Outbreaks of foodborne hepatitis A are rarely recognized as such. Detection of these infections is challenging because of the infection’s long incubation period and patients’ recall bias. Nevertheless, the complex food market might lead to reemergence of hepatitis A virus outside of disease-endemic areas. To assess the role of food as a source of infection, we combined routine surveillance with real-time strain sequencing in the Netherlands during 2008–2010. Virus RNA from serum of 248 (59%) of 421 reported case-patients could be sequenced. Without typing, foodborne transmission was suspected for only 4% of reported case-patients. With typing, foodborne transmission increased to being the most probable source of infection for 16%. We recommend routine implementation of an enhanced surveillance system that includes prompt forwarding and typing of hepatitis A virus RNA isolated from serum, standard use of questionnaires, data sharing, and centralized interpretation of data.
BackgroundShigella spp. and entero-invasive E. coli (EIEC) use the same invasive mechanism to cause diarrheal diseases. Public health regulations apply only to Shigella spp. infections, but are hampered by the lack of simple methods to distinguish them from EIEC. In the last decades, molecular methods for detecting Shigella spp. and EIEC were implemented in medical microbiological laboratories (MMLs). However, shigellosis cases identified with molecular techniques alone are not notifiable in most countries. Our study investigates the impact of EIEC versus Shigella spp. infections and molecular diagnosed shigellosis versus culture confirmed shigellosis for re-examination of the rationale for the current public health regulations.MethodsIn this multicenter cross-sectional study, fecal samples of patients suspected for gastro-enteritis, referred to 15 MMLs in the Netherlands, were screened by PCR for Shigella spp. or EIEC. Samples were cultured to discriminate between the two pathogens. We compared risk factors, symptoms, severity of disease, secondary infections and socio-economic consequences for (i) culture-confirmed Shigella spp. versus culture-confirmed EIEC cases (ii) culture positive versus PCR positive only shigellosis cases.ResultsIn 2016–2017, 777 PCR positive fecal samples with patient data were included, 254 of these were culture-confirmed shigellosis cases and 32 were culture-confirmed EIEC cases. EIEC cases were more likely to report ingestion of contaminated food and were less likely to be men who have sex with men (MSM). Both pathogens were shown to cause serious disease although differences in specific symptoms were observed. Culture-negative but PCR positive cases were more likely report travel or ingestion of contaminated food and were less likely to be MSM than culture-positive cases. Culture-negative cases were more likely to suffer from multiple symptoms. No differences in degree of secondary infections were observed between Shigella spp. and EIEC, and culture-negative and culture-positive cases.ConclusionsNo convincing evidence was found to support the current guidelines that employs different measures based on species or detection method. Therefore, culture and molecular detection methods for Shigella spp. and EIEC should be considered equivalent for case definition and public health regulations regarding shigellosis. Differences were found regarding risks factors, indicating that different prevention strategies may be required.
Objective:
To assess the effect of a multimodal intervention on hand hygiene compliance (HHC) in nursing homes.
Design, setting, and participants:
HHC was evaluated using direct, unobtrusive observation in a cluster randomized controlled trial at publicly funded nursing homes in the Netherlands. In total, 103 nursing home organizations were invited to participate; 18 organizations comprising 33 nursing homes (n = 66 nursing home units) participated in the study. Nursing homes were randomized into a control group (no intervention, n = 30) or an intervention group (multimodal intervention, n = 36). The primary outcome measure was HHC of nurses. HHC was appraised at baseline and at 4, 7, and 12 months after baseline. Observers and nurses were blinded.
Intervention:
Audits regarding hand hygiene (HH) materials and personal hygiene rules, 3 live lessons, an e-learning program, posters, and a photo contest. We used a new method to teach the nurses the WHO-defined 5 moments of HH: Room In, Room Out, Before Clean, and After Dirty.
Results:
HHC increased in both arms. The increase after 12 months was larger for units in the intervention arm (from 12% to 36%) than for control units (from 13% to 21%) (odds ratio [OR], 2.10; confidence interval [CI], 1.35–3.28). The intervention arm exhibited a statistically significant increase in HHC at 4 of the 5 WHO-defined HH moments. At follow-up, HHC in the intervention arm remained statistically significantly higher (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.59–2.34) for indications after an activity (from 37% to 39%) than for indications before an activity (from 14% to 27%).
Conclusions:
The HANDSOME intervention is successful in improving HHC in nursing homes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.