Maryn McKenna

Journalist and Author

MRSA research round-up: hospitals, vitamins, pets

By Leave a Comment

Because I’ve been so behind, there’s so much to cover! So let’s dive in:

In today’s Archives of Surgery, researchers from Seattle’s Harborview Medical Center report that one simple addition to the routine of caring for trauma patients made a significant difference to the patients’ likelihood of acquiring a hospital-associated infection: bathing them once a day with the antiseptic chlorhexidine (in an impregnated wipe). Patients who were bathed with the antiseptic wipe, compared with patients wiped down with an inert solution, had one-fourth the likelihood of developing a catheter-related bloodstream infection and one-third the likelihood of ventilator-associated MRSA pneumonia. Cite: Evans HL et al. Effect of Chlorhexidine Whole-Body Bathing on Hospital-Acquired Infections Among Trauma Patients. Arch Surg. 2010;145(3):240-246.

How important are hospital-acquired infections? Here’s a piece of research from a few weeks ago that I sadly failed to blog at the time: Just two categories of HAIs, sepsis and pneumonia, account for 48,000 deaths and $8.1 billion in health care costs in a single year. Writing in the Archives of Internal Medicine, researchers from the nonprofit project Extending the Cure analyzed 69 million hospital-discharge records issued in 40 states between 1998 and 2006. Hospital charges and number of days that patients had to stay in the hospital were 40% higher because of those infections, many of which are caused by MRSA — and all of which are completely preventable. Cite: Eber, MR et al. Clinical and Economic Outcomes Attributable to Health care-Associated Sepsis and Pneumonia. Arch Intern Med. 2010; 170(4): 347-53.

 What else could reduce the rate of MRSA infections? How about Vitamin D? South Carolina scientists analyze data from the NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2001-2004), a massive database overseen by the CDC, and find an association between low blood levels of Vit. D and the likelihood of MRSA colonization. More than 28% of the population is Vitamin D deficient. MRSA colonization is increasing in the US. Can giving Vit. D decrease MRSA carriage? More research needed. Cite: Matheson EM et al. Vitamin D and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage. Scand J Infect Dis. 2010 Mar 8. [Epub ahead of print]

And finally: Who else carries MRSA? Some unlucky pet owners have found that animals can harbor human strains, long enough at least to pass the strain back to a human whose colonization has been cleared. So it makes sense to ask whether humans who spend time with pets are carrying the bug. Last month’s Veterinary Surgery reports that the answer is Yes. Veterinarians are carrying MRSA in very significant numbers: 17% of vets and 18% of vet technicians at an international veterinary symposium held in San Diego in 2008. Cite: Burstiner, LC et al. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Colonization in Personnel Attending a Veterinary Surgery Conference. Vet Surg. 2010 Feb;39(2):150-7.

Recommending: Consumer Reports on hospital infections

By Leave a Comment

Constant readers, the magazine Consumer Reports has done an extended, state-by-state analysis of which hospitals do well, or very badly, in preventing one important category of infections: central line-associated bloodstream infections, or CLABSIs (pronounced klab-sees). It’s a comprehensive package in easily understandable language. It’s based on the state reporting data that some activists have managed to persuade states to disclose, along with another set of data that some hospitals voluntarily tender to the nonprofit firm The Leapfrog Group.

From the Consumer Reports story:

Poorly performing hospitals included some major teaching institutions. For instance, New York University Langone Medical Center in New York City reported 39 infections in 10,119 central-line days in 2008, roughly twice the national average for its mix of ICUs. The University of Virginia Medical Center in Charlottesville didn’t do much better, reporting 77 infections in 18,572 days for the 15 months ending in September 2009, also about two times the national average.

More encouragingly, nationwide, we counted 105 hospitals whose most recent public reports tallied zero central-line infections. They ranged from modest rural institutions to urban giants such as the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Presbyterian hospital, which reported no infections among patients who were on central lines a total of 13,596 days in 2008.

It’s well worth reading, and checking to see whether a hospital you may have used, or may be considering using, is on the good list or the bad list. Take a look.

MRSA in the journal Science – spread, outbreaks and an argument for active surveillance

By Leave a Comment

I have a story tonight at CIDRAP about a paper published this evening in the journal Science. To respect fair use and make sure my colleagues get clicks, I just quote the story here — but then I want to talk about why I think it’s such an important study.

   A multi-national team of researchers has applied a new genomic tool to a 50-year-old bacterial foe, using minute mutations to track the spread of drug-resistant staph both across continents and within a single hospital.
   On a global scale, their sleuthing tracked the movement of one clone of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) back and forth across the planet, pinpointing when individual cases transported infections across national borders to spark new outbreaks. Separately, their method demonstrated that what appeared to be a hospital epidemic of MRSA was not a single outbreak, but rather a mixed event of patient-to-patient transmission of one strain that was accompanied by multiple importations from outside the hospital of similar but unrelated strains. …
   In a briefing yesterday for the press, the authors emphasized the latter finding, pointing out that the traditional infection control measures usually applied to hospital outbreaks would not curb the spread of infections that were carried in undetected from outside. Their method, they said, provides a proof of concept for using cutting-edge genomics to uncover the precise pathways by which MRSA spreads within hospitals—not only tracing its path from patient to patient, but also identifying the bug in patients whose undetected bacterial carriage could spark outbreaks but have not yet.

 If you’d like more, here’s a very good story at Scientific American, one at BBC Health and one by the Associated Press; and Science Daily‘s version.

