scholarly journals 1245. Infection Prevention and Control (IP&C) and Antibiotic Stewardship (AS) Practices in Pediatric Long-Term Care Facilities

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S379-S379
Author(s):  
Candace L Johnson ◽  
Alexandra Hill-Ricciuti ◽  
Lisa Saiman
Keyword(s):  
Long Term Care ◽  
Infection Prevention And Control ◽  
Antibiotic Prescribing ◽  
Prescribing Practices ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Environmental Cleaning ◽  
C Programs ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
Feedback Strategies

Abstract Background In November 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) implemented a requirement for long-term care facilities (LTCFs) to incorporate AS into their IP&C programs. The purpose of this study was to describe baseline IP&C and AS practices in pediatric LTCFs. Methods We modified a survey from the CDC to assess IP&C in pediatric LTCFs. The internet-based survey was distributed to the 41 pLTCFs in the Pediatric Complex Care Association from May to June 2017. The 67-question survey included questions to assess IP&C domains and infrastructure such as written policies, hand and respiratory hygiene (HH), personal protective equipment (PPE) use, environmental cleaning, and AS practices. Responses to questions were summarized using frequencies and analyzed using χ2 or Fisher’s exact tests, as appropriate. The characteristics of sites with ≥90% compliance with the CMS rule, as assessed by 14 relevant survey questions, were compared with those of sites with <90% compliance. Results Overall, 25 (61%) facilities nationwide completed the survey. All sites reported having written IP&C policies and most had a person responsible for IP&C (96%); fewer reported reviewing/updating these policies annually (72%). Few sites provided feedback to staff on HH adherence (44%), PPE use (40%), and cleaning/disinfection procedures (44%). Few had written policies on antibiotic prescribing (48%) or provided prescribers with feedback about their prescribing practices (40%). Sites with ≥90% compliance with the CMS rule were more likely to report providing prescribers with feedback (70% vs. 20%, P = 0.03), to have provided AS training to clinical (60% vs. 0%, P < 0.01) and nursing staff (70% vs. 7%, P < 0.01) in the past 12 months, and to provide feedback regarding HH (70% vs. 27%, P = 0.05). Conclusion While most facilities had implemented some IP&C and AS strategies pertaining to the CMS rule before its enforcement, this survey identified several gaps, especially pertaining to staff feedback for IP&C practices and antibiotic prescribing. Facilities should develop feedback strategies and regularly reinforce the importance of IP&C at employment and during regular trainings. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Stewardship in the primary care and long-term care settings

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naomi Fleming
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Antimicrobial Stewardship ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Diagnostic Tools ◽  
Antibiotic Prescribing ◽  
Prescribing Practices ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
Tract Infections

This chapter focuses on stewardship in the primary care and long-term care settings. Antibiotic prescribing in the community accounts for 80% total antibiotic prescribing and approximately 75% of this is for acute respiratory tract infections, many of which are viral. There is also significant variation in prescribing practices that is not explained by differences in presenting patients. These factors suggest that antimicrobial stewardship programmes are necessary. This chapter identifies the components of stewardship that have been successful in influencing antibiotic prescribing in primary care and shares local experiences with practical examples. The lack of UK evidence about antimicrobial stewardship in long-term care facilities is discussed, along with successful interventions from overseas. Challenges within these settings are highlighted, including patient demand, lack of access to microbiological and diagnostic tools, competing targets, time pressures, and clinical uncertainty.

scholarly journals Characterization and evolution of infection control practices among SARS-CoV-2 infected healthcare workers of acute care hospitals and long-term care facilities in Quebec, Canada, Spring 2020

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-37
Author(s):  
Sara Carazo ◽  
Denis Laliberté ◽  
Jasmin Villeneuve ◽  
Richard Martin ◽  
Pierre Deshaies ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Care ◽  
Attack Rate ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Acute Care Hospitals ◽  
Exposure Period ◽  
Infection Prevention And Control ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Care Facilities

ABSTRACT Objectives: To estimate the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate and the secondary attack rate among healthcare workers (HCWs) in Quebec, the most affected province of Canada during the first wave; to describe the evolution of work-related exposures and infection prevention and control (IPC) practices in infected HCWs; and to compare the exposures and practices between acute care hospitals (ACHs) and long-term care facilities (LTCFs). Design: Survey of cases Participants: Quebec HCWs from private and public institutions with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosed between 1st March and 14th June 2020. HCWs ≥18 years old, having worked during the exposure period and survived their illness were eligible for the survey. Methods: After obtaining consent, 4542 HCWs completed a standardized questionnaire. COVID-19 rates and proportions of exposures and practices were estimated and compared between ACHs and LTCFs. Results: HCWs represented 25% (13,726/54,005) of all reported COVID-19 cases in Quebec and had an 11-times greater rate than non-HCWs. Their secondary household attack rate was 30%. Most affected occupations were healthcare support workers, nurses and nurse assistants, working in LTCFs (45%) and ACHs (30%). Compared to ACHs, HCWs of LTCFs had less training, higher staff mobility between working sites, similar PPE use but better self-reported compliance with at-work physical distancing. Sub-optimal IPC practices declined over time but were still present at the end of the first wave. Conclusion: Quebec HCWs and their families were severely affected during the first wave of COVID-19. Insufficient pandemic preparedness and suboptimal IPC practices likely contributed to high transmission in both LTCFs and ACHs.

