public health response to carbapenem resistant enterobacteriaceae the role of health departments
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Alice Guh, MD, MPH

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 26

Alice Guh, MD, MPH - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 107 Views
  • Uploaded on

Public Health Response to Carbapenem -Resistant Enterobacteriaceae : The Role of Health Departments. Alice Guh, MD, MPH. Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CSTE CRE Panel Session – June 14, 2011.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Alice Guh, MD, MPH' - lesley-love


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
public health response to carbapenem resistant enterobacteriaceae the role of health departments
Public Health Response to Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae:The Role of Health Departments

Alice Guh, MD, MPH

Division of Healthcare Quality PromotionCenters for Disease Control and Prevention

CSTE CRE Panel Session – June 14, 2011

National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases

Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion

carbapenem resistant enterobacteriaceae cre
Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE)
  • Common cause of HAIs
    • Found in both acute care hospitals and long-term care settings
    • Since 2004, reports of CRE cases from LTACH and LTCF
  • Similar to the spread of other MDROs
    • Movement of colonized patients across the continuum of care contributes to regional transmission
    • Supported by mathematical modeling

Urban C et al. Clin Infect Dis 2008;46:e127030

Endimiani A et al. J AntimicrobChemother 2009;64:1102-1110.

Smith DL et al. PNAS 2004;101:3709-14.

inter facility transmission of mdros including cre
Inter-Facility Transmission of MDROs (Including CRE)

Munoz-Price SL. Clin Infect Dis 2009;49:438-43.

regional approach to mdro prevention is essential
Regional Approach to MDRO Prevention is Essential
  • Rationale for regional approach
    • What happens in one facility will impact surrounding facilities
    • Individual facilities can reduce MDRO prevalence only to a certain point
  • Successful regional coordination by public health
    • VRE control in Siouxland region
    • CRE containment in Israel

Sohn AH et al. Am J Infect Control 2001;29:53-7.

Schwaber MJ et al. Clin Infect Dis 2011;52:848-55.

how to operationalize public health response to emerging mdros
How to Operationalize Public Health Response to Emerging MDROs
  • Opportunity to apply regional approach to CRE prevention
  • HDs in unique position to coordinate local and regional response to CRE
    • Assess CRE prevalence/incidence within their jurisdiction in order to provide situational awareness to facilities
    • Serve as resource to facilities about prevention options
  • Informs public health response to other emerging MDROs
outline of cre toolkit
Outline of CRE Toolkit
  • Facility-level prevention strategy for facilities and HDs
  • Regional prevention strategy specifically for HDs
    • Aggressive approach to contain or prevent CRE emergence
      • Regions with no CRE identified
      • Regions with few CRE identified
regional prevention strategy regional surveillance for cre
Regional Prevention StrategyRegional Surveillance for CRE
  • Determine CRE prevalence within a given jurisdiction
    • Make CRE laboratory reportable (in regions with no known or few CRE)
    • Survey IPs or lab directors
  • Feedback of surveillance results
    • Provide specific enough data for facilities to act upon
      • Facility name, if possibleor
      • Stratify results by geographic area and/or by facility type
regional prevention strategy regions with no cre identified
Regional Prevention StrategyRegions With No CRE Identified

Aggressive efforts at detection:

  • Perform periodic surveillance and feedback
    • Frequency may depend on CRE prevalence in neighboring regions (establish mechanism for communication)
  • Educate facility staff to increase awareness
    • Epidemiologic importance of CRE
    • Recommended surveillance and prevention measures*

* http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5810a4.htm

regional prevention strategy regions with few cre identified
Regional Prevention StrategyRegions With Few CRE Identified

Aggressive efforts at containment, may target select areas:

  • Implement infection prevention measures
    • Reinforce core prevention measures in all facilities
    • Facilities with CRE: use supplemental measures
    • Facilities without CRE: targeted surveillance testing, preemptive CP
  • Use inter-facility patient transfer forms
    • Indicate CRE status, open wounds/devices, antimicrobial therapy
  • Educate facility staff to increase awareness
  • Perform periodic surveillance and feedback
development of cre survey
Development of CRE Survey
  • Fall 2010 – CRE conference calls with interested HDs to identify actionable steps to take
    • HDs notified through CSTE HAI listserve
  • CRE survey template designed to be used by HDs to assess CRE prevalence within their jurisdiction
    • 7 questions to administer to IPs of acute care facilities
    • Estimate frequency of CRE colonized- or infected-patients
    • Assess facility-level surveillance activities for CRE and related prevention measures*

* http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5810a4.htm

administration of cre survey
Administration of CRE Survey
  • Targeted acute care hospitals, but included:
    • Long-term acute care hospitals (≥3 states)
    • Critical access hospitals (≥2 states)
  • Survey methods by HDs
    • Email /online survey (e.g., Survey Monkey) to IPs
    • Paper survey at APIC meetings
  • Date of survey: ranged Sep 2010-Mar 2011
    • Survey lasted one day to 2-3 months
    • Sent reminder emails, phone calls to non-respondents
survey respondents
Survey Respondents
  • Aggregated state-level data across all 7 states:
    • Median response rate – 67% (range: 26% to 100%)
  • Breakdown by bed size (n=6 states): Total 360 facilities
    • ≤50 beds – 30%
    • 51-200 beds – 39%
    • 201-500 beds – 27%
    • >500 beds – 4%
  • Fairly representative of national data (2008 AHA data)
    • Except greater % of facilities with ≤50 beds captured in survey
cre surveillance measures n 7 states
CRE Surveillance Measures (n=7 states)

*Applies to facilities that have not or have rarely identified CRE cases (data available for 6 states)

summary of cre survey results
Summary of CRE Survey Results
  • CRE identified in <50% of all responding facilities, still have opportunity to prevent full emergence
  • Although there is intra-facility transmission, majority of identified cases are imported
    • Important role of inter-facility patient sharing
    • Supports the need for regional approach to prevention
  • Low facility adherence to recommended surveillance practices and need for increased education / awareness
    • Potential under-reporting of CRE
feedback of survey results by hds
Feedback of Survey Results by HDs
  • At least 5 states provided feedback to IPs / facilities
    • Email (memo, monthly HAI newsletter)
    • Presentation at APIC meeting
  • Feedback content
    • Only shared aggregated results
      • Some stratified by geographical region (n=2), facility type (n=1)
    • Some provided streamlined 2009 MMWR guidance* (n=3)

* http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5810a4.htm

key informant interviews
Key Informant Interviews
  • Primary objective: to understand why some HDs decided to conduct CRE survey and others did not
  • Participants
    • All 7 states that conducted CRE survey
    • 4 additional states that did not conduct CRE survey (participants of initial CRE calls via CSTE HAI listserve)
  • Standardized script with trained interviewer
key interview findings n 11 states
Key Interview Findings (n=11 states)
  • All HDs communicated regularly with IPs about HAI topics in previous 12 months (prior to CRE survey)
  • No difference between states in competing priorities and concerns about CRE survey
    • Main concern – perception of overburdening IPs
  • Yet perspectives differed regarding conducting survey: opportunity to learn vs concerns about survey intent and logistics and other data source
    • Assess for other confounders and contextual factors
    • Evaluate alternative sources to IPs for information
anywhere county usa status report emerging mdro x
Anywhere County, USAStatus Report: Emerging MDRO X

St. Joseph’s Hosp

St. Vincent’s Hosp

Appletree Hosp

St. Mary’s LTACH

Orangetown LTACH

Smallville Hosp

Peachtree Hosp

Smithville LTACH

Franklin Hosp

Greensville LTCF

Magnolia LTCF

St. Peter’s Hosp

St. Claire’s LTACH

Jamesville Hosp

Thomasville Hosp

slide26

Thank you

Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion

National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases

ad