Now, the details. This team (which has 15 members from almost as many institutions) secured two collections of MRSA isolates: 43 collected from all over the globe between 1982 and 2003, and 20 from a single hospital in Thailand, collected between October 2006 and November 2007. All of the isolates were ST239, which is a hospital-acquired strain that is particularly prevalent in Asia. They analyzed them using high-throughput sequencing, with a particular analyzer (Illumina) that could produce whole genomes of up to 96 isolates very quickly (an extraordinary advance from the weeks and months it used to take to achieve a single whole genome). Then they compared the genomes, looking for single-letter changes in the genetic code (single-nucleotide polymorphisms, SNPs or “snips,” and also insertions and deletions of nucleotides). They used those findings to construct a “family tree” of 239 that tracks very nicely with the known history of MRSA’s emergence and initial spread, and that pinpoints rare but intriguing importations of clones from certain areas into other parts of the world.

But it’s what they found in the Thai hospital isolates that is especially interesting. (Most of this is not explicit in the paper, but was related in the press briefing that Science conducted on Wednesday). The differences that can be seen in the whole-genome analysis can’t be discerned by earlier identification methods, so the isolates collected at the hospital appeared to be the same. However, they weren’t the same. Some of them were very closely related, and formed what seems to have been a chain of person-to-person transmission — a true hospital-acquired outbreak. But others of them were not so closely related, either to the outbreak or to each other. What they were, instead, were individual importations into the hospital of a hospital strain that had been acquired outside the hospital, and were carried in by staff, patients, visitors.

You can see where this is going, right? If all the cases in the hospital had represented patient to patient transmission within a known outbreak, excellent infection control might have corralled them. But some of them were not part of that outbreak, so infection control measures aimed at that outbreak would not have kept those other cases from spreading. What would have stopped them from spreading, as the authors pointed out, is detecting them at some other point in their entry into the hospital:

…”That implies you have to have a different perspective on where you are going to apply your infection-control procedures and strategies,” co-author Dr. Sharon Peacock of the University of Cambridge said during the briefing.

What that sounds like — and the authors acknowledged as much — is an argument for active detection and isolation/active surveillance and testing/search and destroy, the process of screening some percentage of patients coming into a hospital for MRSA carriage so that the bug can be detected and dealt with long before its presence triggers an outbreak. It is probably not a coincidence that the majority of the authors (including Peacock) are British, and search and destroy has recently become widely accepted in the UK; in fact, the National Health Service recently made it mandatory.

But search and destroy remains remarkably controversial here in the US, despite strong proof of concept demonstrations in healthcare institutions such as Evanston-Northwestern Healthcare, and adoption throughout the VA system. I’ll be interested to see whether this paper makes a dent in the overall resistance to search and destroy, and if not, to hear why not.

The cite is: Harris SR, Feil EJ, Holden MTG, et al. Evolution of MRSA during hospital transmission and intercontinental spread. Science 2010 Jan 22;327(5964):469-74

One surgical infection with MRSA: $61,000

By Leave a Comment

From a multi-state, public-private research team — Duke University, Wayne State University, and the Durham, NC VA — comes a precise and alarming calculation of MRSA’s costs in hospitals: For one post-surgery infection, $61,681.

The group compared the course, costs and final outcome of three matched groups of patients from one tertiary-care center and six community hospitals in one infection-control network run by Duke. The three groups were: patients with a MRSA surgical-site infection; patients with a surgical-site infection (SSI) due to MSSA, drug-sensitive staph; and surgery patients who did not experience infections, matched to the other two groups by hospital, type of procedure, and year when the procedure took place. (This same cohort has been described in an earlier prospective study that looked at risks for MRSA SSIs.) Altogether, there were 150 patients with MRSA SSIs, 128 with MSSA SSIs, and 231 uninfected surgery patients to serve as controls.

Here’s what they found. Patients with post-surgical MRSA infections:

  • stayed in the hospital 23 days longer
  • incurred an average extra cost of $61,681
  • were more likely to be readmitted to the hospital within 90 days
  • were more likely to die before 90 days had passed.

The authors write:

Our study represents the largest study to date of outcomes due to SSI due to MRSA. Our findings confirm that SSIs due to MRSA lead to significant patient suffering and provide quantitative estimates of the staggering costs of these infections. SSI due to MRSA led to a 7-fold increased risk of death, a 35-fold increased risk of hospital readmission, more than 3 weeks of additional hospitalization, and more than $60,000 of additional charges compared to uninfected controls.

For just the patients in this study, the excess costs (across 7 hospitals) totalled $19 million.

This is a highly useful study on several axes. First, remarkably, there has not been agreement over whether and how much of a problem MRSA poses in post-surgical settings, particularly when compared to drug-sensitive staph. This study provides careful, thoughtful, well-documented proof that combating MRSA infection is worthwhile. (NB, MRSA infections did not increase the risk of death relative to MSSA infections, which should remind us both of the often-forgotten virulence of MSSA, and also that MRSA’s perils can lie in extended illness and disability as much or more as in early death.) Second, by putting a very specific number on the cost of a post-surgical MRSA infection, it gives healthcare administrators a benchmark against which they can judge the cost of a prevention program. We’ve all heard complaints that prevention programs can be costly and their benefit is hard to measure in a bottom-line way. With this very specific number, that complaint should no longer be valid.

There’s a final point that is implied in the paper but not called out, so let me call it out on the authors’ behalf. These results are very likely an under-estimate of MRSA’s costs. That’s because, first, the specific procedures the patients underwent were cardiothoracic and orthopedic; those are not the surgical procedures most likely to be followed by a MRSA infection. And second, data collection for this study ceased in 2003, about a year after the first emergence of USA300 and several years before that very successful community strain began its current move into hospitals. However much MRSA was extant in 2003, there is more now.

