Background: Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) remain a major challenge. Various strategies have been tried to prevent or control HAIs. Positive deviance, a strategy that has been used in the last decade, is based on the observation that a few at-risk individuals follow uncommon, useful practices and that, consequently, they experience better outcomes than their peers who share similar risks. We performed a systematic literature review to measure the impact of positive deviance in controlling HAIs. Methods: A systematic search strategy was used to search PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Embase through May 2020 for studies evaluating positive deviance as a single intervention or as part of an initiative to prevent or control healthcare-associated infections. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Downs and Black score. Results: Of 542 articles potentially eligible for review, 14 articles were included for further analysis. All studies were observational, quasi-experimental (before-and-after intervention) studies. Hand hygiene was the outcome in 8 studies (57%), and an improvement was observed in association with implementation of positive deviance as a single intervention in all of them. Overall HAI rates were measured in 5 studies (36%), and positive deviance was associated with an observed reduction in 4 (80%) of them. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections were evaluated in 5 studies (36%), and positive deviance containing bundles were successful in all of them. Conclusions: Positive deviance may be an effective strategy to improve hand hygiene and control HAIs. Further studies are needed to confirm this effect.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Enterococcal bacteremia carries significant mortality. While multiple studies have evaluated the impact of infectious disease consultation (IDC) on this condition, these studies were limited by the low numbers of patients enrolled. This systemic literature review and meta-analysis were conducted to determine whether IDC was associated with a mortality benefit among patients with enterococcal bacteremia. Methods We performed a systematic literature search using 5 databases for studies evaluating IDC among patients with enterococcal bacteremia. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess whether IDC was associated with reduced mortality. Random-effect models were used to calculated pooled odds ratios (pORs). Heterogeneity was evaluated using I2 estimation and the Cochrane Q statistic test. Results The systemic literature review revealed 6496 reports, from which 18 studies were evaluated in the systemic literature review and 16 studies in the meta-analysis. When all studies were pooled, the association between IDC and mortality was not statistically significant with a pOR of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.61-1.08) and there was substantial heterogeneity (I2=58%). When the studies were limited to those reporting multivariate analysis including IDC, there was a significant protective effect of IDC (pOR=0.40; 95% CI, 0.24-0.68) without heterogeneity (I2=0%). Some studies also showed additional benefits to IDC, including appropriate antibiotic therapy, and improved diagnostic use. Conclusions IDC was associated with 60% lower odds of mortality when patients were well-matched, potentially through improvement in the care for patients with enterococcal bacteremia. IDC should be considered a part of routine care for patients with enterococcal bacteremia.