BACKGROUND Multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) are a public health threat. Single-centre interventions, however, are likely to fail in the long term, as patients are commonly transferred between institutions given the economic integration across borders. A transnational approach targeting larger regions is needed to plan overarching sets of interventions. Here, we aim to describe differences in diagnostic and infection prevention and control (IPC) measures in the fight against MDROs. METHODS In 2019, we systematically assessed diagnostic algorithms and IPC measures implemented for detection and control of MDROs at three tertiary academic care centres (Freiburg; Strasbourg; Basel). Data were collected using a standardised data collection sheet to be filled in by every centre. Uncertainties were clarified by direct contact via telephone or email with the data supplier. Internal validity was checked by at least two researchers independently filling in the survey. RESULTS All centres have established a primarily culture-based, rather than a nucleic acid amplification-based approach for detection of MDROs (i.e., vancomycin-resistant Enterococci [VRE], methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus [MRSA], extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae [ESBL], carbapenemase-producing and carbapenem-resistant Gram-negatives [CPGN/CRGN]). IPC measures differed greatly across all centres. High-risk patients are screened for most MDROs on intensive care unit (ICU) admission in all centres; only the French centre is screening all patients admitted to the ICU for VRE, MRSA and ESBL. Patients colonised/infected by MRSA, quinolone-resistant ESBL Klebsiella spp. and CPGN/CRGN are isolated everywhere, whereas patients colonised/infected by VRE and ESBL are usually not isolated in the German centre. CONCLUSIONS In contrast to the French and Swiss centres, the German centre no longer uses isolation measures to control VRE and quinolone-susceptible ESBL. Overall, the French centre is more focused on intercepting MDRO transmission from outside, whereas the German and Swiss centres are more focused on intercepting endemic MDRO transmission. These findings point to important challenges regarding future attempts to standardise IPC measures across borders.

Introduction Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) has been a widespread practice both in intensive care units (ICU) and internal wards at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Clinical data suggests an important overuse of acid suppressive therapy (AST) for this indication. Data on current clinical practice of SUP in surgical patients in a non-ICU setting are spares. In the light of a growing number of reports on serious side effects of AST, this study evaluates the use of AST for SUP in a normal surgical ward in a German university hospital. Methods Between January 2016 and June 2016, SUP was analysed retrospectively in 1132 consecutive patients of the Department of Surgery of the Universitätsmedizin Greifswald. Results The patients managed with and without SUP were similar with respect to demographic data and treatment with anticoagulants, SSRI and glucocorticoids. Patients with SUP were treated more frequently by cyclooxygenase inhibiting drugs (NSAID, COX2-inhibitors), were more frequently treated in the intermediated care unit and had a longer hospital stay. Risk factors for the development of stress ulcers were similarly present in patient groups managed with and without SUP. About 85.7–99.6% of patients were given SUP without an adequate risk for stress ulcer development, depending on the method used for risk assessment. Discussion Still today, SUP is widely overused in non-ICU surgical patients. Information campaigns on risk factors for stress ulcer development and standard operating procedures for SUP are required to limit potential side effects and increased treatment costs.

Background: Despite the growing concern over its potentially severe side effects and considerable economic burden, stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is still frequently prescribed to patients in medical non-intensive care units. Recent data indicate that the situation is similar in surgical departments. Currently, data on the concepts within and regulation of routine SUP practice in surgical departments are sparse. The present study was designed to examine the current practice of SUP in Mecklenburg West Pomerania, Germany, and to identify possible reasons for the dissociation of medical literature and clinical practice. Methods: A questionnaire-based survey was conducted to elucidate current SUP practices in surgical departments of acute care hospitals in Mecklenburg Western Pomerania, Germany. Results: In most surgical departments (68%), a standard operating procedure (SOP) for SUP had not been developed. In departments with an existing SOP, 47.6% of responding medical staff members (MSM) with prescribing authority did not know of its existence. Of the MSMs aware of the existence of an SUP-SOP, only 42.9% indicated that they were familiar with its content. Critical re-evaluation of SUP indications upon transfer from the intensive care unit (ICU) to the general hospital ward (GHW) and before hospital discharge was performed frequently or systematically by only about half of the responding MSMs. Discussion: In the face of continued massive over-prescription of SUP in the perioperative routine, the development of easy-to-use local guidelines and their strict implementation in the clinical routine, as well as intensified medial education on this subject, may be effective tools to reduce acid-suppressive medication (ASM) associated side effects and economic burden.