The cite is: Anderson DJ, Kaye KS, Chen LF, Schmader KE, Choi Y, et al. 2009 Clinical and Financial Outcomes Due to Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Surgical Site Infection: A Multi-Center Matched Outcomes Study. PLoS ONE 4(12): e8305. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0008305

Infections rise, but hospital budgets – and infection control – shrink

By Leave a Comment

Bad news from the Association of Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC): In a survey of almost 2,000 of their 12,000 members, 41% say that their hospitals’ infection-prevention budgets have been cut due to the down economy.

According to the survey, conducted March 2009 and released Tuesday morning:

Three-quarters of those whose budgets were cut experienced decreases for the necessary education that trains healthcare personnel in preventing the transmission of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) such as MRSA and C. difficile.
Half saw reductions in overall budgets for infection prevention, including money for technology, staff, education, products, equipment and updated resources.
Nearly 40 percent had layoffs or reduced hours, and a third experienced hiring freezes.

As we know here, there are (by CDC estimate) 1.7 million hospital-acquired infections and 99,000 deaths as a result of them, each year. These are numbers we are supposed to be trying to reduce. That is going to be less likely if less money flows toward what may already be an underfunded goal:

A third of survey respondents say that cuts in staffing and resources have reduced their capacity to focus on infection prevention activities.
A quarter of respondents have had to reduce surveillance activities to detect, track and monitor HAIs.

Disturbingly, at a time when electronic health records are such an important part of the health-reform debate, “Only one in five respondents have data-mining programs – electronic surveillance systems that allow infection preventionists to identify and investigate potential infections in real time.” (APIC press release)

The full report is here.

While taking a flu break, a MRSA round-up

By Leave a Comment

Constant readers, the H1N1 (Virus Formerly Known as Swine) Flu story remains a bit intense. I’ve missed a few MRSA stories over the past few days, so here is a round-up.

First, though, if you’re curious about what the swine flu reaction says about our ability to handle a pandemic, you might take a look at this story I wrote Friday at CIDRAP. Quick version: Over-reaction on the part of the “worried well” — and people seeking testing and not knowing where to get it — put ERs into meltdown nationwide. If we were facing a virus that was not only fast-spreading but virulent, we could be in serious trouble.

On to MRSA:

  • Therapy animals as a vector: In a letter to the Journal of Hospital Infection, Drs. J. Scott Weese and Sandra L. Lefebvre of the Ontario Veterinary College at the University of Guelph report on two therapy dogs that became transiently colonized with C. difficile (on its paw pads) and MRSA (on its coat; found on the hands of its handler) after visiting health care facilities, demonstrating how easily bacteria can move in and out of hospitals. Constant readers will recognize Weese’s name: He is one of the most important investigators of MRSA in food animals and pets, and among other things has written infection-control guidelines for therapy animals.
  • In the Canadan Medical Association Journal, Drs. Anne G. Matlow and Shaun K. Morris of the University of Toronto and the Hospital for Sick Children caution that while hospitals may be getting better at infection control, there is not yet as much attention to it as there should be in ambulatory-care settings: urgent care centers, surgery centers and doctors’ offices. They offer a checklist of the minimal things that a physician practice should do.
  • And in the UK, Baroness Masham of Ilton, a member of the House of Lords, offers her online notes on serious infections with community MRSA, which the Brits are calling PVL-MRSA in recognition of the toxin that the strain produces. The notes are in advance of a series of questions that she intends to pose to government ministers during a Question Time on Wednesday.

More soon.

MRSA in a hospital nursery

By Leave a Comment

Via the Boston Globe and the blog of the hospital’s CEO comes work of an ongoing outbreak of community-associated MRSA in the newborn nursery at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston:

…between last November and March, BIDMC experienced several occurrences or “clusters” of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, infections that have affected some of our patients (19 newborns and 18 mothers) days to weeks after discharge from our obstetrics and newborn services. These infections have been, for the most part, superficial skin infections and breast infections. It is important to note that no babies in our Neonatal Intensive Care Unit have been affected. (Paul Levy, president and CEO, BIDMC)

The paper and the blog post report that the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH), the Boston Public Health Commission (BPHC), and the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are all investigating, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has sent epidemiologists to sort out transmission. Levy, the CEO, admits on his blog that in sorting out this outbreak, the hospital has found its staff’s infection-control procedures to be not-adequate.

By sheer chance, this occurs as I am writing a chapter on just this phenomenon of the blurring of the MRSA epidemics of hospital-acquired and community-associated staph. As constant readers know, the original MRSA strains arose in hospitals in the 1960s (1961 in the UK, 1968 in the US), and the separate community strain was first noticed in the 1990s. (Though there are intriguing hints about earlier cases that a few smart physicians noticed and no one else took seriously.)

But for about 5 years now, the community strain has been moving into hospitals and causing outbreaks there, particularly in mothers and newborns: first in New York City, and then in Houston, and now quite widely. The Globe article references some others.

Why this is important: Because CA-MRSA and HA-MRSA are different, and not just because they originally occurred in different settings or had different resistance profiles. CA-MRSA (which is a term that is obviously becoming much less useful than it once was) also appears, in newer research, to colonize the body in different ways — not just the nostrils, but also the armpit, groin, and genitals, possibly including vaginal colonization. So there may be an additional risk of transmission from mother to child during birth that has not been anticipated — or from mother to child to health care worker to another child to that child’s mother.

