Implementation of hand hygiene in health-care facilities: results from the WHO Hand Hygiene Self-Assessment Framework global survey 2019

Background Hand hygiene is at the core of effective infection prevention and control (IPC) programmes. 10 years after the development of the WHO Multimodal Hand Hygiene Improvement Strategy, we aimed to ascertain the level of hand hygiene implementation and its drivers in health-care facilities through a global WHO survey. Methods From Jan 16 to Dec 31, 2019, IPC professionals were invited through email and campaigns to complete the online Hand Hygiene Self-Assessment Framework (HHSAF). A geospatial clustering algorithm selected unique health-care facilities responses and post-stratification weighting was applied to improve representativeness. Weighted median HHSAF scores and IQR were reported. Drivers of the HHSAF score were determined through a generalised estimation equation. Findings 3206 unique responses from 90 countries (46% WHO Member States) were included. The HHSAF score indicated an intermediate hand hygiene implementation level (350 points, IQR 248–430), which was positively associated with country income level and health-care facility funding structure. System Change had the highest score (85 points, IQR 55–100), whereby alcohol-based hand rub at the point of care has become standard practice in many health-care facilities, especially in high-income countries. Institutional Safety Climate had the lowest score (55 points, IQR 35–75). From 2015 to 2019, the median HHSAF score in health-care facilities participating in both HHSAF surveys (n=190) stagnated. Interpretation Most health-care facilities had an intermediate level of hand hygiene implementation or higher, for which health-care facility funding and country income level were important drivers. Availability of resources, leadership, and organisational support are key elements to further improve quality of care and provide access to safe care for all.Peer Reviewe

Timing of Cefuroxime Surgical Antimicrobial Prophylaxis and Its Association With Surgical Site Infections.

IMPORTANCE World Health Organization guidelines recommend administering surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis (SAP), including cefuroxime, within 120 minutes prior to incision. However, data from clinical settings supporting this long interval is limited. OBJECTIVE To assess whether earlier vs later timing of administration of cefuroxime SAP is associated with the occurrence of surgical site infections (SSI). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cohort study included adult patients who underwent 1 of 11 major surgical procedures with cefuroxime SAP, documented by the Swissnoso SSI surveillance system between January 2009 and December 2020 at 158 Swiss hospitals. Data were analyzed from January 2021 to April 2023. EXPOSURES Timing of cefuroxime SAP administration before incision was divided into 3 groups: 61 to 120 minutes before incision, 31 to 60 minutes before incision, and 0 to 30 minutes before incision. In addition, a subgroup analysis was performed with time windows of 30 to 55 minutes and 10 to 25 minutes as a surrogate marker for administration in the preoperating room vs in the operating room, respectively. The timing of SAP administration was defined as the start of the infusion obtained from the anesthesia protocol. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Occurrence of SSI according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definitions. Mixed-effects logistic regression models adjusted for institutional, patient, and perioperative variables were applied. RESULTS Of 538 967 surveilled patients, 222 439 (104 047 men [46.8%]; median [IQR] age, 65.7 [53.9-74.2] years), fulfilled inclusion criteria. SSI was identified in 5355 patients (2.4%). Cefuroxime SAP was administered 61 to 120 minutes prior to incision in 27 207 patients (12.2%), 31 to 60 minutes prior to incision in 118 004 patients (53.1%), and 0 to 30 minutes prior to incision in 77 228 patients (34.7%). SAP administration at 0 to 30 minutes was significantly associated with a lower SSI rate (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93; P < .001), as was SAP administration 31 to 60 minutes prior to incision (aOR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98; P = .01) compared with administration 61 to 120 minutes prior to incision. Administration 10 to 25 minutes prior to incision in 45 448 patients (20.4%) was significantly associated with a lower SSI rate (aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.82-0.97; P = .009) vs administration within 30 to 55 minutes prior to incision in 117 348 patients (52.8%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this cohort study, administration of cefuroxime SAP closer to the incision time was associated with significantly lower odds of SSI, suggesting that cefuroxime SAP should be administrated within 60 minutes prior to incision, and ideally within 10 to 25 minutes

