Nursing & Health

Background: In the past decade the policy and practice context for infection control in Australia and New Zealand has changed, with infection control professionals (ICPs) now involved in the implementation of a large number of national strategies. Little is known about the current ICP workforce and what they do in their day-to-day positions. The aim of this study was to describe the ICP workforce in Australia and New Zealand with a focus on roles, responsibilities, and scope of practice.

Methods: A cross-sectional design using snowball recruitment was employed. ICPs completed an anonymous web-based survey with questions on demographics; qualifications held; level of experience; workplace characteristics; and roles and responsibilities. Chi-squared tests were used to determine if any factors were associated with how often activities were undertaken.

Results: A total of 300 ICPs from all Australian states and territories and New Zealand participated. Most ICPs were female (94%); 53% were aged over 50, and 93% were employed in registered nursing roles. Scope of practice was diverse: all ICPs indicated they undertook a large number and variety of activities as part of their roles. Some activities were undertaken on a less frequent basis by sole practitioners and ICPs in small teams.

Conclusion: This survey provides useful information on the current education, experience levels and scope of practice of ICPs in Australia and New Zealand. Work is now required to establish the best mechanisms to support and potentially streamline scope of practice, so that infection-control practice is optimised.

Background: In Australia, little is known about the risk of acquiring methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus(MRSA) from prior room occupants. The aims of the study are to understand the risk ofMRSAacquisition from prior room occupants and to further extend the existing knowledge-base on the role of discharge cleaning in hospitals.

Methods: A non-concurrent cohort study was undertaken in five wards at a 250-bed general hospital in Tasmania, Australia. All admitted patients were screened for MRSA. Weekly screenings for all patients who remained in hospital were undertaken. New MRSA acquisitions were identified. The exposed group were patients whose immediate prior room occupant had MRSA, while the unexposed prior room occupant did not have MRSA.

Results: 6228 patients were at risk of acquiringMRSA,with 237 newMRSAacquisitions equating to an acquisition rate of 3.8% for each at-risk patient admission. The unadjusted odds ratio for acquiring MRSA when the prior room occupant had MRSA was 2.9 (95% CI 2.2–3.9). Using logistic regression, exposure to a prior occupant harbouring MRSA remained a significant predictor of subsequent acquisition, after controlling for variables, OR 2.7 (95% CI 2.0–3.6).

Conclusion: Admission to a room previously occupied by a person with MRSA increased the odds of acquisition for the subsequent patient, independent of other risk factors. It demonstrates the necessity of having effective discharge cleaning practices in place. We believe increased attention to discharge room cleaning in hospitals is required and the reconsideration of additional recommendations for discharge cleaning.

Background

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) remain a significant patient safety issue, with point prevalence estimates being ~5% in high-income countries. In 2016–2017, the Researching Effective Approaches to Cleaning in Hospitals (REACH) study implemented an environmental cleaning bundle targeting communication, staff training, improved cleaning technique, product use, and audit of frequent touch-point cleaning. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the environmental cleaning bundle for reducing the incidence of HAIs.

Methods

A stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial was conducted in 11 hospitals recruited from 6 Australian states and territories. Bundle effectiveness was measured by the numbers of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, Clostridium difficile infection, and vancomycin-resistant enterococci infections prevented in the intervention phase based on estimated reductions in the relative risk of infection. Changes to costs were defined as the cost of implementing the bundle minus cost savings from fewer infections. Health benefits gained from fewer infections were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefit of adopting the cleaning bundle over existing hospital cleaning practices.

Results

Implementing the cleaning bundle cost $349 000 Australian dollars (AUD) and generated AUD$147 500 in cost savings. Infections prevented under the cleaning bundle returned a net monetary benefit of AUD$1.02 million and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4684 per QALY gained. There was an 86% chance that the bundle was cost-effective compared with existing hospital cleaning practices.

Conclusions

A bundled, evidence-based approach to improving hospital cleaning is a cost-effective intervention for reducing the incidence of HAIs.

