Maryn McKenna

Journalist and Author

A good start?

By Leave a Comment

I happened to notice today that the WHO has posted an update to its campaign Save Lives: Clean Your Hands, which aims to get 10,000 hospitals around the world to sign on — by May 5, 2010, which is next week — to a global commitment to improved hand hygiene in hospitals.

As of last week, 8,173 hospitals had signed up (1899 in the United States, FYI).

If I sound skeptical, it’s because we all know that merely supporting hand-washing (or the gel equivalent) is an easy thing to do. If you asked any hospital in the US, you would hear 100% support for hand-washing — including in the hospitals where healthcare workers miss 50% of opportunities to wash their hands. It’s in the granular details of implementation — and the relentless laser-like focus on execution practiced, for instance, by Novant Health Care in North Carolina, whose story is told in SUPERBUG — that change really happens.

Whether this WHO campaign can bring that focus and create that change… we’ll just have to see.

The WHO campaign’s page includes videos, guidelines, and plans for a global survey to be executed on May 5.

Catching up to MRSA news (not about me)

By Leave a Comment

Constant readers: I’m looking forward to having the breathing space to get back to in-depth blogging. Meanwhile, though, news is zipping by — so here’s a quick list of recent things worth reading.

“Cows on Drugs” — a superb history of the 30-year-old fight to get unnecessary antibiotics out of food animals. Note, written by a former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, not exactly a wild-eyed radical:

More than 30 years ago, when I was commissioner of the United States Food and Drug Administration, we proposed eliminating the use of penicillin and two other antibiotics to promote growth in animals raised for food. When agribusiness interests persuaded Congress not to approve that regulation, we saw firsthand how strong politics can trump wise policy and good science.Even back then, this nontherapeutic use of antibiotics was being linked to the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria that infect humans. To the leading microbiologists on the F.D.A.’s advisory committee, it was clearly a very bad idea to fatten animals with the same antibiotics used to treat people. But the American Meat Institute and its lobbyists in Washington blocked the F.D.A. proposal.

 Antibiotic resistance in your kitchen, playroom, car... — After years of begging from health advocates, the FDA and EPA are taking a second look at the chemical compound triclosan, an antibacterial that is put into, well, almost anything you can name: soaps, hand sanitizers, cutting boards, toys. Triclosan is suspected of interfering with hormone regulation in the body, and also increases resistance in organisms in our environment. (When I ask you to use hand sanitizers that contain only alcohol or salts, not antibacterials, triclosan is one of the things I’m thinking of.) The FDA will report its findings in a year. I’d rather see it happen sooner, but it’s a great move.

No progress on hospital-acquired infections — The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, has published its 2009 National Healthcare Quality Report. The news is not good. To quote the agency’s own language: “Very little progress has been made on eliminating health care-associated infections.” This is all hospital-acquired infections, not just MRSA, but MRSA is a leading organism. The ugly details:

  • Post-operative bloodstream infections up 8%
  • Post-operative catheter-associated urinary-tract infections up 3.6%
  • “Selected infections due to medical care” up by 1.6%
  • Bloodstream infections as a result of central lines unchanged.

(NB, three professional organizations — the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, and the Association for Professionals in Infection Control — put out a statement in response to this report saying it “presents an outdated and incomplete picture on healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) in our healthcare system.” The gist of the statement seems to be that they’ve got better numbers coming… soon. When there’s actual data, I’ll let you know.)

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

Bad news from California: MRSA quadrupled

By Leave a Comment

Via the Fresno Business Journal and the Torrance Daily Breeze come reports of a new study by California’s Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development: Known MRSA cases in the state’s hospitals increased four-fold between 1999 and 2007, from 13,000 to 52,000 cases per year.

From the Torrance paper:

The good news is that the percentage of people who die of MRSA has decreased, from about 35 percent in 1999 to 24 percent in 2007. The raw number of deaths, however, more than doubled to about 12,500. (Byline: Melissa Evans)

From the Fresno paper (no byline):

Fresno, Kings, Madera and Tulare counties were among 38 counties in California that had 61 to 80% of patients with staph infections.
Only one county, Sierra, fared worse. Eight-one to 100% of patients ended up with staph infections in that county’s hospitals.
In 1999, Kings and Madera counties were in the 0 to 20% range and Fresno and Tulare counties were in the 21 to 40% range.