Impact of environmental hygiene interventions on healthcare-associated infections and patient colonization: a systematic review

BACKGROUND Healthcare-associated infections (HAI) are one of the gravest threats to patient safety worldwide. The importance of the hospital environment has recently been revalued in infection prevention and control. Though the literature is evolving rapidly, many institutions still do not consider healthcare environmental hygiene (HEH) very important for patient safety. The evidence for interventions in the healthcare environment on patient colonization and HAI with multidrug-resistant microorganisms (MDROs) or other epidemiologically relevant pathogens was reviewed. METHODS We performed a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines using the PubMed and Web of Science databases. All original studies were eligible if published before December 31, 2019, and if the effect of an HEH intervention on HAI or patient colonization was measured. Studies were not eligible if they were conducted in vitro, did not include patient colonization or HAI as an outcome, were bundled with hand hygiene interventions, included a complete structural rebuild of the healthcare facility or were implemented during an outbreak. The primary outcome was the comparison of the intervention on patient colonization or HAI compared to baseline or control. Interventions were categorized by mechanical, chemical, human factors, or bundles. Study quality was assessed using a specifically-designed tool that considered study design, sample size, control, confounders, and issues with reporting. The effect of HEH interventions on environmental bioburden was studied as a secondary outcome. FINDINGS After deduplication, 952 records were scrutinized, of which 44 were included for full text assessment. A total of 26 articles were included in the review and analyzed. Most studies demonstrated a reduction of patient colonization or HAI, and all that analyzed bioburden demonstrated a reduction following the HEH intervention. Studies tested mechanical interventions (n = 8), chemical interventions (n = 7), human factors interventions (n = 3), and bundled interventions (n = 8). The majority of studies (21/26, 81%) analyzed either S. aureus, C. difficile, and/or vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Most studies (23/26, 88%) reported a decrease of MDRO-colonization or HAI for at least one of the tested organisms, while 58% reported a significant decrease of MDRO-colonization or HAI for all tested microorganisms. Forty-two percent were of good quality according to the scoring system. The majority (21/26, 81%) of study interventions were recommended for application by the authors. Studies were often not powered adequately to measure statistically significant reductions. INTERPRETATION Improving HEH helps keep patients safe. Most studies demonstrated that interventions in the hospital environment were related with lower HAI and/or patient colonization. Most of the studies were not of high quality; additional adequately-powered, high-quality studies are needed. Systematic registration number: CRD42020204909

The first WHO global survey on infection prevention and control in health-care facilities

Background: WHO core components for infection prevention and control (IPC) are important building blocks for effective IPC programmes. To our knowledge, we did the first WHO global survey to assess implementation of these programmes in health-care facilities. Methods: In this cross-sectional survey, IPC professionals were invited through global outreach and national coordinated efforts to complete the online WHO IPC assessment framework (IPCAF). The survey was created in English and was then translated into ten languages: Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Russian, Spanish, and Thai. Post-stratification weighting was applied and countries with low response rates were excluded to improve representativeness. Weighted median scores and IQRs as well as weighted proportions (Nw) meeting defined IPCAF minimum requirements were reported. Indicators associated with the IPCAF score were assessed using a generalised estimating equation. Findings: From Jan 16 to Dec 31, 2019, 4440 responses were received from 81 countries. The overall weighted IPCAF median score indicated an advanced level of implementation (605, IQR 450·4–705·0), but significantly lower scores were found in low-income (385, 279·7–442·9) and lower-middle-income countries (500·4, 345·0–657·5), and public facilities (515, 385–637·8). Core component 8 (built environment; 90·0, IQR 75·0–100·0) and core component 2 (guidelines; 87·5, 70·0–97·5) scored the highest, and core component 7 (workload, staffing, and bed occupancy; 70·0, 50–90) and core component 3 (education and training; 70 ·0, 50·0–85·0) scored the lowest. Overall, only 15·2% (Nw: 588 of 3873) of facilities met all IPCAF minimum requirements, ranging from 0% (0 of 417) in low-income countries to 25·6% (278 of 1087) in primary facilities, 9% (24 of 268) in secondary facilities, and 19% (18 of 95) in tertiary facilities in high-income countries. Interpretation: Despite an overall high IPCAF score globally, important gaps in IPC facility implementation and core components across income levels hinder IPC progress. Increased support for more effective and sustainable IPC programmes is crucial to reduce risks posed by outbreaks to global health security and to ensure patient and health worker safety. Funding: WHO and the Infection Control Programme, University of Geneva Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine. Translations: For the French and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.Peer Reviewe

