Maryn McKenna

Journalist and Author

UK: Hospitals’ MRSA deaths could bring manslaughter charges

By Leave a Comment

Last Wednesday was the first day of the new federal fiscal year, and therefore the day on which HHS’s new “non-reimbursement for medical errors” rule went into effect. Under this new rule (blogged here and here and covered in this New York Times story), the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services will no longer reimburse hospitals for the increased care that a patient needs after an extreme medical error has happened. While infecting a patient with MRSA is not specifically disavowed in the rule, it outlaws reimbursement as of this year for infections associated with vascular catheters and coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and next year (Oct. 1, 2009) for surgical site infections following orthopedic procedures. (Disappointingly, CMS rejected requests to define staph septicemia and nosocomial MRSA infection as “never events.”)

Now, however, it seems that the UK government is willing to go much further than our own. According to a story in The Independent (first flagged here by ace flu blogger Crawford Killian), “tough new manslaughter laws” will allow corporations — including healthcare institutions — to be held accountable for deaths in which corporate behavior plays a role:

Maria Eagle, the Justice minister, told a meeting of more than 100 chairs and non-executive directors of NHS trusts that where managers ignore warnings of health risks, prosecutions may follow. She said: “Putting the offence into context, imagine that a patient has died in a hospital infected by MRSA and the issue of corporate manslaughter has been raised. Could the organisation be prosecuted and convicted? The answer is ‘possibly’. (Byline: Robert Verkaik, law editor)

Public attitudes in the UK are ripe for this change. In July, there was significant protest after it emerged — via a government report — that 345 patients died of Clostridium difficile infection at three hospitals, after government warnings, with no punishment to the hospitals. In fact, according to The Independent, the chief executive of the trust that operated all three was allowed to resign with $150,000 in foregone pay, and is now suing for additional compensation.

So far, US protests and citizen action over nosocomial MRSA infections have been within individual states (see this recent post on the new Nile’s Law in California). But isn’t it interesting to see what coordinated national action — granted, in a smaller country — can do.

Good news from California

By Leave a Comment

Last night, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed an extremely important bill, California SB 1058. The new law, formally called the Medical Facility Infection Control and Prevention Act, requires California hospitals to do MRSA screening on high-risk patients (such as in ICUs, admitted from long-term care facilities, or known to have a previous MRSA infection) and to report their rates for hospital-acquired infections including MRSA to a newly created body with the state Department of Public Health.

This new law puts California in the vanguard of states who are requiring healthcare institutions to count and track MRSA infections. (For a complete list, visit the database maintained by Consumers’ Union’s Stop Hospital Infections project.) This is vital not only for controlling MRSA, but also simply for helping us to understand how much MRSA is out there. Because MRSA has not been a reportable disease, and is not subject to any national surveillance, state counts like these are one of the best ways of assembling a fuller picture of the bug’s spread.

The most important reason to hail the passage of this law, though, is that it represents a memorial to a MRSA victim, and a determination by his survivors that no one else should meet the same fate. SB 1058 is also known as “Nile’s Law.” Nile is Nile Calvin Moss, who died in 2006. In response, his parents Carole and Ty Moss founded Nile’s Project and became tireless advocates for MRSA surveillance and screening. Among other efforts, Carole was appointed by Schwarzenegger to a state commission on hospital-acquired infections, where she is the sole voting member representing health-care consumers.

It is no small thing to step out of your grief and make your loss into a force for change. Carole and Ty Moss deserve congratulations.

Emergency medicine in crisis (important for MRSA also)

By Leave a Comment

Constant readers may remember that, before I began this MRSA project, I spent a year as a media fellow with the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, researching overcrowding and stress in emergency rooms. (Some stories from that project here, here and here.)

So I was particularly interested in and saddened by a post on the excellent blog Health Beat (now in the blogroll!) that explores in good detail why emergency rooms are so crowded and especially what the loss of experienced emergency nurses is doing to the quality of emergency care.

