Objectives We set out to review and compare guidelines to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), examine the association between recent federal initiatives and CAUTI guidelines, and recommend practices for preventing CAUTI that are associated with strong evidence and are consistent across guidelines. Background Catheter-associated urinary tract infections are the most common healthcare-associated infection, and a cause of significant morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. Methods A search of the English-language literature for guidelines in the prevention of adult CAUTI, published between 1980 and 2010, was conducted in Medline and the National Guideline Clearinghouse. Results Many recommendations were consistent across 8 guidelines, including limited use of urinary catheters, the insertion of catheters aseptically, and the maintenance of a closed drainage system. The weight of evidence for some endorsed practices was limited, and different grading systems made comparisons across recommendations difficult. Federal initiatives are closely aligned with the 4 most recent guidelines. Conclusion Additional research into the prevention of CAUTI is needed, as is a harmonization of guideline grading systems for recommendations.

Article-at-a-Glance Background Despite substantial evidence to support the effectiveness of hand hygiene for preventing health care–associated infections, hand hygiene practice is often inadequate. Hand hygiene product dispensers that can electronically capture hand hygiene events have the potential to improve hand hygiene performance. A study on an automated group monitoring and feedback system was implemented from January 2012 through March 2013 at a 140-bed community hospital. Methods An electronic system that monitors the use of sanitizer and soap but does not identify individual health care personnel was used to calculate hand hygiene events per patient-hour for each of eight inpatient units and hand hygiene events per patient-visit for the six outpatient units. Hand hygiene was monitored but feedback was not provided during a six-month baseline period and three-month rollout period. During the rollout, focus groups were conducted to determine preferences for feedback frequency and format. During the six-month intervention period, graphical reports were e-mailed monthly to all managers and administrators, and focus groups were repeated. Results After the feedback began, hand hygiene increased on average by 0.17 events/patient-hour in inpatient units (interquartile range = 0.14, p = .008). In outpatient units, hand hygiene performance did not change significantly. A variety of challenges were encountered, including obtaining accurate census and staffing data, engendering confidence in the system, disseminating information in the reports, and using the data to drive improvement. Conclusions Feedback via an automated system was associated with improved hand hygiene performance in the short term.

Background The World Health Organization (WHO) launched a multimodal strategy and campaign in 2009 to improve hand hygiene practices worldwide. Our objective was to evaluate the implementation of the strategy in United States health care facilities. Methods From July through December 2011, US facilities participating in the WHO global campaign were invited to complete the Hand Hygiene Self-Assessment Framework online, a validated tool based on the WHO multimodal strategy. Results Of 2,238 invited facilities, 168 participated in the survey (7.5%). A detailed analysis of 129, mainly nonteaching public facilities (80.6%), showed that most had an advanced or intermediate level of hand hygiene implementation progress (48.9% and 45.0%, respectively). The total Hand Hygiene Self-Assessment Framework score was 36 points higher for facilities with staffing levels of infection preventionists > 0.75/100 beds than for those with lower ratios (P = .01) and 41 points higher for facilities participating in hand hygiene campaigns (P = .002). Conclusion Despite the low response rate, the survey results are unique and allow interesting reflections. Whereas the level of progress of most participating facilities was encouraging, this may reflect reporting bias, ie, better hospitals more likely to report. However, even in respondents, further improvement can be achieved, in particular by embedding hand hygiene in a stronger institutional safety climate and optimizing staffing levels dedicated to infection prevention. These results should encourage the launch of a coordinated national campaign and higher participation in the WHO global campaign.

The present study aimed to determine the frequency of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)-positive clinical culture among hospitalized adults in different risk categories of a targeted MRSA active surveillance screening program and to assess the utility of screening in guiding empiric antibiotic therapy. We completed a prospective cohort study in which all adults admitted to non-intensive-care-unit locations who had no history of MRSA colonization or infection received targeted screening for MRSA colonization upon hospital admission. Anterior nares swab specimens were obtained from all high-risk patients, defined as those who self-reported admission to a health care facility within the previous 12 months or who had an active skin infection on admission. Data were analyzed for the subcohort of patients in whom an infection was suspected, determined by (i) receipt of antibiotics within 48 h of admission and/or (ii) the result of culture of a sample for clinical analysis (clinical culture) obtained within 48 h of admission. Overall, 29,978 patients were screened and 12,080 patients had suspected infections. A total of 46.4% were deemed to be at high risk on the basis of the definition presented above, and 11.1% of these were MRSA screening positive (colonized). Among the screening-positive patients, 23.8% had a sample positive for MRSA by clinical culture. Only 2.4% of patients deemed to be at high risk but found to be screening negative had a sample positive for MRSA by clinical culture, and 1.6% of patients deemed to be at low risk had a sample positive for MRSA by clinical culture. The risk of MRSA infection was far higher in those who were deemed to be at high risk and who were surveillance culture positive. Targeted MRSA active surveillance may be beneficial in guiding empiric anti-MRSA therapy.

No abstract