Background Care institutions are recognised to be a high-risk setting for the emergence and spread of infections and antimicrobial-resistant organisms, which stresses the importance of infection prevention and control (IPC). Accurate implementation is crucial for optimal IPC practice. Despite the wide promotion of IPC and research thereof in the hospital and nursing home setting, similar efforts are lacking in disability care settings. Therefore, this study aimed to assess perceived barriers and facilitators to IPC among professionals working at residential care facilities (RCFs) for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), as well as to identify professional-reported recommendations to improve IPC. Methods This qualitative study involved semi-structured interviews (before COVID-19) with twelve professionals from five Dutch RCFs for people with IDD. An integrated theoretical approach was used to inform data collection and analysis. Thematic analysis using inductive and deductive approaches was conducted. This study followed the COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research (COREQ) guidelines. Results Our findings revealed barriers and facilitators at the guideline, client, professional, professional interaction, professional client interaction, client interaction, organisational, community, and societal level. Six main themes covering multiple barriers and facilitators were identified: (1) guidelines’ applicability to (work)setting; (2) professionals’ cognitions and attitude towards IPC (related to educational background); (3) organisational support and priority; (4) educational system; (5) time availability and staff capacity; and (6) task division and change coaches. The main professional-reported recommendations were the introduction of tailored and practical IPC guidelines, structural IPC education and training among all professionals, and client participation. Conclusions To promote IPC, multifaceted and multilevel strategies should be implemented, with a preliminary need for improvements on the guideline, professional, and organisational level. Given the heterogeneous character, i.e., different professionals, clients and care needs, there is a need for a tailored approach to implement IPC and sustain it successfully in disability care. Our findings can inform future IPC practice improvements.

IntroductionThere is some evidence that greater consumption of fruit and vegetables decreases the risk of bladder cancer. The role of fruit and vegetables in bladder cancer recurrence is still unknown.ObjectiveThe role of total fruit and vegetable intake in relation to the risk of developing bladder cancer recurrence in a prospective cohort study.Methods728 patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), who completed self-administrated questionnaires on fruit and vegetable intake at time of diagnosis (over the year before diagnosis) and 1 year after diagnosis, were included. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by multivariable Cox regression for developing recurrent bladder cancer in relation to fruit and vegetable intake.ResultsDuring 2,051 person-years of follow-up [mean (SD) follow-up 3.7 (1.5) years], 241 (33.1%) of the included 728 NMIBC patients developed a recurrence of bladder cancer. The sum of total fruit and vegetables before diagnosis was not related to a first bladder cancer recurrence (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.78–1.47, p = 0.66). No association was found between greater consumption of fruit and vegetables over the year before diagnosis and the risk of developing multiple recurrences of bladder cancer (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.90–1.15, p = 0.78). Among the remaining 389 NMIBC patients who reported on fruit and vegetable intake 1 year after diagnosis, no association was found between greater consumption of fruit and vegetables and a first recurrence of bladder cancer (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.42–1.01, p = 0.06) nor with multiple recurrences of bladder cancer (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.85–1.18, p = 1.00). Similar results were obtained when investigating the association between total intakes of fruit and vegetables separately and bladder cancer recurrence.ConclusionResults from this study did not indicate a protective role for total fruit and vegetables in the development of a recurrence of NMIBC.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s10552-018-1029-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: The Dutch province of Limburg borders the German district of Heinsberg, which had a large cluster of COVID-19 cases linked to local carnival activities in February, before any cases were reported in the Netherlands. However, Heinsberg was not included as an area reporting local or community transmission per the national case definition at the time. In early March, two residents from a long-term care facility (LTCF) in Sittard, a Dutch town located in close vicinity to the district of Heinsberg, started experiencing respiratory symptoms and were admitted to the regional hospital at which they were tested for COVID-19. Introduction of the virus could have occurred following the carnival activities in the surrounding area by LTCF visitors or health care workers.Methods: Surveys and semi-structured oral interviews were conducted with all present residents by health care workers during regular points of care for information on new or unusual signs and symptoms of disease. Both throat and nasopharyngeal swabs were taken from residents suspect of COVID-19 for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by Real-time Polymerase Chain Reaction and whole genome sequencing was performed using a SARS-CoV-2 specific amplicon-based Nanopore sequencing approach. Additionally, twelve random residents were sampled for possible asymptomatic infections.Results: Since the start of the outbreak, nineteen (19%) residents tested positive for COVID-19. Eleven samples were sequenced, along with three random samples from COVID-19 patients hospitalized in the regional hospital at the time of the LTCF outbreak. Conclusions: All samples were linked to COVID-19 cases from the cross-border region of Heinsberg, Germany. Symptoms were reported only in about two third of the cases, and tended to be generally mild. We therefore recommend low-level screening of HCWs and residents following a confirmed COVID-19 case, even in the absence of symptoms. Since the LTCF residents who tested positive did not meet the criteria for suspect cases of COVID-19 at the time, this highlights the importance of cooperation among cross-border partners in order to establish a coordinated implementation of infection control measures in the region on top of national guidelines to limit the spread of infectious diseases such as COVID-19.

Background The Dutch province of Limburg borders the German district of Heinsberg, which had a large cluster of COVID-19 cases linked to local carnival activities before any cases were reported in the Netherlands. However, Heinsberg was not included as an area reporting local or community transmission per the national case definition at the time. In early March, two residents from a long-term care facility (LTCF) in Sittard, a Dutch town located in close vicinity to the district of Heinsberg, tested positive for COVID-19. In this study we aimed to determine whether cross-border introduction of the virus took place by analysing the LTCF outbreak in Sittard, both epidemiologically and microbiologically. Methods Surveys and semi-structured oral interviews were conducted with all present LTCF residents by health care workers during regular points of care for information on new or unusual signs and symptoms of disease. Both throat and nasopharyngeal swabs were taken from residents suspect of COVID-19, based on regional criteria, for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by Real-time Polymerase Chain Reaction. Additionally, whole genome sequencing was performed using a SARS-CoV-2 specific amplicon-based Nanopore sequencing approach. Moreover, twelve random residents were sampled for possible asymptomatic infections. Results Out of 99 residents, 46 got tested for COVID-19. Out of the 46 tested residents, nineteen (41%) tested positive for COVID-19, including 3 asymptomatic residents. CT-values for asymptomatic residents seemed higher compared to symptomatic residents. Eleven samples were sequenced, along with three random samples from COVID-19 patients hospitalized in the regional hospital at the time of the LTCF outbreak. All samples were linked to COVID-19 cases from the cross-border region of Heinsberg, Germany. Conclusions Sequencing combined with epidemiological data was able to virtually prove cross-border transmission at the start of the Dutch COVID-19 epidemic. Our results highlight the need for cross-border collaboration and adjustment of national policy to emerging region-specific needs along borders in order to establish coordinated implementation of infection control measures to limit the spread of COVID-19.