100%??



One more set of recommendations

By Leave a Comment

… and then next week I’ll be back to analyzing the medical literature: A stack of interesting new journal articles is threatening to topple and bury my computer.

For the moment, though:

First, the Hearst newspapers chain has conducted a nationwide investigation into medical errors that should be required reading for anyone who wonders why hospitals can’t do a better job controlling hospital-acquired infections. It is a 7-part series focusing on the 5 states (New York, Texas, California, Connecticut, Washington) where there are Hearst papers, and hosted on the site of the San Francisco Chronicle. The introductory article says:

Ten years ago, a highly publicized federal report called the death toll shocking and challenged the medical community to cut it in half — within five years.
Instead, federal analysts believe the rate of medical error is actually increasing.
A national investigation by Hearst Newspapers found that the medical community, the federal government and most states have overwhelmingly failed to take the effective steps outlined in the report a decade ago.
… in five states served by Hearst newspapers — New York, California, Texas, Washington and Connecticut — only 20 percent of some 1,434 hospitals surveyed are participating in two national safety campaigns begun in recent years.
Also, a detailed safety analysis prepared for Hearst Newspapers examined discharge records from 1,832 medical facilities in four of those states. It found major deficiencies in patient data states collect from hospitals, yet still found that a minimum of 16 percent of hospitals had at least one death from common procedures gone awry — and some had more than a dozen. (Byline: Cathleen F. Crowley and Eric Nalder)

From that opening statement, the investigation goes on to explore many patient stories that individually are tragedies and collectively — as we here know all to well — are a scandal.

There is just one notable MRSA story in the mix, the death of a retired hospital president who contracted the bug in his own hospital. But they are all worth reading.

Second, an executive and apparently new writer named David Goldhill has written for The Atlantic a passionate and well-thought out piece on his father’s death from a hospital-acquired infection and on what needs to change for such deaths to never happen again. “My survivor’s grief has taken the form of an obsession with our health-care system,” he writes:

My dad became a statistic—merely one of the roughly 100,000 Americans whose deaths are caused or influenced by infections picked up in hospitals. One hundred thousand deaths: more than double the number of people killed in car crashes, five times the number killed in homicides, 20 times the total number of our armed forces killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another victim in a building American tragedy.

You may not agree with his conclusions, but it is worth reading through to the end to experience how one intelligent citizen from outside health care understands and attempts to re-think our broken system.

Federal plan to reduce HAIs: public meetings

By Leave a Comment

Let’s switch back for a moment to MRSA and other infections in hospitals. An estimated 1.7 million healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) occur in the US each year. Approximately 99,000 of the infected die. Care for the infected costs the health care system $33 billion (yes, with a B) each year.

The US Department of Health and Human Services (parent agency of the CDC, USDA, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, etc.) in late June issued a draft of a National Action Plan to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections. The plan is here (.pdf, 116 pages). It calls for more research, changes in regulation of health care, more disclosure and significant simplification of the more than 1,200 actions for reducing HAIs that are currently recommended in government documents (yes, 1,200.)

HHS is taking the plan on the road: Before Labor Day, there will be public meetings to air the plan in Denver (tomorrow, July 25), Chicago (July 30) and Seattle (Aug. 27). If you are concerned at all about HAIs and government and health care industry response to them, these meetings would be a good place to be.

The HHS statement about the plan and the meetings, including contact information to sign up to attend, is here. Go, already.

10 years but little progress on patient safety

By Leave a Comment

Constant readers, I’ve been away for a week — trying to get my breath back now that the chaos of the novel H1N1/swine flu is diminishing — and so I’ve missed a lot of news. Over this week, I’ll try to catch you up on it.