Hospital-acquired complications data on urinary tract infections is unreliable, and could result in hospitals being incorrectly financially penalised.

Background

The role of environment in infection prevention and control is being increasingly acknowledged. However, gaps remain between what is promoted as best practice in the literature and what is occurring in healthcare settings. In part, this is due to a lack of generally accepted scientific standards, further confounding the ability to demonstrate an undisputed role for the healthcare environment in healthcare-acquired infections (HAIs). Evaluating environmental cleanliness in a standardised format is required, in order to enable a framework for performance management and provide a method by which interventions can be evaluated. Standardised assessment would provide reliable data to support quality-improvement activities and to ensure that healthcare staff have relevant and useful information to inform and adapt practice.

Methods

This integrative literature reviewdescribes approaches to assessing environmental cleanliness. A search of the published literature was undertaken, in combination with a targeted review of the grey literature.

Results

Four methods for assessing environmental cleanliness were identified: visual inspection, fluorescent gel marker, adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and microbial cultures. Advantages and disadvantages for each are explored.

Conclusion

Methods that evaluate cleaning performance are useful in assessing adherence to cleaning protocols, whereas methods that sample bio-burden provide a more relevant indication of infection risk. Fast, reproducible, costeffective and reliable methods are needed for routine environmental cleaning evaluation in order to predict timely clinical risk.

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine the risk of pathogen acquisition for patients associated with prior room occupancy. The analysis was also broadened to examine any differences in acquisition risk between Gram-positive and Gram–negative organisms. A search using MEDLINE/Pubmed, Cochrane and CINHAL yielded 2,577 citations between 1984 and 2014. Reviews were assessed in accordance with the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO). Just seven articles met the inclusion criteria namely, (a) papers were peer reviewed, (b) pathogen acquisition prevalence rates were reported, (c) articles were written in English; and (d) had minimal or no risk of bias based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). One study was an extension of a previous study and was discarded. Employing NOS provided little difference between the studies, with five studies receiving eight-star, and 2 studies receiving seven-star ratings, respectively. Overall, pooled acquisition odds ratio for study pathogens (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; vancomycin-resistant enterococcus; Clostridium difficile; Acinetobacter; ESBL-producing coliforms; Pseudomonas) was 2.14 (95% CI = 1.65–2.77). When comparing data between Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms, the pooled acquisition odds ratio for Gram-negatives was 2.65 (95% CI = 2.02–3.47) and 1.89 (95% CI = 1.62–2.21) for Gram-positives. The findings have important implications for infection control professionals, environmental cleaning services and patients, given that current practices fail to adequately reduce acquisition risk. While there may be non-preventable sources of acquisition, revised practices require collaborative work between all responsible staff in order to reduce this risk to a minimum.

Introduction: A standardised approach to evaluating environmental cleanliness is important to ensure consistency of assessor training, allow benchmarking of results between facilities, ensure consistency of the assessment of the environment and assist in meeting national accreditation standards. This paper describes the development process and the findings of the first 12 months of data following the introduction of a standardised program for evaluating environmental cleanliness within Tasmanian healthcare facilities using two different evaluation methods.

Methods: Evaluation of environmental cleanliness was undertaken as part of a structured program and involved the use of an ultraviolet solution and fluorescent light in addition to a visual assessment. Twelve Tasmanian hospitals participated in this study.

Results: A total of 290 fluorescent light assessments and 232 visual inspections were conducted. Using the fluorescent light assessment, the percentage of correctly cleaned items increased from a baseline of 82.3% to 85.4% over the 12-month study period. Using the visual assessment, 92.5% of items were deemed acceptable during the study period.

Conclusions: Our multi-centred study identified a high baseline level of cleanliness using a fluorescent light. We identified that objects were frequently deemed to be visually acceptable, yet may not have been cleaned. The project was supported by a range of online tools for data submission, training tools and a formal assessment of auditors.