scholarly journals Factors influencing antibiotic prescribing in long-term care facilities: a qualitative in-depth study

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura W van Buul ◽  
Jenny T van der Steen ◽  
Sarah MMM Doncker ◽  
Wilco P Achterberg ◽  
François G Schellevis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Long Term Care ◽  
Antibiotic Prescribing ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Factors Influencing ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
Depth Study

scholarly journals Frequently Identified Infection Control Gaps Related to Hand Hygiene in Long-Term Care Facilities

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S407-S407
Author(s):  
Kate Tyner ◽  
Regina Nailon ◽  
Sue Beach ◽  
Margaret Drake ◽  
Teresa Fitzgerald ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hand Hygiene ◽  
Infection Control ◽  
Prevention And Control ◽  
Infection Prevention ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Infection Prevention And Control ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
And Control

Abstract Background Little is known about hand hygiene (HH) policies and practices in long-term care facilities (LTCF). Hence, we decided to study the frequency of HH-related infection control (IC) gaps and the factors associated with it. Methods The Nebraska (NE) Infection Control Assessment and Promotion Program (ICAP) in collaboration with NE Department of Health and Human Services conducted in-person surveys and on-site observations to assess infection prevention and control programs (IPCP) in 30 LTCF from 11/2015 to 3/2017. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Infection Prevention and Control Assessment tool for LTCF was used for on-site interviews and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) Hospital IC Worksheet was used for observations. Gap frequencies were calculated for questions (6 on CDC survey and 8 on CMS worksheet) representing best practice recommendations (BPR). The factors studied for the association with the gaps included LTCF bed size (BS), hospital affiliation (HA), having trained infection preventionists (IP), and weekly hours (WH)/ 100 bed spent by IP on IPCP. Fisher’s exact test and Mann Whitney test were used for statistical analyses. Results HH-related IC gap frequencies from on-site interviews are displayed in Figure 1. Only 6 (20%) LTCF reported having all 6 BPR in place and 10 (33%) having 5 BPR. LTCF with fewer gaps (5 to 6 BPR in place) appear more likely to have HA as compared with the LTCF with more gaps but the difference didn’t reach statistical significance (37.5% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.09). When analyzed separately for each gap, it was found that LTCF with HA are more likely to have a policy on preferential use of alcohol based hand rubs than the ones without HA. (85.7%, vs. 26.1% P = 0.008). Several IC gaps were also identified during observations (Figure 2) with one of them being overall HH compliance of <80%. LTCF that have over 90% HH compliance are more likely to have higher median IP WH/100 beds dedicated towards IPCP as compared with the LTCFs with less than 90% compliance (16.4 vs. 4.4, P < 0.05). Conclusion Many HH-related IC gaps still exist in LTCF and require mitigation. Mitigation strategies may include encouraging LTCF to collaborate with IP at local acute care hospitals for guidance on IC activities and to increase dedicated IP times towards IPCP in LTCF. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Antibiotic Use in Long-Term–Care Facilities: Many Unanswered Questions

2000 ◽  
Vol 21 (10) ◽  
pp. 680-683 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Loeb
Keyword(s):  
Antibiotic Resistance ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Quantitative Relation ◽  
Antibiotic Prescribing ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Care Facilities

AbstractThe extensive use of antibiotics in long-term–care facilities has led to increasing concern about the potential for the development of antibiotic resistance. Relatively little is known, however, about the quantitative relation between antibiotic use and resistance in this population. A better understanding of the underlying factors that account for variance in antibiotic use, unexplained by detected infections, is needed. To optimize antibiotic use, evidence-based standards for empirical antibiotic prescribing need to be developed. Limitations in current diagnostic testing for infection in residents of long-term–care facilities pose a substantial challenge to developing such standards.

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 Preventing the transmission of COVID-19 and other coronaviruses in older adults aged 60 years and above living in long-term care: a rapid review

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia Rios ◽  
Amruta Radhakrishnan ◽  
Chantal Williams ◽  
Naveeta Ramkissoon ◽  
Ba’ Pham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Long Term Care ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Infection Prevention And Control ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Environmental Cleaning ◽  
Automated Method

Abstract Background The objective of this review was to examine the current guidelines for infection prevention and control (IPAC) of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) or other coronaviruses in adults 60 years or older living in long-term care facilities (LTCF). Methods EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane library, pre-print servers, clinical trial registries, and relevant grey literature sources were searched until July 31, 2020, using database searching and an automated method called Continuous Active Learning® (CAL®). All search results were processed using CAL® to identify the most likely relevant citations that were then screened by a single human reviewer. Full-text screening, data abstraction, and quality appraisal were completed by a single reviewer and verified by a second. Results Nine clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) were included. The most common recommendation in the CPGs was establishing surveillance and monitoring systems followed by mandating the use of PPE; physically distancing or cohorting residents; environmental cleaning and disinfection; promoting hand and respiratory hygiene among residents, staff, and visitors; and providing sick leave compensation for staff. Conclusions Current evidence suggests robust surveillance and monitoring along with support for IPAC initiatives are key to preventing the spread of COVID-19 in LTCF. However, there are significant gaps in the current recommendations especially with regard to the movement of staff between LTCF and their role as possible transmission vectors. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020181993

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document