First up: Some of you know that, 10 years ago, the nonpartisan, Congressionally-chartered Institute of Medicine (IOM) published a groundbreaking report called To Err is Human (html here, pdf here) that jump-started examination of medical quality in the United States. That report said:

Health care in the United States is not as safe as it should be–and can be. At least 44,000 people, and perhaps as many as 98,000 people, die in hospitals each year as a result of medical errors that could have been prevented…
Preventable medical errors in hospitals exceed attributable deaths to such feared threats as motor-vehicle wrecks, breast cancer, and AIDS. …
Beyond their cost in human lives, preventable medical errors exact other significant tolls. They have been estimated to result in total costs (including the expense of additional care necessitated by the errors, lost income and household productivity, and disability) of between $17 billion and $29 billion per year in hospitals nationwide. (To Err is Human, executive summary)

The report prompted a huge groundswell of legislative interest and patient advocacy that led, years later, to the successful passage of state laws insisting on public reporting of hospital infections and more recently on disclosure of hospital-acquired MRSA.

And yet: Despite all that scrutiny and activism, we are nowhere near as far as we should be in reducing medical errors. Just in the area of hospital infections, which is our greatest interest here, there is not mandatory reporting in all states, and there is no nationwide reporting.

So says the Safe Patient Project of Consumers Union, which has produced an update to the IOM report called To Err is Human — To Delay is Deadly. They conclude:

Ten years later, we don’t know if we’ve made any real progress, and efforts to reduce the harm caused by our medical care system are few and fragmented. With little transparency and no public reporting (except where hard fought state laws now require public reporting of hospital infections), scarce data does not paint a picture of real progress.
Based on our review of the scant evidence, we believe that preventable medical harm still accounts for more than 100,000 deaths each year — a million lives over the past decade. This statistic by all logic is conservative. For example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that hospital-acquired infections alone kill 99,000 people each year.

The project finds that many of the reforms recommended by the IOM in 1999 have not been created:

  • Few hospitals have adopted well-known systems to prevent medication errors and the FDA rarely intervenes.While the FDA reviews new drug names for potential confusion, it rarely requires name changes of existing drugs despite high levels of documented confusion among drugs, which can result in dangerous medication errors. Computerized prescribing and dispensing systems have not been widely adopted by hospitals or doctors, despite evidence that they make patients safer.
  • A national system of accountability through transparency as recommended by the IOM has not been created. While 26 states now require public reporting of some hospital-acquired infections, the medical error reporting currently in place fails to create external pressure for change. In most cases hospital-specific information is confidential and under-reporting of errors is not curbed by systematic validation of the reported data.
  • No national entity has been empowered to coordinate and track patient safety improvements.Ten years after To Err is Human, we have no national entity comprehensively tracking patient safety events or progress in reducing medical harm and we are unable to tell if we are any better off than we were a decade ago. While the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality attempts to monitor progress on patient safety, its efforts fall short of what is needed.
  • Doctors and other health professionals are not expected to demonstrate competency.There has been some piecemeal action on patient safety by peers and purchasers, but there is no evidence that physicians, nurses, and other health care providers are any more competent in patient safety practices than they were ten years ago.

The entire report is well worth reading. Its lamentable but well-supported conclusion:

We give the country a failing grade on progress on select recommendations we believe necessary to create a health-care system free of preventable medical harm.


How hospitals are like cockpits

By Leave a Comment

We’ve talked a couple of times about the growing push for checklists in surgery and elsewhere in hospitals, promoted by Hopkins professor and MacArthur “genius” grant-winner Dr. Peter Provonost and modeled on the use of checklists in aviation. (This stuff interests me not just because it offers so much promise for MRSA reduction but because, as constant readers will remember, I am a pilot and am married to an avionics engineer.)

Provonost and colleagues have a very interesting piece in the current Health Affairs that takes another aviation concept — the Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) — and applies it to medical errors. CAST is a public-private partnership from across the aviation spectrum — government, airlines, labor, manfacturers — that came together in the wake of several terrible accidents to do system-wide analyses of fail points. Provonost proposes that health care could vastly reduce errors by implementing a CAST model.