Why is this important for MRSA? Well, if you or a family member is struck with what looks like one of the dramatic presentations of MRSA — bone infection, rapidly progressing pneumonia, even a serious skin infection — where are you likely to take that problem? Yes, to the ER. Even if you have insurance; an increasing number of studies are pointing out that the vast majority of people waiting for care are not the uninsured or undocumented, but insured people who can’t get care from their regular doctors.

So be prepared.

We pause in our goggle-eyed convention watching to bring you…

By Leave a Comment

[I’m sorry, faithful readers. It’s the most compelling election of my voting lifetime. I’m riveted. Also, I spent hours in the ER Sunday getting stitched up from a bike crash. A very clean ER … I hope.]

… an intriguing paper on controlling antibiotic prescribing within health care institutions.

Limiting inappropriate use of antibiotics is one of the central goals of the movement to control MRSA. Often, that’s interpreted as getting primary-care docs and pediatricians to resist pressure from consumers, especially parents with busy lives who need to limit their sick child’s illness so they can get back to work (or put the child back in day care) and stubbornly insist that antibiotics will help even when the illness is viral. But it’s just as important, possibly more important, to control inappropriate use in hospitals, where sick patients with depleted immune systems who are getting lots of drugs provide a fertile breeding ground for resistant strains.

So how to do that? If possible, you want the intervention to be systematized, not exceptional; you want it to be a routine occurrence, so clinicians don’t feel singled out for their prescribing choices, and you want it to be not face-to-face, so that the encounter remains about the patient and the drug, not about a clash of personalities.

A team at Johns Hopkins’ children’s hospital seems to have hit it whang in the gold. In the Sept. 15 issue of Clinical Infectious Diseases, Allison Agwu, Christoph Lehmann and colleagues describe a Web-based system that they instituted that significantly reduced inappropriate dosing and saved more than $370,000 in a year while making clinicians and pharmacists happier than they were with the previous system (which involved pagers and was face-to-face).

By chance, the Wall Street Journal ran a story this morning looking at such intervention programs, though not the Hopkins one — a story I missed because, in my normal reading time, I was interviewing Agwu and Lehmann. (H/t Joanne Kenen for alerting me to it though.)

Not-reimbursing hospitals for MRSA: The reaction

By Leave a Comment

You’ll remember that early in the summer we talked about the proposal by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to cease reimbursing hospitals for the additional care of a patient that is required when a hospital gives a patient a nosocomial infection. CMS has been debating whether to include several types of hospital-acquired infection in the 2009 iteration of its “never event” no-reimbursement list. (CMS has not announced its final choices.)

Healthcare’s reaction has been, hmmm, not positive. At The New Health Dialogue, Joanne Kenen captures the reactions, many of which run along the lines of “infections are inevitable because patients are so sick.” But she’s also found a marvelous (and appalling?) argument that goes, more or less, “Preventing infections will be more costly, not less, because hospitals will introduce additional procedures to protect themselves.”

This recalls the intriguing and dismaying suggestion in JAMA a few weeks ago that “search and destroy” active surveillance is driven less by wanting to halt in-hospital transmission and more by hospitals wanting to build a case that patients brought the infection with them.

Surveillance to stop MRSA: Where, when, how costly, how much?

By Leave a Comment

My colleague Joanne Kenen — longtime health policy correspondent for Reuters, now a staff member at the New American Foundation, and a Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation Media Fellow with me in 2006-07 — very kindly invited me to guest-blog at the New Health Dialogue. Most of the post is reproduced below, but please be kind and visit them so they can record the hits!

Stopping the spread of MRSA in hospitals is one of the most contentious topics in infectious disease policy right now. A small sample of the, umm, highly divergent views on the subject filled up the letters pages of the Journal of the American Medical Association last week. Community-associated MRSA has grabbed the public’s attention over the past year, but hospital-acquired MRSA remains a huge problem — so much so that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has proposed treating it as a medical error and declining to reimburse hospitals for the extra care that must be given to a patient when it occurs.

