scholarly journals The Impact of Enhanced Antimicrobial Stewardship Support on Antibiotic Starts in Long-Term Care Facilities

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s527-s527
Author(s):  
Gabriela Andujar-Vazquez ◽  
Kirthana Beaulac ◽  
Shira Doron ◽  
David R Snydman
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Infection Control ◽  
Antimicrobial Stewardship ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
The Impact

Background: The Tufts Medical Center Antimicrobial Stewardship (ASP) Team has partnered with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) to provide broad-based educational programs (BBEP) to long-term care facilities (LTCFs) in an effort to improve ASP and infection control practices. LTCFs have consistently expressed interest in individualized and hands-on involvement by ASP experts, yet they lack resources. The goal of this study was to determine whether “enhanced” individualized guidance provided by an ASP expert would lead to antibiotic start decreases in LTCFs participating in our pilot study. Methods: A pilot study was conducted to test the feasibility and efficacy of providing enhanced ASP and infection control practices to LTCFs. In total, 10 facilities already participating in MDPH BBEP and submitting monthly antibiotic start data were enrolled, were stratified by bed size and presence of dementia unit, and were randomized 1:1 to the “enhanced” group (defined as reviewing protocols and antibiotic start cases, providing lectures and feedback to staff and answering questions) versus the “nonenhanced” group. Antibiotic start data were validated and collected prospectively from January 2018 to July 2019, and the interventions began in April 2019. Due to staff turnover and lack of engagement, intervention was not possible in 2 of the 5 LTCFs randomized to the enhanced group, which were therefore analyzed as a nonenhanced group. An incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% CIs were calculated comparing the antibiotic start rate per 1,000 resident days between periods in the pilot groups. Results: The average bed sizes for enhanced groups versus nonenhanced groups were 121 (±71.0) versus 108 (±32.8); the average resident days per facility per month were 3,415.7 (±2,131.2) versus 2,911.4 (±964.3). Comparatively, 3 facilities in the enhanced group had dementia unit versus 4 in the nonenhanced group. In the per protocol analysis, the antibiotic start rate in the enhanced group before versus after the intervention was 11.35 versus 9.41 starts per 1,000 resident days (IRR, 0.829; 95% CI, 0.794–0.865). The antibiotic start rate in the nonenhanced group before versus after the intervention was 7.90 versus 8.23 antibiotic starts per 1,000 resident days (IRR, 1.048; 95% CI, 1.007–1.089). Physician hours required for ASP for the enhanced group totaled 8.9 (±2.2) per facility per month. Conclusions: Although the number of hours required for intervention by an expert was not onerous, maintaining engagement proved difficult and in 2 facilities could not be achieved. A statistically significant 20% decrease in the antibiotic start rate was achieved in the enhanced group after interventions, potentially reflecting the benefit of enhanced ASP support by an expert.Funding: This study was funded by the Leadership in Epidemiology, Antimicrobial Stewardship, and Public Health (LEAP) fellowship training grant award from the CDC.Disclosures: None

scholarly journals Environmental screening for SARS-CoV-2 in long term care facilities: lessons from a pilot study

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 235
Author(s):  
Rachel Kwiatkowska ◽  
Nicola Yaxley ◽  
Ginny Moore ◽  
Allan Bennett ◽  
Matthew Donati ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Genetic Material ◽  
Infection Risk ◽  
Infection Prevention And Control ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Indirect Transmission ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
The Impact

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has highlighted the risk of infection transmission in long-term care facilities (LTCF) and the vulnerability of resident populations. It is essential to understand the environmental spread of the virus and risk of indirect transmission to inform Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) measures in these settings. Methods: Upon notification of SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks, LTCF within a local authority in the South West of England were approached to take part in this pilot study. Investigators visited to swab common touch-points and elevated ‘non-touch’ surfaces and samples were analysed for presence of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material (RNA). Data were collected regarding LTCF infrastructure, staff behaviours, clinical and epidemiological risk factors for infection (staff and residents), and IPC measures. Criteria for success were: recruitment of three LTCF; detection of SARS-COV-2 RNA; variation in proportion of SARS-CoV-2 positive surfaces by sampling zone; potential to assess infection risk from SARS-CoV-2 positive surfaces. Results: Three LTCFs were recruited, ranging in size and resident demographics. Outbreaks lasted 63, 50 and 30 days with resident attack rates of 53%, 40% and 8%, respectively. The proportion of sample sites on which SARS-CoV-2 was detected was highest in rooms occupied by infected residents and varied elsewhere in the LTCF, with low levels in a facility implementing enhanced IPC measures. The heterogeneity of settings and difficulty obtaining data made it difficult to assess association between environmental contamination and infection. Elevated surfaces were more likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA than common touch-points. Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be detected in a variety of LTCF outbreak settings. We identified variation in environmental spread which could be associated with implementation of IPC measures, though we were unable to assess the impact on infection risk. Sampling elevated surfaces could add to ongoing public health surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 and other airborne pathogens in LTCF.

