RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Regional Variation in the Interpretation of Contact Precautions for Multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria: a cross-sectional survey
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.03.29.24305013
DO 10.1101/2024.03.29.24305013
A1 van Veen, Anneloes
A1 de Goeij, Inge
A1 Damen, Marjolein
A1 Huijskens, Elisabeth G.W.
A1 Paltansing, Sunita
A1 van Rijn, Michiel
A1 Bentvelsen, Robbert G.
A1 Veenemans, Jacobien
A1 van der Linden, Michael
A1 Vos, Margreet C.
A1 Severin, Juliëtte A.
A1 ,
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/30/2024.03.29.24305013.abstract
AB Background Contact precautions (CP) are recommended when caring for patients with carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE), carbapenemase-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CPPA), and extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-E).Aim Our aim was to determine the interpretation of CP and associated infection prevention and control (IPC) measures in the non-ICU hospital setting for patients with CPE, CPPA or ESBL-E in 11 hospitals in the Southwest of the Netherlands.Methods A cross-sectional survey was developed to collect information on all implemented IPC measures, including use of personal protective equipment, IPC measures for visitors, cleaning and disinfection, precautions during outpatient care and follow-up strategies. All eleven hospitals were invited to participate between November 2020 and April 2021.Findings The survey was filled together with each hospital. All hospitals installed isolation precautions for patients with CPE and CPPA during inpatient care and day admissions, whereas ten hospitals (90.9%) applied isolation precautions for patients with ESBL-E. Gloves and gowns were always used during physical contact with the patient in isolation. Large variations were identified in IPC measures for visitors, cleaning and disinfection products used, and precautions during outpatient care. Four hospitals (36.4%) actively followed up on CPE or CPPA patients with the aim to declare them CPE- or CPPA-negative as timely as possible, and two hospitals (20.0%) actively followed up on ESBL-E patients.Conclusion CP are interpreted differently between hospitals, leading to regional differences in IPC measures applied in clinical settings. Harmonizing infection-control policies between the hospitals could facilitate patient transfers and benefit collective efforts of preventing transmission of MDR-GNB.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe project was carried out within the Infection Prevention and Antimicrobial Resistance Care Network South-western Netherlands that receives funding from the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.