Within health care, there is vociferous debate over how to control MRSA. Because MRSA can live on the skin, nostrils and other body sites for a long period of time before causing an infection — either in the person colonized by the bug or in someone else who acquired it from the colonized person — many hospitals espouse a program of checking new patients who are most likely to be carriers, including patients in high-risk units such as ICUs, new admits from long-term care facilities, and people who have had MRSA infections on the past. But a small set of institutions are pursuing a more aggressive program, variously called “active surveillance and testing,” “universal screening” or “search and destroy,” that checks every inpatient for MRSA colonization and confines them to isolation until the bug has cleared.

“Search and destroy” was the topic of an important JAMA paper and editorial last March that decided the effort wasn’t worthwhile. (A simultaneously published paper in the Annals of Internal Medicine completely disagreed.) The five letters in JAMA tear the topic apart, examining definitions, methodology, cost-effectiveness, adherence to infection control and more. The most intriguing suggests that “search and destroy” contains a hidden agenda: That if hospitals can demonstrate patients were carrying MRSA on admission, they may be able to make a case for any subsequent infections not being their fault — and so escape the lowered reimbursement rates that CMS proposes.

Maybe we just build them better? (But who pays?)

By Leave a Comment

OK, campers, I know I’m tossing crumbs here, but I drove 6 hours today and am now, umm, well, not in any major metropolitan area, that’s for sure. But I’m visiting a very interesting hospital program tomorrow. And my chain motel is smack-dab between a Denny’s and a Waffle House. Just think of the breakfast options. (And imagine my arteries clogging. OK, don’t.)

Skittering back to the reason why we’re here: Via the LA Times, an intriguing article about the possibilities of reducing hospital-acquired infections by designing hospitals better: single rooms, improved airflow, more sinks, etc.

“Private rooms are the most important design element that reduces the spread of infection between patients,” says Richard Van Enk, director of infection control and epidemiology for Bronson Methodist Hospital in Kalamazoo, Mich. Bronson is a pioneer of evidence-based design and was among the first hospitals in the United States to build a facility with all private patient rooms.
The hospital’s new design also incorporates two sinks in each patient room, one of which is dedicated for the exclusive use of the healthcare worker. Many easily cleaned surface materials such as water-based low VOC (volatile organic chemical) paint, plastic counter coverings and linoleum floorings with antimicrobial properties were also used throughout the hospital. (Byline: Lisa Zamosky)

It sounds plausible to me. Superbug Spouse is an expert in human-factors design, and we both do photography and web design (he’s better), so issues like this – which way do your eyes go? what button do you naturally want to push? – get tossed about a lot in our house. And just yesterday I listened to an infection-control nurse describe the difficulty of getting healthcare workers to use sinks in older rooms in which the sinks are within the bathrooms; the HCWs perceived the bathrooms as the patients’ private space, not as accessible to all. So there may be something to this.

But retrofitting is expensive. And the bill will be paid by… ??

Of course we would never have thought of that.

By Leave a Comment

A new paper in the Annals of Internal Medicine suggests an astounding technique for figuring out whether patients experienced an adverse event while in the hospital:

Asking them.

No, really.

The study by Massachusetts researchers (from University of Massachusetts, Brown, Harvard, Massachusetts Department of Public Health and Massachusetts Hospital Association) looked back at the experience of more than 2,600 patients in 16 Massachusetts hospitals during 6 months in 2003. The researchers started from the assumption that the medical-records review done by many hospitals to spot adverse events was not capturing enough information — and that the interviews that some hospitals do with patients after discharge were asking the wrong questions because they focus only on satisfaction.

So the team did a 20-minute phone interview 6 to 12 months after discharge for 2,600 patients, asking about “negative effects, complications or injuries,” and also reviewed the medical records of 1,000 patients who agreed to their charts’ being released for review. For each arm of the study, two physician-reviewers checked results to be sure what was scored as an adverse event actually qualified as one.

And they found: That twice as many adverse events were uncovered when patients were asked about their experience. Among the interviewees, 23 percent reported an adverse event; when records were reviewed, only 11 percent of patients were judged to have experienced one.

