Praksisveiledning: Behov, ønsker og forventninger

Hensikt: Ekstern praksis er en viktig del av en bioingeniørutdanning. I praksisstudier møter bioingeniørstudenten erfarne bioingeniører som sine praksisveiledere. Hensikten med denne studien er å beskrive behov og ønsker praksisveiledere innenfor bioingeniørfag har, for å fremme praksisstudier av høy kvalitet. Metode: «Skulle ønske jeg hadde»-seminar etterfulgt av semistrukturerte dybdeintervjuer ble gjennomført med bioingeniører som er praksisveiledere. En kvalitativ innholdsanalyse ble gjennomført hvor mønstre i datamaterialet ble identifisert og kategorisert. Resultat: Våre funn indikerer at praksisveiledere har ulike behov, ønsker og innspill som kan kategoriseres til «Før praksisperioden», «I praksisperioden», «Etter praksisperioden» og generelle rammebetingelser. Praksisveilederne trenger avsatt tid til både å forberede seg og til å gjennomføre veiledning, og behov/ønsker som identifiseres inkluderer (i) kompetanseheving innenfor veiledning, (ii) fora for erfaringsutveksling, (iii) praksisveiledning i team, (iii) mer kontakt, dialog og forventningsavklaringer med utdanningen (og studenten), (iv) harmoniserte praksissteder og (v) tilbakemeldinger om og evaluering av praksisperioden. Konklusjon: Praksisveiledere innenfor bioingeniørfag har behov, ønsker, utfordringer og forventninger som bør kartlegges – med hensikt å fremme kvalitet i utdanningene.Praksisveiledning: Behov, ønsker og forventningerpublishedVersio

Nationwide, population-based observational study of the molecular epidemiology and temporal trend of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales in Norway, 2015 to 2021

National and regional carbapenemaseproducing Enterobacterales (CPE) surveillance is essential to understand the burden of antimicrobial resistance, elucidate outbreaks, and develop infection-control or antimicrobial-treatment recommendations. Aim: This study aimed to describe CPE and their epidemiology in Norway from 2015 to 2021. Methods: A nationwide, population-based observational study of all verified clinical and carriage CPE isolates submitted to the national reference laboratory was conducted. Isolates were characterised by antimicrobial susceptibility testing, whole genome sequencing (WGS) and basic metadata. Annual CPE incidences were also estimated. Results: A total of 389 CPE isolates were identified from 332 patients of 63years median age (range:0–98). These corresponded to 341 cases, 184 (54%) being male. Between 2015 and 2021, the annual incidence of CPE cases increased from 0.6 to 1.1per 100,000person-years. For CPEisolates with available data on colonisation/infection, 58% (226/389)were associated with colonisation and 38% (149/389) with clinical infections. WGS revealed a predominance of OXA-48-like (51%; 198/389) and NDM (34%; 134/389) carbapenemases in a diversified population of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae, including high-risk clones also detected globally. Most CPE isolates were travel-related (63%;245/389). Although local outbreaks and healthcare-associated transmission occurred, no interregional spread was detected. Nevertheless, 18% (70/389) of isolates not directly related to import points towards potentially unidentified transmission routes. A decline in travelassociated cases was observed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions: The close-to-doubling of CPE case incidence between 2015 and 2021 was associated with foreign travel and genomic diversity. To limit further transmission and outbreaks, continued screening and monitoring is essential

EUCAST rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (RAST) in blood cultures: validation in 55 European laboratories

Objectives: When bloodstream infections are caused by resistant bacteria, rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (RAST) is important for adjustment of therapy. The EUCAST RAST method, directly from positive blood cultures, was validated in a multi-laboratory study in Europe. Methods: RAST was performed in 40 laboratories in northern Europe (NE) and 15 in southern Europe (SE) from clinical blood cultures positive for Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus or Streptococcus pneumoniae. Categorical results at 4, 6 and 8 h of incubation were compared with results for EUCAST standard 16-20 h disc diffusion. The method, preliminary breakpoints and the performance of the laboratories were evaluated. Results: The total number of isolates was 833/318 in NE/SE. The number of zone diameters that could be read (88%, 96% and 99%) and interpreted (70%, 81% and 85%) increased with incubation time (4, 6 and 8 h). The categorical agreement was acceptable, with total error rates in NE/SE of 2.4%/4.9% at 4 h, 1.1%/3.5% at 6 h and 1.1%/3.3% at 8 h. False susceptibility at 4, 6 and 8 h of incubation was below 0.3% and 1.1% in NE and SE, respectively, and the corresponding percentages for false resistance were below 1.9% and 2.8%. After fine-tuning breakpoints, more zones could be interpreted (73%, 89% and 93%), with only marginally affected error rates. Conclusions: The EUCAST RAST method can be implemented in routine laboratories without major investments. It provides reliable antimicrobial susceptibility testing results for relevant bloodstream infection pathogens after 4-6 h of incubation. © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.This work was supported by the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) through its regular support of the development of EUCAST methodology and by the Medical Research Council of Southeast Sweden (grant number FORSS-744451).publishedVersio

EUCAST rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (RAST) in blood cultures: Validation in 55 european laboratories

© The Author(s) 2020.Objectives: When bloodstream infections are caused by resistant bacteria, rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (RAST) is important for adjustment of therapy. The EUCAST RAST method, directly from positive blood cultures, was validated in a multi-laboratory study in Europe. Methods: RAST was performed in 40 laboratories in northern Europe (NE) and 15 in southern Europe (SE) from clinical blood cultures positive for Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus or Streptococcus pneumoniae. Categorical results at 4, 6 and 8 h of incubation were compared with results for EUCAST standard 16–20 h disc diffusion. The method, preliminary breakpoints and the performance of the laboratories were evaluated. Results: The total number of isolates was 833/318 in NE/SE. The number of zone diameters that could be read (88%, 96% and 99%) and interpreted (70%, 81% and 85%) increased with incubation time (4, 6 and 8 h). The categorical agreement was acceptable, with total error rates in NE/SE of 2.4%/4.9% at 4 h, 1.1%/3.5% at 6 h and 1.1%/3.3% at 8 h. False susceptibility at 4, 6 and 8 h of incubation was below 0.3% and 1.1% in NE and SE, respectively, and the corresponding percentages for false resistance were below 1.9% and 2.8%. After fine-tuning breakpoints, more zones could be interpreted (73%, 89% and 93%), with only marginally affected error rates. Conclusions: The EUCAST RAST method can be implemented in routine laboratories without major investments. It provides reliable antimicrobial susceptibility testing results for relevant bloodstream infection pathogens after 4–6 h of incubation