The cite is: Provonost, PJ, Goeschel CA, Olsen KL et al. Reducing Health Care Hazards: Lessons From The Commercial Aviation Safety Team. Health Affairs 28, no. 3 (2009): w479-w489 (published online 7 April 2009; 10.1377/hlthaff.28.3.w479)]

Consumers Union: 18% of Americans have had a hospital infection in self or family

By Leave a Comment

Constant readers: You may not be aware that Consumers Union (yes, the nonprofit that publishes the magazine Consumer Reports) has a marvelous project called Stop Hospital Infections that has been instrumental in pushing for hospital-infection reporting and MRSA-control laws, offering support to citizen activists who want change in their states and offering text of a model MRSA-control act. (Stop Hospital Infections is in the blogroll at right.)

They have just released a survey — of more than 2,000 U.S. adults, performed March 12-16, 2009 — that gives us an excellent, and very sobering, look at what is happening with hospital-acquired infections. The news is not good:

  • 18% reported that they or an immediate family member had acquired an infection owing to a hospital stay or other medical procedure.
  • 61% of those who acquired an infection said it was “severe” and 35% characterized it as “life-threatening.”
  • The risk of an infection increased 45% if a patient spent the night in the hospital.
  • 53% of Americans polled said these infections required additional out of pocket expenses to treat the infection.
  • 69% had to be admitted to a hospital or extend their stay because of the infection.

The press release describing the poll — undertaken with the American Cancer Society, American Diabetes Association and the American Heart Association in advance of a Congressional briefing on healthcare reform — is here. The full results of the poll are here.

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.)

Ten tips for avoiding hospital infections

By Leave a Comment

ScientificAmerican.com (disclosure: I have written a story for them, and it is edited by a friend) has a great interview with a hospital epidemiologist about things to do to avoid hospital infections.

It’s a smart list, with some non-obvious things on it. For instance:

5. Make sure you’re kept warm
The air temperature in operating rooms typically hovers between 65 and 69 degrees Fahrenheit (18 and 20 degrees Celsius). That’s great for the doctors and nurses bundled head to toe in scrubs, but not necessarily for the person on the table. [Stephen Streed, an epidemiologist who oversees infection control at the Lee Memorial Health System in Fort Myers, Fla.] says that the body responds to chilly air by constricting vessels supplying blood to the skin and the tissues just below it; diverting blood away from the body’s surface and toward its core is the body’s strategy for conserving heat. With less blood supplying oxygen to the incision site, the immune cells there become oxygen-deprived and therefore less effective at battling invading germs. Ask the surgical team how they intend to keep you warm — if they will crank up the room temperature by a few degrees, cover you in blankets, or warm you with IV fluids, for instance.

6. Ask about presurgery antibiotics
For many operations, including those involving the heart and bone, doctors routinely give patients preventive antibiotics to nip infections in the bud. One dose is typically given via IV an hour before the surgeons make the first cut, and sometimes two more doses are given over the next 24 hours, Streed says. If you think there is any possibility that you have an infection before going into surgery, tell your doctor so that he or she can treat you first. (Having an existing infection in, say, the bladder or skin ups the risk of developing a second, surgery-related infection, Streed warns.)

The whole list is worth reading.

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.

Did MRSA kill an Ontario nurse?

By Leave a Comment

Here is a story that was flagged by several commenters (welcome, Canadian readers), and is being reported by a number of Canadian news outlets: A nurse who worked in the critical care unit at Victoria Hospital in London, Ont. has died, possibly of MRSA, and the Ontario Ministry of Labor is investigating whether her death is an occupational exposure — that is, whether she caught the bug in the process of working in the hospital.

There’s not a lot of detail in the stories published so far. The St. Thomas (Ont.) Times-Journal, the London (Ont.) Free Press and the Canadian Press suggest that the nurse was a patient in her own hospital and acquired the infection while a patient. The Toronto Globe and Mail, on the other hand, casts the story as the nurse working, becoming sick, and then becoming a patient.

Occupational infections with MRSA have certainly been recorded. A Texas firefighter and EMT died of invasive MRSA in 2006, and his widow alleged it was because of his exposure to MRSA patients; an Illinois EMT almost lost a leg to the infection in 2007.