Lower risk of peripheral venous catheter-related bloodstream infection by hand insertion

INTRODUCTION Little is known about the bloodstream infection (BSI) risk associated with short-term peripheral venous catheters (PVCs) and no large study investigated the insertion site-related risk for PVC-BSI. METHODS We performed a cohort study at the University of Geneva Hospitals using the prospective hospital-wide BSI surveillance database. We analyzed the association between insertion site and risk of PVC-BSI on the upper extremity using univariable and multivariable marginal Cox models. RESULTS Between 2016 and 2020, utilization of 403'206 peripheral venous catheters were prospectively recorded in a 2000-bed hospital consortium with ten sites. Twenty-seven percent of PVC (n = 109'686) were inserted in the hand. After adjustment for confounding factors, hand insertion was associated with a decreased PVC-BSI risk (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.42, 95% CI 0.18-0.98, p = 0.046) compared to more proximal insertion sites. In a sensitivity analysis for PVCs with ≥ 3 days of dwell time, we confirmed a decreased PVC-BSI risk after hand insertion (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.15-0.93, p = 0.035). CONCLUSION Hand insertion should be considered for reducing PVC infections, especially for catheters with an expected dwell time of more than 2 days

Hospital Outcomes of Community-Acquired SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant Infection Compared With Influenza Infection in Switzerland

IMPORTANCE: With the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, it is crucial to assess the current burden of disease of community-acquired SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant in hospitalized patients to tailor appropriate public health policies. Comparisons with better-known seasonal influenza infections may facilitate such decisions. OBJECTIVE: To compare the in-hospital outcomes of patients hospitalized with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant with patients with influenza. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study was based on a national COVID-19 and influenza registry. Hospitalized patients aged 18 years and older with community-acquired SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infection who were admitted between January 15 and March 15, 2022 (when B.1.1.529 Omicron predominance was >95%), and hospitalized patients with influenza A or B infection from January 1, 2018, to March 15, 2022, where included. Patients without a study outcome by August 30, 2022, were censored. The study was conducted at 15 hospitals in Switzerland. EXPOSURES: Community-acquired SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant vs community-acquired seasonal influenza A or B. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary and secondary outcomes were defined as in-hospital mortality and admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) for patients with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant or influenza. Cox regression (cause-specific and Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard models) was used to account for time-dependency and competing events, with inverse probability weighting to adjust for confounders with right-censoring at day 30. RESULTS: Of 5212 patients included from 15 hospitals, 3066 (58.8%) had SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infection in 14 centers and 2146 patients (41.2%) had influenza A or B in 14 centers. Of patients with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant, 1485 (48.4%) were female, while 1113 patients with influenza (51.9%) were female (P = .02). Patients with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant were younger (median [IQR] age, 71 [53-82] years) than those with influenza (median [IQR] age, 74 [59-83] years; P < .001). Overall, 214 patients with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (7.0%) died during hospitalization vs 95 patients with influenza (4.4%; P < .001). The final adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio (sdHR) for in-hospital death for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant vs influenza was 1.54 (95% CI, 1.18-2.01; P = .002). Overall, 250 patients with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (8.6%) vs 169 patients with influenza (8.3%) were admitted to the ICU (P = .79). After adjustment, the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant was not significantly associated with increased ICU admission vs influenza (sdHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.88-1.32; P = .50). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The data from this prospective, multicenter cohort study suggest a significantly increased risk of in-hospital mortality for patients with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant vs those with influenza, while ICU admission rates were similar