Now, mind you: Good infection control ought to anticipate all those posibilities, because good infection control does the right thing every time. But as we’re finding out, very few institutions manage to train their staff in such a way that they do the right thing every time or close to it (Novant Health Care, creators of the Soapacabana video, seem to have managed it, and won a major award for it). Most health care workers, even very well-intentioned ones, find themselves in time crunches or responding to unexpected emergencies, and make risk-based judgments about what they must do, and what they can afford to let slide.

If CA-MRSA is becoming a hospital organism, and its unique risks of colonization are not recognized by the hospital staff, then their judgments of relative risk will be off — and what would have been a relatively safe risk to take in one instance becomes a significantly unsafe risk in another.

That’s all speculation, of course: I’m not reporting on Beth Israel and have no inside knowledge of their outbreak. But it does describe a phenomenon that has been occurring in other medical centers, and it underlines one of the risks attendant on these epidemics blurring. When CA-MRSA moves into a hospital, the MRSA ecology changes, and the risks of transmission change. It is essential that staff training keep up with that, or additional mistakes will be made.

MRSA research at Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America meeting

By Leave a Comment

As promised, a round-up of some of the research presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA), held last weekend in San Diego. (Disclosure: I was on the faculty for the meeting; in exchange for co-hosting a session, SHEA will be reimbursing me for airfare and hotel. I wasn’t otherwise paid, though.) There were 143 presentations on MRSA; here are a few.

I’m going to put in links to the online abstracts — I have SHEA’s permission to do this — but I can’t guarantee how long they will stay up. For those outside the science world, what happens at these meetings is that research is presented, in slide/PowerPoint sessions or in a poster, as a preliminary step to getting it published in a journal. Once a journal expresses interest, a cone of silence descends, the researchers are asked not to discuss the research until the paper is printed, and the abstract will probably be taken offline.

So, efforts to control hospital MRSA are showing some success:

  • Invasive hospital-onset MRSA infections declined 16% from 2005 to 2007, and hospital-associated community-onset infections went down almost 9% — probably, though not provably, because of in-hospital prevention campaigns. (A. Kallen et al.)
  • MRSA control in a small ICU (22 beds) leads to MRSA reductions throughout a 270-bed Montana community hospital. (P.J. Chang et al.)

But those efforts face some complexities:

  • Swabbing the nose and culturing the swab, the classic test to check for MRSA colonization, misses 30% of positive patients because they are colonized in the groin or armpit. (C. Crnich et al.)
  • If a hospital does not use AST (active surveillance and testing, or “search and destroy”) it may seriously underestimate its MRSA incidence, though it may be able to detect general trends. (P.J. Chang et al.)
  • But medical centers of similar size and situation that did v. did not use AST achieved similar reductions in hospital infections. (K. Kirkland et al.)

Community strains are moving into hospitals:

  • Most of the cases of MRSA colonization identified in a Delaware healthcare system were found so soon after admission that they must have begun out in the community and were not due to hospital transmission. (K. Riches et al.)
  • The proportion of MRSA bloodstream infections caused by community strains (proven microbioogically) doubled at Chicago’s main public hospital between 2000 and 2007. (K. Popovich et al.)
  • One out of every 7 ICU cases of MRSA in Atlanta’s major public hospital involved a community strain. (H. Blumberg et al.)
  • The number of MRSA infections brought to a Chicago-area ER increased 566% between 2002 and 2007, and was seasonally clustered (D. Buchapalli et al.)

And at the same time, hospital strains are moving out into the community:

  • Hospital-associated community-onset cases accounted for 58% of all invasive MRSA in the US between 2005 and 2007, with patients undergoing dialysis or those who have been in long-term care the most vulnerable. (J. Duffy et al.)

Resistant bacteria on health care workers’ phones

By Leave a Comment

Here’s some of the news that I mentioned Friday – no, I’m not hoarding, I’m just desperately behind on some writing (and falling further down the curve all the time, but thanks for the concern).

A team from Ondokuz Mayis University in Turkey, publishing in the open-access journal Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials, looked beyond the concern over health care workers’ hands being clean, and decided to interrogate what those workers hold in their possibly-not-clean hands. They swabbed and tested the hands of 200 health care workers (“15 senior, 79 assistant doctors, 38 nurses and 68 healthcare staff “), and 200 phones. Their results:

  • 94.5% of phones colonized with bacteria
  • 49% of the phones grew one bacteria
  • 34% grew two species, 11.5% three or more

The language in the paper is a bit difficult, but if I’m reading it right, the colonization rates look like this:

  • 50 of the phone and 53 health care workes carried S. aureus (approximately 25%)
  • 52% of the S. aureus strains on phones were MRSA
  • 37.7% of the S. aureus strains on hands were MRSA.

Other organisms on the phones and the hands were other staph species, coliform, enterococci, moulds and yeasts.

The health care workers were certainly not infection-control outlaws: They washed their hands regularly. But only 10% of them had ever thought to clean their phones — which are held by the mouth and nose, a prime site for staph colonization, and go with them everywhere in the hospital, including to the OR and the ICU. (The paper doesn’t make clear whether the phones in question are hospital-supplied, with potentially many users, or personal, with one user, but going from hospital to home and back again.)

So: We’ve talked in the past about the many challenges of infection control in hospitals — all the many, tiny details in multi-person, highly technological health care that can trip up even well-intended infection control. (Remember the sinks?) Here’s just one more example of the unfathomable complexity of the journey of attempting to get to zero in healthcare-associated infections — a place, of course, where we all want to be.

