Decolonization in Prevention of Health Care-Associated Infections

Colonization with health care-associated pathogens such as Staphylococcus aureus, enterococci, Gram-negative organisms, and Clostridium difficile is associated with increased risk of infection. Decolonization is an evidence-based intervention that can be used to prevent health care-associated infections (HAIs). This review evaluates agents used for nasal topical decolonization, topical (e.g., skin) decolonization, oral decolonization, and selective digestive or oropharyngeal decontamination. Although the majority of studies performed to date have focused on S. aureus decolonization, there is increasing interest in how to apply decolonization strategies to reduce infections due to Gram-negative organisms, especially those that are multidrug resistant. Nasal topical decolonization agents reviewed include mupirocin, bacitracin, retapamulin, povidone-iodine, alcohol-based nasal antiseptic, tea tree oil, photodynamic therapy, omiganan pentahydrochloride, and lysostaphin. Mupirocin is still the gold standard agent for S. aureus nasal decolonization, but there is concern about mupirocin resistance, and alternative agents are needed. Of the other nasal decolonization agents, large clinical trials are still needed to evaluate the effectiveness of retapamulin, povidone-iodine, alcohol-based nasal antiseptic, tea tree oil, omiganan pentahydrochloride, and lysostaphin. Given inferior outcomes and increased risk of allergic dermatitis, the use of bacitracin-containing compounds cannot be recommended as a decolonization strategy. Topical decolonization agents reviewed included chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG), hexachlorophane, povidone-iodine, triclosan, and sodium hypochlorite. Of these, CHG is the skin decolonization agent that has the strongest evidence base, and sodium hypochlorite can also be recommended. CHG is associated with prevention of infections due to Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms as well as Candida. Conversely, triclosan use is discouraged, and topical decolonization with hexachlorophane and povidone-iodine cannot be recommended at this time. There is also evidence to support use of selective digestive decontamination and selective oropharyngeal decontamination, but additional studies are needed to assess resistance to these agents, especially selection for resistance among Gram-negative organisms. The strongest evidence for decolonization is for use among surgical patients as a strategy to prevent surgical site infections

The use of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) in healthcare personnel (HCP): Guidance from the society for healthcare epidemiology of America (SHEA)

Because of the live viral backbone of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV), questions have arisen regarding infection control precautions and restrictions surrounding its use in healthcare personnel (HCP). This document provides guidance from the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America regarding use of LAIV in HCP and the infection control precautions that are recommended with its use in this population. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33(10):981-98

Cost Savings of Universal Decolonization to Prevent Intensive Care Unit Infection: Implications of the REDUCE MRSA Trial

ObjectiveTo estimate and compare the impact on healthcare costs of 3 alternative strategies for reducing bloodstream infections in the intensive care unit (ICU): methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nares screening and isolation, targeted decolonization (ie, screening, isolation, and decolonization of MRSA carriers or infections), and universal decolonization (ie, no screening and decolonization of all ICU patients).DesignCost analysis using decision modeling.MethodsWe developed a decision-analysis model to estimate the health care costs of targeted decolonization and universal decolonization strategies compared with a strategy of MRSA nares screening and isolation. Effectiveness estimates were derived from a recent randomized trial of the 3 strategies, and cost estimates were derived from the literature.ResultsIn the base case, universal decolonization was the dominant strategy and was estimated to have both lower intervention costs and lower total ICU costs than either screening and isolation or targeted decolonization. Compared with screening and isolation, universal decolonization was estimated to save $171,000 and prevent 9 additional bloodstream infections for every 1,000 ICU admissions. The dominance of universal decolonization persisted under a wide range of cost and effectiveness assumptions.ConclusionsA strategy of universal decolonization for patients admitted to the ICU would both reduce bloodstream infections and likely reduce healthcare costs compared with strategies of MRSA nares screening and isolation or screening and isolation coupled with targeted decolonization

Recommendations for change in infection prevention programs and practice

Fifty years of evolution in infection prevention and control programs have involved significant accomplishments related to clinical practices, methodologies, and technology. However, regulatory mandates, and resource and research limitations, coupled with emerging infection threats such as the COVID-19 pandemic, present considerable challenges for infection preventionists. This article provides guidance and recommendations in 14 key areas. These interventions should be considered for implementation by United States health care facilities in the near future

Revised SHEA Position Paper: Influenza Vaccination of Healthcare Personnel

Executive Summary This document serves as an update and companion piece to the 2005 Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Position Paper entitled “Influenza Vaccination of Healthcare Workers and Vaccine Allocation for Healthcare Workers During Vaccine Shortages.” In large part, the discussion about the rationale for influenza vaccination of healthcare personnel (HCP), the strategies designed to improve influenza vaccination rates in this population, and the recommendations made in the 2005 paper still stand. This position paper notes new evidence released since publication of the 2005 paper and strengthens SHEA's position on the importance of influenza vaccination of HCP. This document does not discuss vaccine allocation during times of vaccine shortage, because the 2005 SHEA Position Paper still serves as the Society's official statement on that issue