Household acquisition and transmission of extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) -producing Enterobacteriaceae after hospital discharge of ESBL-positive index patients

MODERN WP2 study group: Caroline Brossier, Elodie von Dach, Gesuele Renzi, Jacques Schrenzel, Stefanie Bunk, Siri Goepel, Florian Hölzl, Michael Eib, Ingo B.Autenrieth, Álvaro Pascual, Xavier Bertrand, Jelle Scharringa, Patrick Musicha.[Objectives] This study aimed to determine rates and risk factors of extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-PE) acquisition and transmission within households after hospital discharge of an ESBL-PE-positive index patient.[Methods] Two-year prospective cohort study in five European cities. Patients colonized with ESBL-producing Escherichia coli (ESBL-Ec) or Klebsiella pneumoniae (ESBL-Kp), and their household contacts were followed up for 4 months after hospital discharge of the index case. At each follow up, participants provided a faecal sample and personal information. ESBL-PE whole-genome sequences were compared using pairwise single nucleotide polymorphism-based analysis.[Results] We enrolled 71 index patients carrying ESBL-Ec (n = 45), ESBL-Kp (n = 20) or both (n = 6), and 102 household contacts. The incidence of any ESBL-PE acquisition among household members initially free of ESBL-PE was 1.9/100 participant-weeks at risk. Nineteen clonally related household transmissions occurred (case to contact: 13; contact to case: 6), with an overall rate of 1.18 transmissions/100 participant-weeks at risk. Most of the acquisition and transmission events occurred within the first 2 months after discharge. The rate of ESBL-Kp household transmission (1.16/100 participant-weeks) was higher than of ESBL-Ec (0.93/100 participant-weeks), whereas more acquisitions were noted for ESBL-Ec (1.06/100 participant-weeks) compared with ESBL-Kp (0.65/100 participant-weeks). Providing assistance for urinary and faecal excretion to the index case by household members increased the risk of ESBL-PE transmission (adjusted prevalence ratio 4.3; 95% CI 1.3–14.1).[Conclusions] ESBL-PE cases discharged from the hospital are an important source of ESBL-PE transmission within households. Most acquisition and transmission events occurred during the first 2 months after hospital discharge and were causally related to care activities at home, highlighting the importance of hygiene measures in community settings.[Clinical study registration] German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS-ID: DRKS00013250.This study was part of a Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance collaborative research project, under the 2016 Joint Call framework (Transnational Research Projects on the Transmission Dynamics of Antibacterial Resistance). It received funding from the following national research agencies: Instituto de Salud Carlos III (grant no. AC16/00076), Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (grant no. AC681055), Swiss National Science Foundation (grant no. 40AR40-173608), German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant no. 01KI1830) and Agence Nationale de la Recherche (grant no. ANR-16-JPEC-0007-03). As part of a separate research project, Marlieke de Kraker has received support from the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking under grant agreement nos 115523, 115620 and 115737 (Combatting Bacterial Resistance in Europe projects (COMBACTE)), resources of which are composed of financial contribution from the European Union's 7th Framework Programme (FP7/2007±2013) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and associations companies' in-kind contribution. Also, Elena Salamanca, Mercedes Delgado and Jesús Rodríguez-Baño received support for research from by the Plan Nacional de I+D+i 2013-2016 and Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Subdirección General de Redes y Centros de Investigación Cooperativa, Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades, Spanish Network for Research in Infectious Diseases (REIPI RD16/0016/0001), co-financed by the European Development Regional Fund ‘A way to achieve Europe’, Operative Programme Intelligence Growth 2014-2020.Peer reviewe