The cite is: Ulger, F., Esen, S., Dilek, A. et al. Are we aware how contaminated our mobile phones are with nosocomial pathogens? Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials 2009, 8:7doi:10.1186/1476-0711-8-7

MRSA reductions in ICUs – good news, but qualified

By Leave a Comment

Constant readers, you will no doubt have seen the overnight news about a paper by CDC authors in the Journal of the American Medical Association, reporting a significant decline in catheter-associated bloodstream infections (known by the uncatchy acronym CLABSIs, and yes, people pronounce it “klab-seez”) in intensive care units.

Our results show that the 6 most common adult ICU types reporting central line–associated BSIs to the CDC, which together account for 96% of all reported MRSA central line–associated BSIs among studied ICU types, have experienced declines of 50% or more in the incidence of MRSA central line–associated BSI since 2001. This means that the risk of primary MRSA bloodstream infections among patients with central lines in these ICUs has substantially decreased in recent years.

First, let’s stipulate that any reduction in healthcare-associated infections is good, good news.

Having said that, let’s drill down into the paper a bit. Because in some of the coverage last night and this morning, this paper is being represented as “Hooray, the MRSA problem is over,” and that’s an over-reaction. Here are some reasons why.

The data come from several overlapping CDC databases: the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance system (NNIS) and the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN). The NNIS existed from 1970 to 2004; there was a data gap in 2005, and the NHSN sprang up in 2006. There were 300 hospitals in 37 states reporting to the NNIS when it shut down, and in 2007 there were 518 reporting to the NHSN, many of which joined that year as a result of new mandatory HAI reporting in New York, Colorado and South Carolina. Participation in either database was/is voluntary.

The CDC analysis abstracts data from the reports to those systems for the years 1997-2007. But, as you can guess from those numbers above, the data does not cover all 7,500 US hospitals; and because it is more weighted to certain states, it does not represent a nationally representative sample. In addition, hospitals came into the system(s) during the study, and also dropped out; an accompanying editorial estimates that only 6% of the 599 hospitals in the study reported data for all 11 years.

Second, it’s important to note that all CLABSIs went down: MRSA infections, drug-sensitive staph (MSSA) and other organisms. So something is going on — but it is not MRSA-specific. Optimistic interpretation: Enhanced infection control in hospitals is suppressing all HAIs. Pessimistic interpretation: Enhanced scrutiny, in the states that account for the most additional hospitals, is negatively affecting HAI reporting. Can we distinguish which? Probably not. On the one hand, CLABSIs started trending down in 2001, before the earliest mandatory reporting legislation became effective. On the other hand, the study doesn’t/can’t associate declines in CLABSIs with any specific interventions — so it is not possible to know from this study whether one particular strategy was responsible for this decline.

Third, to put the study focus in context, MRSA accounts for only about 7% of CLABSIs; according to the paper, it is not those infections’ most common causative organism. And CLABSIs do not account for the largest proportion of MRSA HAIs; according to a 2007 paper, they fall third on the list behind nosocomial pneumonia and septicemia.

Fourth, since it is abstracted from a hospitals data base, this study doesn’t address community MRSA infections — and there are some scientists in the family of MRSA researchers who would insist that it is the increasing prevalence of community infection that is the true driver of the MRSA epidemic.

So: Decreased MRSA HAIs, good news. Reasons, unfortunately unclear. Significance, possibly less than the headlines this morning maintain. But whatever it is that those hospitals were doing, let us hope they keep doing it.

The cite is: Burton, DC, Edwards, JR, Horan, TC et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections in US Intensive Care Units, 1997-2007. JAMA. 2009. 301(7): 727-36.
The accompanying editorial is: Climo, MW. Decreasing MRSA Infections: An End Met by Unclear Means. JAMA. 2009. 301(7)772-3.

An inside look at combating HAIs

By Leave a Comment

I’ve been moving my RSS feeds over to a new reader and so am behind in reading things. That’s my lame excuse for not noticing an excellent story in the Washington Post Tuesday, a first-person account tracing the “conversion” of one skeptical physician to the cause of reducing hospital infections.

The story was highlighted at the New Health Dialogue, a must-read health-reform blog, by my friend and former fellow Kaiser fellow, Joanne Kenen.

HAI money in the stimulus bill

By Leave a Comment

Constant readers, for those of you who are following the back-and-forth over the economic stimulus bill, I wanted to let you know that the Association of Professionals in Infection Control (APIC) is saying that the compromise may cut money for state programs to reduce hospital-associated infections.

Here is APIC’s alert:

ACT NOW TO PRESERVE HAI AND PUBLIC HEALTH FUNDING IN STIMULUS BILL

Your urgent action is needed now to preserve public health funding related to HAIs in the stimulus bill pending in Congress.
The stimulus bill passed by the House of Representatives includes $3 billion in funding for overall public health, prevention and wellness programs. Part of this funding includes $150 million for carrying out activities to implement a national action plan to prevent healthcare-associated infections, $50 million of which would be provided to states to implement HAI reduction strategies.
Because of the fast-moving action on this legislation, and the fact that an agreement has been reached to remove prevention and wellness from the Senate stimulus bill, your Members of Congress need to hear from you today as the House and Senate prepare to confer over a final version of the bill. We need them to support the House-passed provisions for public health, prevention and wellness and the HAI language in the stimulus bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009).

I apologize that, being deep in book production, I don’t know the details of the HAI-reduction programs they are talking about, whether it means support for new mandatory reporting programs or some other thing. (I’ll ask some of the HAI-focused organizations to weigh in back-channel if they can.)