scholarly journals Determining Antibiotic Use in Long-Term Care Facilities Across Tennessee

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s185-s186
Author(s):  
Cullen Adre ◽  
Youssoufou Ouedraogo ◽  
Christopher David Evans ◽  
Amelia Keaton ◽  
Marion Kainer
Keyword(s):  
Infection Control ◽  
Antimicrobial Stewardship ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Respiratory Infections ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Days Of Therapy ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
Core Elements

Background: Antibiotic stewardship is an area of great concern in long-term care facilities nationwide. The CDC promotes 7 core elements of antimicrobial stewardship. Based on information obtained from the Infection Control Assessment and Response (ICAR) Program, the 2 core elements most infrequently achieved by LTCFs are tracking and reporting. Currently, minimal data are available on antibiotic use (AU) in LTCFs in Tennessee. To address both issues, the Tennessee Department of Health (TDH) developed a monthly antibiotic use (AU) point-prevalence (PP) survey to provide LTCFs with a free tool to both track and report their AU and to gather data on how LTCFs are using antibiotics. Methods: We used REDCap to create a questionnaire to collect information on selected antibiotics administered in Tennessee LTCFs. This self-administered survey was promoted through the TDH monthly antimicrobial stewardship and infection control (ASIC) call as well as at various conferences and speaking engagements across the state. Antimicrobial stewardship leads for each facility were targeted. Antibiotics were grouped into 4 classes according to their indications: C. difficile infections, urinary tract infections, skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTIs) and respiratory infections. We determined AU percentage by dividing the number of days of therapy for a drug by a facility’s average census. Individualized reports are provided to each participating facility on a quarterly basis. Results: Currently, 16 facilities have participated in the survey. Overall, 40.7% of antibiotics prescribed were in the common for SSTI category and 39.3% were common for respiratory infections. The top 33 most commonly prescribed antibiotics were amoxicillin (156 days of therapy [DOT]), nitrofurantoin (92 DOT), and levofloxacin (88 DOT). The average percentage of residents on antimicrobials on the day of survey was 12.3%; within this group, 57% of antibiotics were initiated in the LTCF, whereas 43% were present upon admission. Conclusions: Early results from the TDH AU PP survey revealed that drugs commonly used for SSTIs and respiratory infection were the most common antibiotic prescriptions and a potential area of focus for TDH’s antimicrobial stewardship efforts. None of the 3 most frequently prescribed antibiotics, however, fall under the SSTI indication, despite SSTI being the most commonly prescribed indication based on the survey’s evaluation metrics. This finding could be related to the larger number of antibiotics that fall under the SSTI indication. Preliminary data are being used to guide the direction of TDH’s future ASIC calls to better suit disease states, which have room for improvement.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

scholarly journals A national survey of infection control and antimicrobial stewardship structures in Irish long-term care facilities

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 554-557 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheila Donlon ◽  
Fiona Roche ◽  
Helen Byrne ◽  
Siobhan Dowling ◽  
Meaghan Cotter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Infection Control ◽  
National Survey ◽  
Antimicrobial Stewardship ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Care Facilities

scholarly journals Prevalence surveillance system of nosocomial infections in Norway

2007 ◽  
Vol 12 (35) ◽  
Author(s):  
T Bruun ◽  
H L Loewer
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Infection Control ◽  
Nosocomial Infections ◽  
Surveillance System ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Control Programme ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
Infection Control Programme

In 1996, the Norwegian Ministry of Health issued regulations on the prevention of nosocomial infections (NIs). The regulations were revised in 2005. As part of the infection control programme, hospitals and long-term care facilities are obliged to have a surveillance system for NIs in place and to report the results to the Norwegian Institute of Public Health.

scholarly journals Public reporting of performance measures in long-term care in Canada: does it make a difference?