Now, let’s be clear: I’m very glad these researchers had the courage to do this study. Anything that supports better care, more transparency in care and more responsiveness to the patient’s experience is a good thing and I support it.

But when I think of the dozens of hospital patients and family members who have told me about their experiences with poor infection control — lack of hand-washing, lack of housekeeping, bloody gauze on floors — and with being completely unable to get anyone in those hospitals to pay attention, it just makes me want to beat my head against a wall. Coming up with the idea of asking the patients about their experience… this is so hard?

As one of the co-authors, Saul Weingart of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said in an accompanying press release: “It’s pretty clear that they can teach us important things about improving patient safety, if only we ask them.”

The cite is: Weissman, JS et al. Comparing Patient-Reported Hospital Adverse Events with Medical Record Review: Do Patients Know Something That Hospitals Do Not? Ann Intern Med 2008; 100-108.

MRSA colonization – the long-term risk

By Leave a Comment

One of the ongoing puzzles of MRSA’s behavior is the significance of colonization, that situation of MRSA living on the skin — or in the nostrils or other locations close to the body’s external surface — without causing illness. It’s not known how frequently MRSA colonization occurs, for one thing: The long-standing estimate of 1% of the population has been challenged by a number of recent studies.

Another persistent question has been whether the risk of illness and death changes as colonization continues. It has been established that up to one-third of newly colonized carriers will become seriously ill within a year of their acquiring the bug (Huang, SS. et al., Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America Annual Meeting 2006, abstract 157 – not online that I can find)— but what happens beyond that? Does the risk of illness persist or decrease?

In Clinical Infectious Diseases, the same team that defined the risks of recent colonization report that there are significant risks to long-term carriage as well: 27% of invasive illness in the second year and 16% thereafter, based on a review of 281 patients who were followed for at least one and up to four years at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, a Harvard Medical School teaching hospital. These patients become very ill, and in addition use a significant amount of health-care resources:

At our hospital, there are 2–3 times as many hospital admissions involving patients previously known to harbor MRSA than there are hospital admissions of individuals who are newly detected as MRSA carriers each year.

What is the precipitating event that tips MRSA carriage over into MRSA illness? It may be health care. In other words, the long-term carriers do not become ill with MRSA disease and then come to the hospital. Instead, they come to the hospital for some other reason, and the surgery, IV placement, dialysis etc. they receive allows their MRSA strain to slip past the protective barrier of their skin and begin an invasive infection.

We submit that these high risks of MRSA infection among culture-positive prevalent carriers are not only preferentially detected because of hospitalization but may, in fact, be incurred because of the device-related, wound-related, and immunologic declines associated with a current illness.

This raises the question of whether any admitted patient found to be colonized should undergo the routine known as decolonization before any other procedures are performed — and whether institutions and insurance companies will be open to the additional hospital days and drug costs that will represent.

The cite is: Datta, R. and Huang, SS. Risk of Infection and Death due to Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Long-Term Carriers. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2008 47:176-81.

Isolation: Doesn’t work if healthcare workers contaminate themselves afterward

By Leave a Comment

In the new Emerging Infectious Diseases, there is a small but very smart study that ought to get wider play. It was done by a PhD candidate at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill named Lisa Casanova, with the help of faculty and the local health department.

Background: In certain highly infectious environments — including in-hospital isolation — healthcare workers wear what is usually known as “personal protective equipment” or PPE. PPE generally includes gloves, gown and an eye shield, goggles or face-splash guard (also called “barrier precautions”) as well as a mask or a respirator (“respiratory protection”). PPE protects the healthcare worker while he or she is in the patient’s presence, but it poses a problem when the worker leaves that environment, because the PPE is likely to be carrying the disease organism on its surface. If the worker doesn’t doff the PPE very carefully, he or she might contaminate himself/herself and become infected or colonized, or spread the organism further in the healthcare environment.