But if you are concerned about the recent new initiatives in various states to report, track and control HAIs, this is probably worth looking at.

Reducing healthcare infections – what it really takes

By Leave a Comment

Happy holidays, constant readers. Whatever you celebrate, I hope your days are full of security, calm and joy.

For those of you reading over the break, here’s a pointer to a post that takes us on the other side of the curtain, into the world of hospital administrators. Those of us who are concerned about nosocomial infections are often confused about why HAIs are so intractable. I mean really, how hard could it be?

This post and especially its associated comments suggests why it’s so hard. It comes from the marvelous blog Running a Hospital, which is written by Paul Levy, president and CEO of the Beth Israel-Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. As a thought experiment, he proposes getting all the hospitals in Boston (which is a LOT of hospitals: Harvard-associated, Tufts-associated, Partners, community hospitals — a huge, dense concentration) to commit to eliminating three categories of infections: central-line infections, ventilator-associated pneumonias and surgical infections, three categories for which there are well-recognized, well-tested interventions. He says:

The medical community in Boston likes to boast about the medical care here, but we don’t do a very good job holding ourselves accountable. This would be a terrific way to prove that we are serious about reducing harm to patients and that we can cooperate across hospital lines for the greater good.

It’s a stirring and elegantly simple proposal — but as we all know, simple is seldom easy, and the commenters — whom I take to be health care workers and executives as well — light up how not-easy this might be. They say:

  • It isn’t simple enough for busy employees to put into real-world practice
  • It’s unreasonable to expect hospitals in competition to collaborate
  • It’s unthinkable that insurance companies would allow this much transparency

… and on.

The entire exchange, and Levy’s blog, is worth reading. It’s a consistently succinct, thoughtful, revealing look at the complexities of modern American health care, and at the unintended consequences — such as intractable infections — those complexities can provoke.

Brilliant entrepreneur asks: “So why CAN’T you fix this?”

By Leave a Comment

Constant readers, you’ll note that posting has slowed down a bit: I am deep into a chapter that is giving me some difficulty. (And I seem to be playing holiday host to an unexpected bout of bronchitis. I’m sure I didn’t need both lungs…)

But here’s something that crossed my monitor this morning, and it’s worth looking at. Sir Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Air and many other extremely successful entrepreneurial efforts. has accepted a post as vice-president of the Patients Association, a nationwide nonprofit that advocates for hospital patients in the UK. Speaking up in his new position, Branson gave an interview to the BBC in which he talked about hospitals’ failure to curb MRSA:

It feels like they have tinkered with the problem rather than really got to the heart of the problem. The hospitals are there to cure people. They are not there to kill people.

It’s a marvelous interview — read the whole thing, it’s not long — because it’s such a breath of fresh air. Branson is an outsider to health care, but he knows how to make businesses work. And as the head of an airline, he’s extremely familiar with what we in the US call “never events”:

Sir Richard says the health service could learn a lot from the airline and rail industries on how to avoid mistakes.”In the airline industry if we had that kind of track record we would have been grounded years ago,” he said.”In the airline industry if there is an adverse event that information is sent out to every airline in the world. And every airline makes absolutely certain that that adverse event doesn’t happen twice.”

So his advice is brutally practical: Health care workers carry MRSA? Screen and swab them. Workers are positive for MRSA? Treat them, and take them out of direct patient contact for two weeks. That costs money? Spend the money: It’s less costly in the end than killing your patients.

File under Unintended Consequences, 2

By Leave a Comment

Via the BBC comes a report, from a conference hosted by the journal Lancet Infectious Diseases, that some healthcare-infection experts in the UK are publicly questioning efforts to reduce hospital-acquired MRSA.

The argument is that, by focusing so tightly on MRSA, hospitals neglect other drug-resistant HAIs to such an extent that the overall rate of illness in the hospital remains approximately the same. They argue instead for a broader focus on all resistant and nosocomial organisms:

“It’s not clear that overall things have got better,” … said [Dr Mark Millar, a medical microbiologist at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital and the London NHS Trust].
“Rates of E. coli are going up and it almost compensates for MRSA.
“All you’ve done is replaced one problem with another one,” he said. … “”There’s no evidence that overall we have fewer hospital infections or fewer people are dying.” (Byline: Emma Wilkinson)

This is a highly contentious debate in the US as well, with no resolution in sight. I’ve covered some aspects of it here, and there is a long point-counterpoint from Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology here and here.

File under Unintended Consequences, 1

By Leave a Comment

My friend and colleague Helen Branswell of the Canadian Press reports (via the Toronto Sun) on the cruel and accidental irony behind an outbreak of healthcare-associated infections at Toronto General Hospital between Dec. 2004 and Mar. 2006. Based on a new paper in Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, it’s a fascinating and bizarre tale of the unpredictable hurdles that a hospital can face in attempting to eradicate HAIs.

It seems the hospital, in an attempt to reduce HAIs, installed hand hygiene stations in each room in its medical-surgical intensive care unit, in between the patient’s bed and a countertop that held patient-care materials. This would seem like good design: The sink was right in the middle of the “zone of action” in the room, so health care workers would be reminded to use it (unlike, for instance, retrofitted rooms I have seen where the sink is away from the bed or out of the path between the bed and the door, and where health care workers have to consciously think about using it rather than having it be automatic). And the sinks were of a particular design meant to reduce accidental contamination of health care workers’ hands: When the water was turned on, it flowed from a high gooseneck faucet straight down into the sink drain, without washing around the sink’s side.

