Risk factors and prevention among patients with hospital-acquired and pre-existing pressure ulcers in an acute care hospital

Abstract Background Candida auris can be transmitted in healthcare settings, and patients can become asymptomatically colonized, increasing risk for invasive infection and transmission. We investigated an ongoing C. auris outbreak at a 30-bed long-term acute care hospital to identify colonization for C. auris prevalence and risk factors. Methods During February–June 2017, we conducted point prevalence surveys every 2 weeks among admitted patients. We abstracted clinical information from medical records and collected axillary and groin swabs. Swabs were tested for C. auris. Data were analyzed to identify risk factors for colonization with C. auris by evaluating differences between colonized and noncolonized patients. Results All 101 hospitalized patients were surveyed, and 33 (33%) were colonized with C. auris. Prevalence of colonization ranged from 8% to 38%; incidence ranged from 5% to 20% (figure). Among colonized patients with available data, 19/27 (70%) had a tracheostomy, 20/31 (65%) had gastrostomy tubes, 24/33 (73%) ventilator use, and 12/27 (44%) had hemodialysis. Also, 31/33 (94%) had antibiotics and 13/33 (34%) antifungals during hospitalization. BMI for colonized patients (mean = 30.3, standard deviation (SD) = 10) was higher than for noncolonized patients (mean = 26.5, SD = 7.9); t = −2.1; P = 0.04). Odds of colonization were higher among Black patients (33%) vs. White patients (16%) (odds ratio [OR] 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3–9.8), and those colonized with other multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) (72%) vs. noncolonized (44%) (OR 3.2; CI 1.3–8.0). Odds of death were higher among colonized patients (OR 4.6; CI 1.6—13.6). Conclusion Patients in long-term acute care facilities and having high prevalences of MDROs might be at risk for C. auris. Such patients with these risk factors could be targeted for enhanced surveillance to facilitate early detection of C. auris. Infection control measures to reduce MDROs’ spread, including hand hygiene, contact precautions, and judicious use of antimicrobials, could prevent further C. auris transmission. Acknowledgements The authors thank Janet Glowicz and Kathleen Ross. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Download Full-text

Risk Factors for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Acquisition in Roommate Contacts of Patients Colonized or Infected With MRSA in an Acute-Care Hospital

Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology ◽

10.1086/588567 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 29 (7) ◽

pp. 600-606 ◽

Cited By ~ 38

Author(s):

Christine Moore ◽

Jastej Dhaliwal ◽

Agnes Tong ◽

Sarah Eden ◽

Cindi Wigston ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Staphylococcus Aureus ◽

Acute Care ◽

Significant Risk ◽

Acute Care Hospital ◽

Skin Lesions ◽

Care Hospital ◽

Methicillin Resistant ◽

The Impact

Objective.To identify risk factors for acquisition of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in patients exposed to an MRSA-colonized roommate.Design.Retrospective cohort study.Setting.A 472-bed acute-care teaching hospital in Toronto, Canada.Patients.Inpatients who shared a room between 1996 and 2004 with a patient who had unrecognized MRSA colonization.Methods.Exposed roommates were identified from infection-control logs and from results of screening for MRSA in the microbiology database. Completed follow-up was defined as completion of at least 2 sets of screening cultures (swab samples from the nares, the rectum, and skin lesions), with at least 1 set of samples obtained 7–10 days after the last exposure. Chart reviews were performed to compare those who did and did not become colonized with MRSA.Results.Of 326 roommates, 198 (61.7%) had completed follow-up, and 25 (12.6%) acquired MRSA by day 7–10 after exposure was recognized, all with strains indistinguishable by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis from those of their roommate. Two (2%) of 101 patients were not colonized at day 7–10 but, with subsequent testing, were identified as being colonized with the same strain as their roommate (one at day 16 and one at day 18 after exposure). A history of alcohol abuse (odds ratio [OR], 9.8 [95% confidence limits {CLs}, 1.8, 53]), exposure to a patient with nosocomially acquired MRSA (OR, 20 [95% CLs, 2.4,171]), increasing care dependency (OR per activity of daily living, 1.7 [95% CLs, 1.1, 2.7]), and having received levofloxacin (OR, 3.6 [95% CLs, 1.1,12]) were associated with MRSA acquisition.Conclusions.Roommates of patients with MRSA are at significant risk for becoming colonized. Further study is needed of the impact of hospital antimicrobial formulary decisions on the risk of acquisition of MRSA.

