METHODOLOGY: A descriptive study was conducted to describe the epidemiological characteristics of the outbreak. Data on demographic details, onset of abdominal symptoms, food intake history and contact with ill person three days prior to illness were obtained.
RESULTS: Twelve fresh stool and 14 food samples were tested for NoV and enteric pathogens, respectively. Out of 745 students, 42 (5.6%) were infected during this outbreak. Predominant clinical features were diarrhea (76.1%), vomiting (71.4%) and abdominal pain (67%). Eight (67%) stool samples and six (43.9%)food samples were positive for NoV and total coliforms, respectively. The dissemination of the disease was due to poor hygiene practices among students. Quarantine was imposed until the last case on September 28, 2016. The outbreak was declared over on September 30, 2016.
CONCLUSIONS: A NoV outbreak was determined first time in Malaysia. Environmental assessment showed poor hygienic conditions in the school's kitchen. The number of infected students increased considerably despite the implementation of preventive and control measures. Quarantine was effective to stop the outbreak which is characteristics of NoV outbreak.
METHODS: We implemented a multidimensional approach and an 8-component bundle in 374 ICUs across 35 low and middle-income countries (LMICs) from Latin-America, Asia, Eastern-Europe, and the Middle-East, to reduce VAP rates in ICUs. The VAP rate per 1000 mechanical ventilator (MV)-days was measured at baseline and during intervention at the 2nd month, 3rd month, 4-15 month, 16-27 month, and 28-39 month periods.
RESULTS: 174,987 patients, during 1,201,592 patient-days, used 463,592 MV-days. VAP per 1000 MV-days rates decreased from 28.46 at baseline to 17.58 at the 2nd month (RR = 0.61; 95% CI = 0.58-0.65; P
DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Preinterventional study was conducted in one-month period of January 2019, followed by intervention period from February to March 2019. Postintervention study was conducted from April to July 2019. The CLABSI rates were compared between pre and postintervention periods. A multifaceted intervention bundle was implemented, which comprised (1) educational program for healthcare workers, (2) weekly audit and feedback and (3) implementation of central line bundle of care.
FINDINGS: There was a significant overall reduction of CLABSI rate between preintervention and postintervention period [incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 0.06 (95 percent CI, 0.01-0.33; P = 0.001)].
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: CLABSI rates were reduced by a multifaceted intervention bundle, even in non-ICU and resource-limited setting. This includes a preinterventional study to identify the risk factors followed by a local adaption of the recommended care bundles. This study recommends resources-limited hospitals to design a strategy that is suitable for their own local setting to reduce CLABSI.
ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This study demonstrated the feasibility of a multifaceted intervention bundle that was locally adapted with an evidence-based approach to reduce CLABSI rate in non-ICU and resource-limited setting.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study evaluated the adherence to IPC measures among HCWs working at coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment centers in Punjab, Pakistan. HCWs were recruited by means of convenient sampling through Google Form® using the World Health Organization risk assessment tool. All data were analyzed using SPSS 20.
RESULTS: A total of 414 HCWs completed the survey (response rate = 67.8%), and majority of them were males (56.3%). Most of the HCWs were nurses (39.6%) followed by medical doctors (27.3%). Approximately 53% reported insufficiency of personal protective equipment (PPE), 58.2% did not receive IPC training and 40.8% did not have functional IPC team at their health facilities. The majority of HCWs (90%) used disposable gloves and N95 facemasks while interacting with COVID-19 patients. Nearly 45% used protective face shields and gowns before providing care to their patients. Hand hygiene practices while touching, and performing any aseptic procedure was adopted by 70.5% and 74.1% of HCWs, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the adherence to IPC measures among Pakistani HCWs working in COVID-19 treatment centers is good despite the limited availability of PPEs. Their practices can be optimized by establishing institutional IPC teams, periodic provision of IPC training, and necessary PPE.
METHODOLOGY: Staff members were observed during patient contacts, and their hand washing techniques and hand hygiene practices were monitored. Five contact periods were observed for staff members while they cared for their assigned patients. Hand hygiene practices before and after patient contacts were categorized as clean uncontaminated, clean recontaminated, new gloves, and unchanged contaminated gloves. Compliance to hand-washing steps and time taken for hand washing were analyzed. Appropriate use of gloves based on CDC criteria also was assessed.
RESULTS: Compliance to hand hygiene practices was 70% before each patient contact. Staff members did not completely adhere to the hand-washing steps. The average time taken to wash hands was 20 seconds, and the necessary steps (rubbing palm over dorsum; rubbing fingers interlaced, and rotational rubbing of thumbs) were practiced minimally by all staff. Hand washing protocol was generally followed by all staff (100%). Alcohol hand rubs were available but were used moderately (60%); when used, staff members did not wait for the alcohol to dry. Only 4% of staff changed contaminated gloves between patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Hand hygiene compliance by ICU staff members needs to be improved. Improving adherence to correct hand hygiene techniques will require effective education programs and behavioral modification techniques. Moreover, hand hygiene guidelines must be incorporated into new staff orientation programs and the continuing education curriculum in the two hospitals studied.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using electronic databases, such as EMBASE, PubMed/Medline, CINAHL, NHS and CEA Registry from 2000 until 2017. The quality of each included study was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Economic Evaluations and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards Statement checklist.
RESULTS: Of the 313 papers retrieved, five papers were included in this review after assessment for eligibility. The majority of the studies were cost-effectiveness studies, comparing ASP to standard care. Four included economic studies were conducted from the provider (hospital) perspective while the other study was from payer (National Health System) perspective. The cost included for economic analysis were as following: personnel costs, warded cost, medical costs, procedure costs and other costs.
CONCLUSIONS: All studies were generally well-conducted with relatively good quality of reporting. Implementing ASP in the hospital setting may be cost-effective. However, comprehensive cost-effectiveness data for ASP remain relatively scant, underlining the need for more prospective clinical and epidemiological studies to incorporate robust economic analyses into clinical decisions. This article is open to POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW. Registered readers (see "For Readers") may comment by clicking on ABSTRACT on the issue's contents page.