Best practice standards for the delivery of NHS infection services in the United Kingdom

Infection expertise in the NHS has historically been provided predominantly by hospital-based medical microbiologists responsible for provision of diagnostic services and advice to front-line clinicians. While most hospitals had consultant-led microbiology departments, infectious iiseases departments were based in a small number of specialist centres. The demand for infection expertise is growing in the NHS, driven by advances in medical care, increasing awareness of the impact of antibiotic resistant and healthcare associated infections and threats from emerging infectious diseases. At the same time diagnostic services are being reorganised into pathology networks. The Combined Infection Training (CIT) is delivering a consultant workforce with expertise both in laboratory diagnostic practice and delivery of direct patient care. These changes create challenges for delivery of high quality infection expertise equitably across the NHS. They also offer an opportunity to shape infection services to meet clinical and laboratory demands. To date there has not been an attempt to bring together a single set of best practice guidelines for the requirements of an infection service. This document sets out seven standards. These are written to be practical and flexible according to the diverse ways in which infection expertise may be required across the NHS. It has been prepared by the Clinical Services Committee of the British Infection Association drawing on published evidence and guidance where they exist and on the group's extensive experience of delivering infection services in hospitals across the NHS. It was then refined with input from the RCP Joint Specialist committee (JSC) and the RCPath Specialist Advisory Committee (SAC) and through consultation with the RCPath membership. It has been endorsed by the Royal College of Pathologists and the Royal College of Physicians. It will be reviewed annually by the CSC and updated as additional evidence becomes available

A prospective surveillance study to determine the prevalence of 16S rRNA methyltransferase-producing Gram-negative bacteria in the UK

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of 16S rRNA methyltransferase- (16S RMTase-) producing Gram-negative bacteria in patients in the UK and to identify potential risk factors for their acquisition. METHODS: A 6 month prospective surveillance study was conducted from 1 May to 31 October 2016, wherein 14 hospital laboratories submitted Acinetobacter baumannii, Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates that displayed high-level amikacin resistance according to their testing methods, e.g. no zone of inhibition with amikacin discs. Isolates were linked to patient travel history, medical care abroad, and previous antibiotic exposure using a surveillance questionnaire. In the reference laboratory, isolates confirmed to grow on Mueller-Hinton agar supplemented with 256 mg/L amikacin were screened by PCR for 16S RMTase genes armA, rmtA-rmtH and npmA, and carbapenemase genes (blaKPC, blaNDM, blaOXA-48-like and blaVIM). STs and total antibiotic resistance gene complement were determined via WGS. Prevalence was determined using denominators for each bacterial species provided by participating hospital laboratories. RESULTS: Eighty-four isolates (44.7%), among 188 submitted isolates, exhibited high-level amikacin resistance (MIC >256 mg/L), and 79 (94.0%) of these harboured 16S RMTase genes. armA (54.4%, 43/79) was the most common, followed by rmtB (17.7%, 14/79), rmtF (13.9%, 11/79), rmtC (12.7%, 10/79) and armA + rmtF (1.3%, 1/79). The overall period prevalence of 16S RMTase-producing Gram-negative bacteria was 0.1% (79/71 063). Potential risk factors identified through multivariate statistical analysis included being male and polymyxin use. CONCLUSIONS: The UK prevalence of 16S RMTase-producing Gram-negative bacteria is low, but continued surveillance is needed to monitor their spread and inform intervention strategies