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Poldrugovac ◽  
J E Amuah ◽  
H Wei-Randall ◽  
P Sidhom ◽  
K Morris ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Measures ◽  
Performance Indicators ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Public Reporting ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Evidence of the impact of public reporting of healthcare performance on quality improvement is not yet sufficient to draw conclusions with certainty, despite the important policy implications. This study explored the impact of implementing public reporting of performance indicators of long-term care facilities in Canada. The objective was to analyse whether improvements can be observed in performance measures after publication. Methods We considered 16 performance indicators in long-term care in Canada, 8 of which are publicly reported at a facility level, while the other 8 are privately reported. We analysed data from the Continuing Care Reporting System managed by the Canadian Institute for Health Information and based on information collection with RAI-MDS 2.0 © between the fiscal years 2011 and 2018. A multilevel model was developed to analyse time trends, before and after publication, which started in 2015. The analysis was also stratified by key sample characteristics, such as the facilities' jurisdiction, size, urban or rural location and performance prior to publication. Results Data from 1087 long-term care facilities were included. Among the 8 publicly reported indicators, the trend in the period after publication did not change significantly in 5 cases, improved in 2 cases and worsened in 1 case. Among the 8 privately reported indicators, no change was observed in 7, and worsening in 1 indicator. The stratification of the data suggests that for those indicators that were already improving prior to public reporting, there was either no change in trend or there was a decrease in the rate of improvement after publication. For those indicators that showed a worsening trend prior to public reporting, the contrary was observed. Conclusions Our findings suggest public reporting of performance data can support change. The trends of performance indicators prior to publication appear to have an impact on whether further change will occur after publication. Key messages Public reporting is likely one of the factors affecting change in performance in long-term care facilities. Public reporting of performance measures in long-term care facilities may support improvements in particular in cases where improvement was not observed before publication.

Evaluating and Motivating Activation in Long Term Care: Lessons From a Pilot Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-46
Author(s):  
J. Jbilou ◽  
A. El Bouazaoui ◽  
B. Zhang ◽  
J.L. Henry ◽  
L McDonald ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Long Term Care ◽  
Driving Simulator ◽  
Care Home ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
Technological Intervention ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Research Recommendations

Older adults living in long-term care facilities typically receive insufficient exercise and have long periods of the day when they are not doing anything other than sitting or lying down, watching television, or ruminating (Wilkinson et al., 2017). We developed an intervention called the Experiential Centivizer, which provides residents with opportunities to use a driving simulator, watch world travel videos, and engage in exercise. We assessed the impact of the intervention on residents of a long-term care home in Fredericton, NB, Canada. In this paper, we report on the results observed and highlight the lessons learned from implementing a technological intervention within a long-term care setting. Practical and research recommendations are also discussed to facilitate future intervention implementation in long-term care.

scholarly journals Reducing Morbidity and Mortality Rates from COVID-19, Influenza and Pneumococcal Illness in Nursing Homes and Long-Term Care Facilities by Vaccination and Comprehensive Infection Control Interventions

Geriatrics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 48
Author(s):  
Roger E. Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Nursing Homes ◽  
Infection Control ◽  
Strong Evidence ◽  
Disease Transmission ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Tract Infections

The COVID-19 pandemic identifies the problems of preventing respiratory illnesses in seniors, especially frail multimorbidity seniors in nursing homes and Long-Term Care Facilities (LCTFs). Medline and Embase were searched for nursing homes, long-term care facilities, respiratory tract infections, disease transmission, infection control, mortality, systematic reviews and meta-analyses. For seniors, there is strong evidence to vaccinate against influenza, SARS-CoV-2 and pneumococcal disease, and evidence is awaited for effectiveness against COVID-19 variants and when to revaccinate. There is strong evidence to promptly introduce comprehensive infection control interventions in LCFTs: no admissions from inpatient wards with COVID-19 patients; quarantine and monitor new admissions in single-patient rooms; screen residents, staff and visitors daily for temperature and symptoms; and staff work in only one home. Depending on the vaccination situation and the current risk situation, visiting restrictions and meals in the residents’ own rooms may be necessary, and reduce crowding with individual patient rooms. Regional LTCF administrators should closely monitor and provide staff and PPE resources. The CDC COVID-19 tool measures 33 infection control indicators. Hand washing, social distancing, PPE (gowns, gloves, masks, eye protection), enhanced cleaning of rooms and high-touch surfaces need comprehensive implementation while awaiting more studies at low risk of bias. Individual ventilation with HEPA filters for all patient and common rooms and hallways is needed.

scholarly journals 2044. An Assessment and Feedback Model Bringing Antimicrobial Stewardship Program Expertise to Long-Term Care Facilities

