comparing the difference in cleaning level before and after interventional education. Good knowledge and compliance scores were found in more than 50% of participants. Primary screening found poor EC and equipment disinfection as 67% and 83.3% of stethoscopes and ultrasound transducers, respectively, were contaminated with indicator organisms. For all indicator organisms, a significant reduction was detected after intervention (p=0.00). Prevalence of MRSA was 38.9% and 16.7%, of the total S. aureus isolates, before and after intervention, respectively. Although 27.8% of the total Enterococcus isolates were VRE before intervention, no VRE isolates were detected after intervention. These differences were significant. Development and monitoring of the implementation of infection prevention policies and training of HCP is recommended.