This accidental contamination was a significant problem in the 2003 SARS epidemic — so after SARS was over, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came up with a recommended procedure for taking off PPE (on this page, half-way down). Casanova decided to test how well the protocol actually works.

Answer: Not so much. She had 10 volunteers (men and women, left- and right-handed) dress in PPE, contaminated the equipment in certain spots (“front shoulder of gown, back shoulder of gown, right side of N95 respirator, upper right front of goggles, and palm of dominant hand”) with a benign virus, had the volunteers take off their PPE, and then tested them for the virus’s presence. Results:

Transfer of virus to both hands, the initially uncontaminated glove on the nondominant hand, and the scrub shirt and pants worn underneath the PPE was observed in most volunteers.

Casanova recommends changes: additional PPE; different PPE and doffing protocols, such as are used in surgical suites; or PPE impregnated with antimicrobials. (#1 and #3 of course would be more costly; #2 would require procedural change but not necessarily additional garments).

She also raises a vital ongoing issue for MRSA infection control: that healthcare workers may not be punctilious about hand hygiene because they believe that gloves are adequate protection. Only, as this study demonstrates, they are not:

This study also indicates the need for continued emphasis on hand hygiene. A barrier to improving hand hygiene compliance rates is the belief that gloves make hand hygiene unnecessary (14). This is contradicted by our study and others showing that organisms can spread from gloves to hands after glove removal (15). Even if double gloving is incorporated into protocols for PPE use, it is not a substitute for proper hand hygiene.

The cite is: Casanova L, Alfano-Sobsey E, Rutala WA, Weber DJ, Sobsey M. Virus transfer from personal protective equipment to healthcare employees’ skin and clothing. Emerg Infect Dis. 2008 Aug; [Epub ahead of print]

The “vicious cycle” of HA-MRSA

By Leave a Comment

In the new issue of Lancet Infectious Diseases there’s a marvelous analytical review of the complex relationship between hospital overcrowding and understaffing and the rise of hospital-acquired MRSA.

You can feel intuitively that these phenomena must be linked:

  • If a hospital has more patients, its staff will be more stressed;
  • If they are more stressed, they may neglect handwashing and other infection-control measures;
  • If budget shortfalls cause staff cuts, the remaining staff will be more stressed still;
  • If infection control is neglected, more patients will acquire MRSA;
  • Since MRSA patients are sicker and stay longer, more beds will be full;
  • Since there are more patients, staff will be more stressed;
  • Since MRSA patients are more costly, budgets will be more stressed.

And so on. Because it is a review article it is also an excellent guide to the medical literature on this aspect of the MRSA problem, with 140 cites.

The citation is: Clements, A. et al. Overcrowding and understaffing in modern health-care systems: key determinants in meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus transmission. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 2008; 8:427-434.

Closing the loop: meat, meat-eaters, health-care workers

By Leave a Comment

A posting on the international disease-alert mailing list ProMED led me to a scientific abstract presented at a European meeting this spring on the ST 398 MRSA strain. It adds another, quite unnerving piece to the emerging interplay of MRSA in pigs, humans who have close contact with pigs, humans who have contact only with pig meat, and health-care workers who treat those humans.

Brief precis: About a year ago, Dutch health authorities discovered that a patient who had come in for surgical debridement of a diabetic foot ulcer had an unrecognized MRSA strain in that ulcer. Subsequently, they discovered that four other patients and five health-care workers in the same institution were carrying the same strain. None of the patients reported any contacts with pigs (or calves, which have also been found to carry the strain). One of the health-care workers lived on a farm that raised pigs, but said that she had no contact with the animals in her daily life; nor did her partner.

The authors conclude:

While the source is not fully established it could be the HCW living on a pig farm. This outbreak makes clear that transmission on a larger scale can occur, even with NT-MRSA.

(Hat-tip to Helen Branswell of the Canadian Press for telling me about the ProMED report. And a note to loyal readers: The “MRSA in meat” story is being picked up by some US newspapers. Doesn’t it feel good to know you’ve been reading about the issue here for months? And if you’re a reader of Helen’s work, months more? Of course it does.)