Pseudomonas aeruginosa contamination of mouth swabs during production causing a major outbreak

BACKGROUND: In 2002 we investigated an outbreak comprising 231 patients in Norway, caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and linked to the use of contaminated mouth swabs called Dent-O-Sept. Here we describe the extent of contamination of the swabs, and identify critical points in the production process that made the contamination possible, in order to prevent future outbreaks. METHODS: Environmental investigation with microbiological examination of production, ingredients and product, molecular typing of bacteria and a system audit of production. RESULTS: Of the 1565 swabs examined from 149 different production batches the outbreak strain of P. aeruginosa was detected in 76 swabs from 12 batches produced in 2001 and 2002. In total more than 250 swabs were contaminated with one or more microbial species. P. aeruginosa was detected from different spots along the production line. The audit revealed serious breeches of production regulations. Health care institutions reported non-proper use of the swabs and weaknesses in their purchasing systems. CONCLUSION: Biofilm formation in the wet part of the production is the most plausible explanation for the continuous contamination of the swabs with P. aeruginosa over a period of at least 30 weeks. When not abiding to production regulations fatal consequences for the users may ensue. For the most vulnerable patient groups only documented quality-controlled, high-level disinfected products and items should be used in the oropharynx

Questions on causality and responsibility arising from an outbreak of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections in Norway

In 2002, Norway experienced a large outbreak of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections in hospitals with 231 confirmed cases. This fuelled intense public and professional debates on what were the causes and who were responsible. In epidemiology, other sciences, in philosophy and in law there is a long tradition of discussing the concept of causality. We use this outbreak as a case; apply various theories of causality from different disciplines to discuss the roles and responsibilities of some of the parties involved. Mackie's concept of INUS conditions, Hill's nine viewpoints to study association for claiming causation, deterministic and probabilistic ways of reasoning, all shed light on the issues of causality in this outbreak. Moreover, applying legal theories of causation (counterfactual reasoning and the "but-for" test and the NESS test) proved especially useful, but the case also illustrated the weaknesses of the various theories of causation

Effect of Vaccines and Antivirals during the Major 2009 A(H1N1) Pandemic Wave in Norway – And the Influence of Vaccination Timing

To evaluate the impact of mass vaccination with adjuvanted vaccines (eventually 40% population coverage) and antivirals during the 2009 influenza pandemic in Norway, we fitted an age-structured SEIR model using data on vaccinations and sales of antivirals in 2009/10 in Norway to Norwegian ILI surveillance data from 5 October 2009 to 4 January 2010. We estimate a clinical attack rate of approximately 30% (28.7–29.8%), with highest disease rates among children 0–14 years (43–44%). Vaccination started in week 43 and came too late to have a strong influence on the pandemic in Norway. Our results indicate that the countermeasures prevented approximately 11–12% of potential cases relative to an unmitigated pandemic. Vaccination was found responsible for roughly 3 in 4 of the avoided infections. An estimated 50% reduction in the clinical attack rate would have resulted from vaccination alone, had the campaign started 6 weeks earlier. Had vaccination been prioritized for children first, the intervention should have commenced approximately 5 weeks earlier in order to achieve the same 50% reduction. In comparison, we estimate that a non-adjuvanted vaccination program should have started 8 weeks earlier to lower the clinical attack rate by 50%

Evaluation of the national surveillance system for point-prevalence of healthcare-associated infections in hospitals and in long-term care facilities for elderly in Norway, 2002-2008

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Since 2002, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health has invited all hospitals and long-term care facilities for elderly (LTCFs) to participate in two annual point-prevalence surveys covering the most frequent types of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). In a comprehensive evaluation we assessed how well the system operates to meet its objectives.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Surveillance protocols and the national database were reviewed. Data managers at national level, infection control practitioners and ward personnel in hospitals as well as contact persons in LTCFs involved in prevalence data collection were surveyed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The evaluation showed that the system was structurally simple, flexible and accepted by the key partners. On average 87% of hospitals and 32% of LTCFs participated in 2004-2008; high level of data completeness was achieved. The data collected described trends in the prevalence of reportable HAIs in Norway and informed policy makers. Local results were used in hospitals to implement targeted infection control measures and to argue for more resources to a greater extent than in LTCFs. Both the use of simplified Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definitions and validity of data seemed problematic as compliance with the standard methodology were reportedly low.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The surveillance system provides important information on selected HAIs in Norway. The system is overall functional and well-established in hospitals, however, requires active promotion in LTCFs. Validity of data needs to be controlled in the participating institutions before reporting to the national level.</p

What causes increasing and unnecessary use of radiological investigations? a survey of radiologists' perceptions

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Growth in use and overuse of diagnostic imaging significantly impacts the quality and costs of health care services. What are the modifiable factors for increasing and unnecessary use of radiological services? Various factors have been indentified, but little is known about their relative impact. Radiologists hold key positions for providing such knowledge. Therefore the purpose of this study was to obtain radiologists' perspective on the causes of increasing and unnecessary use of radiological investigations.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a mailed questionnaire radiologist members of the Norwegian Medical Association were asked to rate potential causes of increased investigation volume (fifteen items) and unnecessary investigations (six items), using five-point-scales. Responses were analysed by using summary statistics and Factor Analysis. Associations between variables were determined using Students' t-test, Spearman rank correlation and Chi-Square tests.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The response rate was 70% (374/537). The highest rated causes of increasing use of radiological investigations were: a) new radiological technology, b) peoples' demands, c) clinicians' intolerance for uncertainty, d) expanded clinical indications, and e) availability. 'Over-investigation' and 'insufficient referral information' were reported the most frequent causes of unnecessary investigations. Correlations between causes of increasing and unnecessary radiology use were identified.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In order to manage the growth in radiological imaging and curtail inappropriate investigations, the study findings point to measures that influence the supply and demand of services, specifically to support the decision-making process of physicians.</p

æINVITED SUMMARY Contaminated mouth swabs caused a multi-hospital

outbreak of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infectio

Estimated prevalence of clinical infections during the major autumn/winter 2009 pandemic wave (September–January) for unmitigated pandemic and with pharmaceutical intervention (p_use = 37.5%).

<p>Estimated prevalence of clinical infections during the major autumn/winter 2009 pandemic wave (September–January) for unmitigated pandemic and with pharmaceutical intervention (p_use = 37.5%).</p

The effect of timing of vaccination start on the pandemic curve.

<p>The unmitigated pandemic is shown with thick line; no use of antivirals was implemented in these simulations (p_use = 0%).</p