Let’s stipulate that this Ontario nurse’s death is terribly sad. The question will be whether it is also scientifically confounding. A hospital is going to have a substantial background rate of MRSA, in infected patients, colonized patients and colonized personnel. If her death turns out to be caused by MRSA, it will be important to ascertain both the timeline — did she become sick while working, or while undergoing care for some other health problem — and also the microbiology: Did she have whatever strain is predominant in her hospital? Or was it on the other hand a strain that is circulating in the community (provided that community strains have not moved into hospitals in Ontario as they have in the US)?

That sort of microbiological differentiation provided an important clue in the death of Maribel Espada, a British nurse who died of invasive MRSA in 2006, six days after giving birth at the hospital where she worked. Unusually for the UK, Espada was infected with a PVL+ strain of MRSA, something that is very common in US community strains, but unusual in the UK until recently. That allowed her infection to stand out from the background, and suggested that she had been infected by a patient in her hospital:

The Health Protection Agency said it was investigating the possibility Mrs Espada caught PVL MRSA from a patient who died at the hospital in March.
A spokesman for University Hospitals of North Staffordshire NHS Trust said all staff who had come in contact with the two people originally diagnosed with PVL MRSA had been screened by the hospital’s infection control team.
A further nine cases were subsequently identified, of which one was a former patient.
The eight other cases were either members of staff or people staff had come into contact with. (BBC News)

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.

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.

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.

MRSA in meat in Louisiana: pig meat, human strain

By Leave a Comment

On Nov. 3, I posted on an enterprising group of TV stations in the Pacific Northwest who had retail meat in four states tested for MRSA. I said at the time that it was the first finding of MRSA in meat in the US that I knew of.

Turns out that I was wrong by three days. On Oct. 31, the journal Applied and Environmental Microbiology published an electronic version of a study that they will be printing in the paper journal on some future date. Journals do this when a finding is so important or timely that it should see the light immediately, rather than wait through the additional weeks or months of print production.

And this finding is certainly timely. Shuaihua Pu, Feifei Han, and Beilei Ge of the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center have made what appears to be the first scientifically valid identification of MRSA in retail meat in the United States. But — and this is an important point — it is not the swine strain, ST 398, that has been found in meat in Canada and Europe, and in hospital patients in Scotland and the Netherlands, and in pigs in Iowa; and in humans in New York, though that strain was drug-sensitive.

Instead, what the researchers found (in 5 pork and 1 beef samples, out of 120 bought in 30 grocery stores in Baton Rouge, La. over 6 weeks in February-March 2008) was USA300, the dominant community MRSA strain, and USA100, the main hospital-infection strain. In other words, they found meat that had been contaminated during production by an infected or colonized human, not by a pig. As they say:

…the presence of MRSA in meats may pose a potential threat of infection to individuals who handle the food. … (G)reat attention needs to be taken to prevent the introduction of MRSA from human carriers onto the meats they handle and thereby spreading the pathogen.

As we’ve discussed before, the primary danger from MRSA in meat is not that people will take the bug in by mouth (though that is a danger, since S. aureus because of its toxin production can cause severe foodborne illness — and these researchers found, overall, an S. aureus contamination rate of 46% of their pork samples and 20% of their beef samples). Rather, the danger is that people handling the raw meat will be careless in preparing it, and will colonize themselves by touching the meat and then touching their own noses or mucous membranes, leading to a possible future infection. As reader Rhoda pointed out in a comment last week, people could also infect themselves directly, by getting MRSA-laden juice or blood into an abrasion or cut.

So: Be careful in the kitchen, keep meat separate from other foods, wash cutting boards and knives, and (say it with me, now) wash your hands, wash your hands, wash your hands.

The cite for the new paper: Pu, S. et al. Isolation and Characterization of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus from Louisiana Retail Meats. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. doi:10.1128/AEM.01110-08. Epub ahead of print 31 Oct 08.

Housekeeping note: This is the 16th post I’ve written on MRSA in food animals and/or meat. Providing all the links to the previous posts is starting to obstruct the new news. So if you are looking for all those past posts, go to the labels at the end of this post, below the time-stamp, and click on “food.” You should get something that looks like this.