But it turns out that design and location both had unanticipated flaws. Water flowing straight into the drain was more likely to splash from the drain back out of the bowl; when investigators marked the sinks with fluorescent dye, they found splashes up to a yard away. Because the sinks were so close to the patient beds, the water was able to contaminate the patients, and the countertops on the other side as well. And because the water was falling directly into the sink drains, without the reduction in velocity caused by allowing it to wash around the sides of the sink, it was able to dislodge biofilm colonies of drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a moisture-loving organism that was growing in the sink pipes — which then splashed out of the sinks in the water bouncing back from the drain.

When the investigators found that, they had an explanation for why 36 transplant patients in that ICU had become colonized with MDR pseudomonas over 18 months. Twenty-four of the patients developed invasive infections, and 17 died; 12 of those deaths were either caused or closely related to pseudomonas infection.

The investigators tried multiple times to decontaminate the sink drains; in a few cases, they were successful, but the drains became recolonized and grew fresh biofilms. It was not practical to relocate the sinks. Nevertheless, they shut down the outbreak: They swapped out the faucets, decreased the water pressure, put a splash barrier on the sides of the sink, and moved patient care materials on the counter next to the sink elsewhere in the ICU rooms. Once those rearrangements were complete, the outbreak stopped.

This outbreak obviously was not MRSA, and in the strictest sense it is not relevant to MRSA, which is not an organism that lives in sink drains. But in a broader sense — as an illustration of the completely unpredictable hurdles that can stand in the way of excellent infection control — it is a useful and tragic cautionary tale.

The abstract is here. The cite is: Susy Hota, MD; Zahir Hirji, MHSc; Karen Stockton, MHSc; et al. Outbreak of Multidrug-Resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa Colonization and Infection Secondary to Imperfect Intensive Care Unit Room Design. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 2009 30:1, 25-3.

MRSA in newborns on Prince Edward Island: HA? CA? Matters?

By Leave a Comment

There’s been a running story for several weeks now about the Queen Elizabeth Hospital on Prince Edward Island (home to mussels and Anne of Green Gables). The hospital struggled earlier this year with an outbreak of MRSA and a second outbreak of VRE among adult patients. It got those under control, but since earlier this month has been dealing with a new outbreak of MRSA in its newborn nursery, according to the PEI Guardian:

Nine newborns and one mother have now tested positive for MRSA. Five of those nine cases can be connected to the same source. (Byline: Wayne Thibodeau)

The stories are detailed, for a small paper — they go into depth about the cleaning measures the hospital is taking — and yet they don’t answer the questions that we here want to know. Does “tested positive” mean colonized or infected? Does “connected to the same source” mean they all have the same strain, or does it mean there is an epidemiologic link?

In the latest news (Tuesday’s paper and online edition), the hospital reports that it is doing nasal swabs on more than 300 staff, with the intention to do a 7-day decolonization regimen on anyone who turns up positive. They won’t however, disclose the source when they find it — though, again, it’s not clear whether that means not identifying the staffer (appropriate) or not admitting that it is a nosocomial outbreak (inappropriate and at this stage lacking in credibility):

Rick Adams, CEO of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, said about 290 staffers have already been screened.
“In terms of the test results, we’re not going to be making anything public,’’ Adams told The Guardian.
“We want to make sure the environment here is supportive of staff and create a climate where they can feel comfortable and open to come forward and be screened knowing that any results will be kept strictly confidential.’’
Adams said he realizes a solid argument can be made that the public should be informed if the source is found and that source is a staff member.
But he said the public should also realize the hospital is doing everything it can to prevent a further spread of the superbug.
“The staff are under enormous pressure. They feel like they are under a microscope.’’ (Byline: Wayne Thibodeau)

Some readers may know that it is outbreaks among newborns that have demonstrated that the designations “community-associated” and “hospital-acquired” are passing out of usefulness. There have been several MRSA outbreaks in newborns and their mothers in the US (in New York City, Houston, Chicago, Los Angeles and Houston again because Baylor College of Medicine has been particularly alert to this) that were clearly nosocomial, and yet when the microbiology was done, were found to be caused by community strains.

Why does this matter? Well, for the PEI hospital, it may not: They have an outbreak, it appears to be nosocomial in nature, and whether it is HA left over from their earlier outbreak, or CA that came in via a health care worker or a pregnant woman, mostly affects what drugs they give the children and mothers if those patients do in fact have infections. And for those of us who are primarily concerned with nosocomial infections, the distinction may also feel not-relevant: Failures of infection control are failures of infection control and should not happen period full stop.

But for those of us who are are also interested in the natural history of this perplexing bug, the answer to what is going on at the Queen Elizabeth will be an important piece of information, because it could underline that the distinction between HA and CA is becoming increasingly artificial. The epidemics are converging.

British infection control: Epic fail

By Leave a Comment

Via the Guardian comes news that British hospitals are failing miserably at hygiene and infection-control targets set by the Healthcare Commission, a government-funded but independent watchdog agency somewhat analogous to the United States’ Joint Commission (formerly called JCAHO).

While community-associated MRSA is still a somewhat new story in the the UK, hospital or nosocomial MRSA is a major epidemic, with resistant Clostridium difficile (“C.diff”) coming close behind. So there has been significant attention paid in the UK to improving infection control programs in hospitals, through the vehicle of benchmarks set for the National Health Service trusts (essentially, regional organizational groupings of hospitals).

And the results, according to unannounced spot-checks made by the UK commission, are appalling. Only 5 of 51 trusts ( 51 = 30% of all acute-care hospitals in the UK) that were checked hit the mark. For those slow at math, that means 3% of UK hospitals are doing what they should to protect patients from infections they cause. (UPDATE: To be fair, if we assume the “5 out of 51” holds true across the NHS, then 10% are doing what they should. That’s still appalling.)