Download Full-text

1263. Managing an Influenza Outbreak Which Spilled Over to an Acute Care Hospital from a Behavioral Health Unit

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofy210.1096 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 5 (suppl_1) ◽

pp. S385-S385

Author(s):

Colleen M Clay ◽

Leonardo Girio-Herrera ◽

Faheem Younus

Keyword(s):

Behavioral Health ◽

Acute Care ◽

Influenza A ◽

Average Length ◽

Acute Care Hospital ◽

Control Measures ◽

Care Hospital ◽

Prevention Measures ◽

Influenza Outbreak ◽

Hospital Acquired

Abstract Background Behavioral health units (BHU) have been implicated in influenza outbreaks due to group activities, low availability of alcohol-based hand gels and unique host factors. We describe the management of an unusual influenza outbreak, which started in the BHU and then spilled over to the acute care hospital (ACH). Methods University of Maryland Harford Memorial Hospital is a 95-bed ACH with a 14-bed closed-door adult BHU located on the fifth floor. Two cases each of hospital-acquired influenza were identified in our BHU during 2016 and 2017. In January 2018, however, hospital-acquired influenza cases in the BHU spilled over to the adjacent ACH to cause an outbreak. A case was defined as a patient with fever of >100.4°F, presence of influenza-like illness, and a positive influenza test >72 hours after admission. Outbreak control measures included twice daily fever screening, enhanced droplet precautions, visitor restrictions, discontinuing community activities, enforcing hand hygiene at all hospital entrances, and hospital-wide chemoprophylaxis with oseltamivir. Results On January 15, 2018, the index patient developed influenza in the BHU followed by a second case in BHU 4-days later. Over the next 10 days, five more patients on the third and fourth floors of ACH tested positive. Attack rate was 3% and average length of stay was 8.9 days. Chemoprophylaxis with oseltamivir 75 mg orally once a day was given to 71% of all eligible hospitalized patients for a week (at a cost of $17,000). All seven patients yielded influenza A, subtype H3N2 and were successfully treated with oseltamivir 75 mg orally twice a day for 7 days. The outbreak lasted 11 days. Figure 1 shows the epidemiologic curve. Conclusion Special attention should be paid to influenza prevention in the BHUs due to the risk of spillover effect to sicker patients in the adjacent ACH. A short, 7-day course of hospital-wide oseltamivir chemoprophylaxis, in addition to promptly implementing the infection prevention measures was effective in controlling the outbreak. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Download Full-text

Hospital-Acquired Infections in Elderly Versus Younger Patients in an Acute Care Hospital

International Journal of Infection ◽

10.17795/iji-32620 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 3 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Perla Sarai Solis-Hernandez ◽

Melissa Vidales-Reyes ◽

Elvira Garza-Gonzalez ◽

Guillermo Guajardo-Alvarez ◽

Susana Chavez-Moreno ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Acute Care ◽

Acute Care Hospital ◽

Care Hospital ◽

Younger Patients ◽

Hospital Acquired Infections ◽

Hospital Acquired

Download Full-text

Modifiable Risk Factors for the Spread of Klebsiella pneumoniae Carbapenemase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae Among Long-Term Acute-Care Hospital Patients

Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology ◽

10.1017/ice.2017.62 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 38 (06) ◽

pp. 670-677 ◽

Cited By ~ 16

Author(s):

Koh Okamoto ◽

Michael Y. Lin ◽

Manon Haverkate ◽

Karen Lolans ◽

Nicholas M. Moore ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Klebsiella Pneumoniae ◽

Acute Care ◽

Acute Care Hospital ◽

Modifiable Risk Factors ◽

Surveillance Culture ◽

Care Hospital ◽

Colonization Pressure ◽

Comorbidity Index

OBJECTIVETo identify modifiable risk factors for acquisition ofKlebsiella pneumoniaecarbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (KPC) colonization among long-term acute-care hospital (LTACH) patients.DESIGNMulticenter, matched case-control study.SETTINGFour LTACHs in Chicago, Illinois.PARTICIPANTSEach case patient included in this study had a KPC-negative rectal surveillance culture on admission followed by a KPC-positive surveillance culture later in the hospital stay. Each matched control patient had a KPC-negative rectal surveillance culture on admission and no KPC isolated during the hospital stay.RESULTSFrom June 2012 to June 2013, 2,575 patients were admitted to 4 LTACHs; 217 of 2,144 KPC-negative patients (10.1%) acquired KPC. In total, 100 of these patients were selected at random and matched to 100 controls by LTACH facility, admission date, and censored length of stay. Acquisitions occurred a median of 16.5 days after admission. On multivariate analysis, we found that exposure to higher colonization pressure (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01–1.04;P=.002), exposure to a carbapenem (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.06–4.77;P=.04), and higher Charlson comorbidity index (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01–1.29;P=.04) were independent risk factors for KPC acquisition; the odds of KPC acquisition increased by 2% for each 1% increase in colonization pressure.CONCLUSIONSHigher colonization pressure, exposure to carbapenems, and a higher Charlson comorbidity index independently increased the odds of KPC acquisition among LTACH patients. Reducing colonization pressure (through separation of KPC-positive patients from KPC-negative patients using strict cohorts or private rooms) and reducing carbapenem exposure may prevent KPC cross transmission in this high-risk patient population.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2017;38:670–677

Download Full-text