cleaning in the icu strong evidence strong convictions and a dose of reality l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Cleaning in the ICU: strong evidence, strong convictions and a dose of reality ? PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Cleaning in the ICU: strong evidence, strong convictions and a dose of reality ?

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 37

Cleaning in the ICU: strong evidence, strong convictions and a dose of reality ? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 151 Views
  • Uploaded on

Cleaning in the ICU: strong evidence, strong convictions and a dose of reality ?. APR Wilson, G Moore, D Smyth, R Jackson, J Singleton, E James, V Gant, S Shaw, M Singer G Bellingan University College London Hospitals Royal Free Hospital. What do we know about MRSA transmission?.

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 'Cleaning in the ICU: strong evidence, strong convictions and a dose of reality ?' - adriel


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
cleaning in the icu strong evidence strong convictions and a dose of reality

Cleaning in the ICU: strong evidence, strong convictions and a dose of reality?

APR Wilson, G Moore, D Smyth, R Jackson, J Singleton, E James, V Gant, S Shaw, M Singer G Bellingan

University College London Hospitals

Royal Free Hospital

what do we know about mrsa transmission
What do we know about MRSA transmission?

How it is MRSA transmitted – Hands?

Airbourne?

Why don’t some patients get MRSA?

Where are patients colonised?

How effective is isolation of MRSA patients?

evidence mrsa can be controlled
Evidence MRSA can be controlled

Yap, Gomersall et al.(Hong Kong) Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39: 511

Observational report of MRSA incidence on ICU

100% compliance with contact precautions during SARS

8 fold INCREASE in MRSA during this period

Returned to baseline after return to normal precautions

  • Souweine (France 2000)
  • Retrospective: contact, surveillance, isolation, mupiricin
  • One year pre and one year post introduction
  • MRSA rates fell from 4/1000 pt days to 2.2/1000

Jernigan (Charlottesville 1996)

Prospective, Neonatal ICU

4.8% colonised/infected – single strain

Contact, cohort, surveillance staff + patients

Transmission rates Isolation 0.009/day Not isolated 0.14/day p<0.0001

slide6

Isolation

No Isolation

slide7

Air Communal Surfaces

Carrier of pathogen known or unknown

Near patient surfaces

Patient

Hands of staff and visitors

hospital acquired pathogens
Hospital acquired pathogens
  • Transmitted by unwashed hands, air or environment or other?
  • In ICU hand hygiene more important than physical segregation??
  • Towards Cleaner Hospitals, Matrons Charter, linked to 50% MRSA reduction target
cleaning
Cleaning
  • ICU patient susceptible to repeated contamination
  • Microfibre removes 99% of surface bacteria
  • Near patient equipment cleaned by unsupervised nurses not domestics
slide10
Aims
  • Compare standard cleaning and intensively monitored enhanced cleaning
  • Effect on local contamination rates
  • Effect on colonisation of patients
  • Effect on hospital acquired infection
two month phases apr 07 mar 08
Two month phases Apr 07-Mar 08
  • Randomised standard or enhanced cleaning with one week washout
  • Standard – existing practices plus nurses clean equipment
  • Enhanced – microfibre monitored by ATP bioluminescence.
  • MRSA screening on admission and weekly
methods
Methods
  • Normal domestic staff routine cleaning beds, floors and walls
  • Nursing staff bedside equipment
  • Enhanced – team of technicians used colour coded microfibre cloths, 15 min per bed area
methods13
Methods
  • Sampling daily - 20% of beds i.e. 12 bed days each ICU each week, total 1152 bed days, 20736 samples
  • 1:4 MRSA bed
  • Air and environmental samples, patient and general areas
  • Hourly sampling 1 day each phase
methods14
Methods
  • Sites: drawer, bed rail, syringe driver, nurse hands, monitor and keyboard/chart
  • Three times each sampling day
  • Communal sites: apron dispenser, doctors hands, telephone, air
methods15
Methods
  • Both ICU screened for MRSA on admission and 1-2 times/week
  • 90% chance of detecting 50% reduction in contaminated bed areas
  • 67% chance of detecting 50% reduction in rate of acquisition of MRSA
expected outcome
Expected Outcome
  • Show if enhanced cleaning beneficial for environmental contamination and acquisition of hospital pathogens
  • Acquisition of pathogens is/is not related to level of contamination in environment
monitoring
Monitoring
  • Steering Group meeting every 3-4 weeks
  • Daily supervision of staff by investigators
hand hygiene audits
Hand hygiene audits
  • Used Pittet criteria
  • Compliance in enhanced phases: UCH 50% RFH 58%
  • Compliance in standard phases: UCH 53% RFH 50%
hands
Hands
  • MRSA reduced on doctors’ hands (OR 0.26 [0.07, 0.95]) during enhanced cleaning
  • Nurse hands trend (OR 0.6 [0.29, 1.08])
conclusions
Conclusions
  • Enhanced cleaning reduced MRSA load in environment 40%
  • Enhanced cleaning reduced bacterial load on nurse/doctor hands
  • No significant reduction in acquisition or infection
  • Bed rails highly touched and contaminated – texture effect
origin mrsa
Origin MRSA
  • 7 of 64 cases MRSA in environment preceded isolation from patient of a strain indistinguishable by PFGE
  • Further typing to establish chains of transmission
airborne spread
Airborne Spread
  • Why is MRSA commonly detected in the nose?
  • Can detect distant MRSA in the air after:
    • physiotherapy or NIV for non-intubated patients with MRSA pneumonia,
    • bed linen changes from colonised patients
  • Would expect the isolation study to have shown a difference
the gut as a source of colonisation
The gut as a source of colonisation?
  • Silvestri et al.
    • oropharyngeal carriage in up to 80% of cases during an outbreak
    • 33% in the absence of an outbreak.
  • Oral vancomycin
    • significantly reduced colonisation,
    • reduce MRSA nosocomial pneumonia and
    • contained an MRSA outbreak.
  • No vancomycin resistant enterococci (VRE) or intermediate sensitivity S. aureus (VISA) found
  • Did not screen for topical MRSA - incidence of skin with gut carriage unknown
local variations in mrsa incidence in icu s in the uk
Local variations in MRSA incidence in ICU’s in the UK

London Teaching Hospitals with >1000 admissions/year

Hospital a) no bacteraemias in 6 months

Hospital b) 1 bacteraemia in 14 months

Hospital c) 12 bacteraemias in 12 months

local variations in mrsa incidence in icu s in the uk36
Local variations in MRSA incidence in ICU’s in the UK

Hospital a) chlorhexidine wash daily for all, CVC bundles, no 3 way taps, rapid screening, isolation, linezolid for specific cases, standard plus precautions for all.

Hospital b) chlorhexidine wash daily for all, CVC bundle, full gowns, rapid screening, no isolation.

Hospital c) rapid screening and chlorhexidine for positive cases, CVC bundles, no 3 way taps, isolation, standard plus precautions for all.

slide37

The evidence

We could not identify a major source for environmental transmission of MRSA.

Enhanced cleaning may not reduce colonisation or infection

Isolation may not reduce colonisation or infection

Clearly a broad “attack” on the environment, the patient and ICU processes can reduce MRSA rates

Does it matter that we don’t know which of these are effective…???

It would be great if infection control techniques could be based on evidence rather than conjecture.