“At nearly all trusts we have found gaps that need closing,” said Anna Walker, the commission’s chief executive. “It is important to be clear that at these trusts we are not talking about the most serious kind of breaches. But these are important warning signs to trust boards that there may be a weakness in their systems.” (Byline: Sarah Boseley)

How weak? This weak, according to the commission’s own report:

  • 27 of the 51 trusts inspected were failing to keep all areas of their premises clean and well maintained. These lapses covered issues ranging from basic cleanliness, to clutter which makes cleaning difficult, to poorly maintained hospital interiors.
  • One in five trusts in this sample did not comply with all requirements for the decontamination of instruments and other equipment used in the care of patients. Trusts that breached this duty tended to have no clear strategy for decontamination or to lack an effective process to assure compliance.
  • In one in eight trusts, the provision of isolation facilities was not adequate. The containment of infections is extremely important to managing outbreaks. Hospitals without adequate facilities must ensure they have contingency plans so that the risk of infections spreading between patients is minimised.
  • For over one in five trusts there were issues related to staff training, information and supervision. While training on preventing and controlling infection was often in place, boards could not always ensure that training days were well attended or that staff used their knowledge in practice.

UK hospitals have until next April to learn to hit these benchmarks or be held accountable under a new Care Quality Commission.

For infection-control geeks, the full text of the “hygiene code” which the hospitals must abide by is here. Details of inspections at individual trusts are here.

New newspaper series on HA-MRSA

By Leave a Comment

The Seattle Times this morning launched an three-day investigative project on incidence of HA-MRSA in Washington State that is worth reading.

As readers here already know, MRSA is not a reportable disease, and there are no diagnosis codes that directly correspond to MSRA that make infection or death easily trackable through hospital records or death certificates. The Times’ team came up with some innovative data-drilling techniques and apparently did a massive amount of number-crunching to come up with the incidence estimates that underpin their reporting. They use those to challenge hospitals’ reluctance to undertake surveillance and treatment that would wipe out MRSA on colonized patients and thus reduce the likelihood of MRSA infecting those patients or spreading to others via healthcare workers who neglect infection control. (NB, Michael Berens, the series’ co-author, did a huge project on nosocomial infections when he was at the Chicago Tribune a number of years ago.)

I am puzzled by one thing I am seeing on the story’s web page — one of the items in the break-out box that sums the story up very quickly to attract eyeballs to it. It says: “About 85 percent of people infected with MRSA get the germ at a hospital or other health-care facility. ” That figure doesn’t make sense to me; it sounds as though it is a mis-translation of the CDC finding a year ago (in the Klevens JAMA paper) that approximately 85% of invasive cases of MRSA have hospital-associated risk factors. Constant readers will remember that estimate has been challenged by researchers on community MRSA, who believe that CA-MRSA accounts for a much larger proportion of the current epidemic than has been acknowledged, and think that the wide spread of the community strain is the actual driver of the overall epidemic. I can’t see where in the text the Times team has done the math to support that assertion, so if anyone else spots it, or knows the reference it comes from, please let me know.

Final report from ICAAC-IDSA 08 (news from ICAAC, 3)

By Leave a Comment

The ICAAC-IDSA (48th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy and 46th annual meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America) meeting ended a week ago, and I’m still thrashing my way through the thousands of abstracts.

Here’s my final, highly unscientific selection of papers that caught my eye:

* Evidence that the community-strain clone USA300 is a formidable pathogen: It first appeared in the San Francisco jail in 2001. By last year, it had become the sole MRSA strain found in the jail — it crowded out all others. (P. Tattevin, abstract C2-225)
* Another paper from the same UCSF research group finds that the emergence of USA300 has caused a dramatic increase in bloodstream infections, most of which are diagnosed in the ER, not after patients are admitted to the hospital. (B. Diep, abstract C2-226)
* And the CDC finds that USA300 is picking up additional resistance factors, to clindamycin, tetracycline and mupirocin, the active ingredient in the decolonization ointment Bactroban. (L. McDougal, abstract C1-166)
* An example of the complexity of “search and destroy,” the active surveillance and testing program that seeks to identify colonized patients before they transmit the bug to others in a health care institution: Patients spread the bug within hours, often before test results judging them positive have been returned from the lab. (S. Chang, abstract K-3379b)
* In addition to the report from Spain I posted on during the meeting, there is a report of emerging linezolid resistance in France. (F. Doucet-Populaire, abstract C1-188)
* And in addition to the abundant new news about MRSA in pork, and “pork-MRSA” or ST 398, in humans, over the past few days, there were reports of MRSA in milk in Brazil (W. Gebreyes, abstract C2-1829) and Turkey (S. Turkyilmaz, abstract C2-1832), and beef and chicken in Korea (YJ Kim, abstract C2-1831), as well as ST 398 itself acquiring resistance to additional drugs. (Kehrenberg, abstract C1-171)
* Echoing many earlier findings that MRSA seems most common among the poor, the poorly housed and the incarcerated, BR Makos of the University of Texas found that children are more likely to be diagnosed with the bug if they are indigent, or from the South (which I imagine is a proxy for lower socio-economic status, since the South is a more rural, more poor region). (abstract G2-1314)
* And finally, to the long list of objects (ER curtains, stethoscopes) that harbor MRSA, here are more: The ultrasound probes in emergency rooms (B. Wessman, abstract K-3377). Also: Dentures. (Ick.) (D. Ready, abstract K-3354)