BackgroundCentral line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) represent a serious patient safety issue. To prevent these infections, bundled interventions are increasingly recommended. We examine the extent of adoption of Central Line (CL) Bundle elements throughout US intensive care units (ICU) and determine their effectiveness in preventing CLABSIs.Methodology/Principal FindingsIn this cross-sectional study, National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) hospitals provided the following: ICU-specific NHSN-reported rates of CLABSI/1,000 central line days; policies and compliance rates regarding bundle components; and other setting characteristics. In 250 hospitals the mean CLABSI rate was 2.1 per 1000 central line days and 49% reported having a written CL Bundle policy. However, of those that monitored compliance, only 38% reported very high compliance with the CL Bundle. Only when an ICU had a policy, monitored compliance, and had ≥95% compliance did CLABSI rates decrease. Complying with any one of three CL Bundle elements resulted in decreased CLABSI rates (β = -1.029, p = 0.015). If an ICU without good bundle compliance achieved high compliance with any one bundle element, we estimated that its CLABSI rate would decrease by 38%.Conclusions/SignificanceIn NHSN hospitals across the US, the CL Bundle is associated with lower infection rates only when compliance is high. Hospitals must target improving bundle implementation and compliance as opposed to simply instituting policies.

Background-The nature of infection prevention and control is changing; however, little is known about current staffing and structure of infection prevention and control programs.

In the past 10 years, many researchers have examined relationships between hospital staffing and patients’ risk of health care–associated infection (HAI). To gain understanding of this evidence base, a systematic review was conducted, and 42 articles were audited. The most common infection studied was bloodstream infection (n=18; 43%). The majority of researchers examined nurse staffing (n=38; 90%); of these, only 7 (18%) did not find a statistically significant association between nurse staffing variable(s) and HAI rates. Use of nonpermanent staff was associated with increased rates of HAI in 4 studies (P < .05). Three studies addressed infection control professional staffing with mixed results. Physician staffing was not found to be associated with patients’ HAI risk (n=2). The methods employed and operational definitions used for both staffing and HAI varied; despite this variability, trends were apparent. Research characterizing effective staffing for infection control departments is needed.

Recent public health disasters, both nationally and internationally, have underscored the importance of preparedness in effectively responding to these events. Within the home health care sector, preparedness is especially critical, as home care patients may be at increased risk of disaster-related morbidity and mortality because of their age, disability, or other vulnerability. Importantly, the home health care population is growing, with an estimated 7 million patients currently receiving home health care services. Yet the degree of preparedness at all levels of the home care sector (agency, health care worker, and patient and/or family) is largely unknown. Without this knowledge, important first steps toward development and implementation designed to address barriers to preparedness cannot be taken. To help address some of these knowledge gaps, one aspect of preparedness, namely the willingness of home health care workers to respond during an avian influenza outbreak, was recently examined. Findings revealed very low levels of willingness. Preliminary recommendations designed to address this issue are presented following a general discussion of the issue.

The ventilator bundle was frequently present but not well implemented. Individual elements did not appear effective; strict compliance with infection elements was needed. Efforts to prevent VAP may be successful in settings of high levels of compliance with all infection-specific elements and in settings with full-time HEs.

The aim of this study was to assess the risk of blood and body fluid exposure among nonhospital based registered nurses (RNs) employed in New York State. The study population was mainly unionized public sector workers, employed in state institutions. A self-administered questionnaire was completed by a random stratified sample of members of the New York State Nurses Association and registered nurse members of the New York State Public Employees Federation. Results were reviewed by participatory action research (PAR) teams to identify opportunities for improvement. Nine percent of respondents reported at least one needlestick injury in the 12-month period prior to the study. The percutaneous injury (PI) rate was 13.8 per 100 person years. Underreporting was common; 49% of all PIs were never formally reported and 70% never received any post-exposure care. Primary reasons for not reporting included: time constraints, fear, and lack of information on reporting. Significant correlates of needlestick injuries included tenure, patient load, hours worked, lack of compliance with standard precautions, handling needles and other sharps, poor safety climate, and inadequate training and availability of safety devices (p<0.05). PAR teams identified several risk reduction strategies, with an emphasis on safety devices. Non-hospital based RNs are at risk for bloodborne exposure at rates comparable to hospital based RNs; underreporting is an important obstacle to infection prevention, and primary and secondary risk management strategies appeared to be poorly implemented. Intervention research is warranted to evaluate improved risk reduction practices tailored to this population of RNs.

No abstract

Background The use of electronic surveillance systems (ESSs) is gradually increasing in infection prevention and control programs. Little is known about the characteristics of hospitals that have a ESS, user satisfaction with ESSs, and organizational support for implementation of ESSs. Methods A total of 350 acute care hospitals in California were invited to participate in a Web-based survey; 207 hospitals (59%) agreed to participate. The survey included a description of infection prevention and control department staff, where and how they spent their time, a measure of organizational support for infection prevention and control, and reported experience with ESSs. Results Only 23% (44/192) of responding infection prevention and control departments had an ESS. No statistically significant difference was seen in how and where infection preventionists (IPs) who used an ESS and those who did not spend their time. The 2 significant predictors of whether an ESS was present were score on the Organizational Support Scale (odds ratio [OR], 1.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.18) and hospital bed size (OR, 1.004; 95% CI, 1.00-1.007). Organizational support also was positively correlated with IP satisfaction with the ESS, as measured on the Computer Usability Scale (P = .02). Conclusion Despite evidence that such systems may improve efficiency of data collection and potentially improve patient outcomes, ESSs remain relatively uncommon in infection prevention and control programs. Based on our findings, organizational support appears to be a major predictor of the presence, use, and satisfaction with ESSs in infection prevention and control programs.