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S687-S687
Author(s):  
Philip Chung ◽  
Kate Tyner ◽  
Scott Bergman ◽  
Teresa Micheels ◽  
Mark E Rupp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antimicrobial Stewardship ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Post Intervention ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Clostridioides Difficile ◽  
Stewardship Program ◽  
Days Of Therapy ◽  
Care Facilities

Abstract Background Long-term care facilities (LTCF) often struggle with implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) that meet all CDC core elements (CE). The CDC recommends partnership with infectious diseases (ID)/ASP experts to guide ASP implementation. The Nebraska Antimicrobial Stewardship Assessment and Promotion Program (ASAP) is an initiative funded by NE DHHS via a CDC grant to assist healthcare facilities with ASP implementation. Methods ASAP performed on-site baseline evaluation of ASP in 5 LTCF (42–293 beds) in the spring of 2017 using a 64-item questionnaire based on CDC CE. After interviewing ASP members, ASAP provided prioritized facility-specific recommendations for ASP implementation. LTCF were periodically contacted in the next 12 months to provide implementation support and evaluate progress. The number of CE met, recommendations implemented, antibiotic starts (AS) and days of therapy (DOT)/1000 resident-days (RD), and incidence of facility-onset Clostridioides difficile infections (FO-CDI) were compared 6 to 12 months before and after on-site visits. Paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed rank test were used for statistical analyses. Results Multidisciplinary ASP existed in all 5 facilities at baseline with medical directors (n = 2) or directors of nursing (n = 3) designated as team leads. Median CE implemented increased from 3 at baseline to 6 at the end of follow-up (P = 0.06). No LTCF had all 7 CE at baseline. By the end of one year, 2 facilities implemented all 7 CE with the remaining implementing 6 CE. LTCF not meeting all CE were only deficient in reporting ASP metrics to providers and staff. Among the 38 recommendations provided by ASAP, 82% were partially or fully implemented. Mean AS/1000 RD reduced by 19% from 10.1 at baseline to 8.2 post-intervention (P = 0.37) and DOT/1000 RD decreased by 21% from 91.7 to 72.5 (P = 0.20). The average incidence of FO-CDI decreased by 75% from 0.53 to 0.13 cases/10,000 RD (P = 0.25). Conclusion Assessment of LTCF ASP along with feedback for improvement by ID/ASP experts resulted in more programs meeting all 7 CE. Favorable reductions in antimicrobial use and CDI rates were also observed. Moving forward, the availability of these services should be expanded to all LTCFs struggling with ASP implementation. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

scholarly journals Early warning and rapid public health response to prevent COVID-19 outbreaks in long-term care facilities (LTCF) by monitoring SARS-CoV-2 RNA in LTCF site-specific sewage samples and assessment of antibodies response in this population: prospective study protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. e052282
Author(s):  
Bonita E Lee ◽  
Christopher Sikora ◽  
Douglas Faulder ◽  
Eleanor Risling ◽  
Lorie A Little ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Early Warning ◽  
Early Warning System ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Warning System ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Site Specific ◽  
Care Facilities

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has an excessive impact on residents in long-term care facilities (LTCF), causing high morbidity and mortality. Early detection of presymptomatic and asymptomatic COVID-19 cases supports the timely implementation of effective outbreak control measures but repetitive screening of residents and staff incurs costs and discomfort. Administration of vaccines is key to controlling the pandemic but the robustness and longevity of the antibody response, correlation of neutralising antibodies with commercial antibody assays, and the efficacy of current vaccines for emerging COVID-19 variants require further study. We propose to monitor SARS-CoV-2 in site-specific sewage as an early warning system for COVID-19 in LTCF and to study the immune response of the staff and residents in LTCF to COVID-19 vaccines.Methods and analysisThe study includes two parts: (1) detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 in LTCF site-specific sewage samples using a molecular assay followed by notification of Public Health within 24 hours as an early warning system for appropriate outbreak investigation and control measures and cost–benefit analyses of the system and (2) testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among staff and residents in LTCF at various time points before and after COVID-19 vaccination using commercial assays and neutralising antibody testing performed at a reference laboratory.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained from the University of Alberta Health Research Ethics Board with considerations to minimise risk and discomforts for the participants. Early recognition of a COVID-19 case in an LTCF might prevent further transmission in residents and staff. There was no direct benefit identified to the participants of the immunity study. Anticipated dissemination of information includes a summary report to the immunity study participants, sharing of study data with the scientific community through the Canadian COVID-19 Immunity Task Force, and prompt dissemination of study results in meeting abstracts and manuscripts in peer-reviewed journals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document