Next Article in Journal
Moving toward Extensively Drug-Resistant: Four-Year Antimicrobial Resistance Trends of Acinetobacter baumannii from the Largest Department of Internal Medicine in Slovakia
Next Article in Special Issue
Molecular Epidemiology of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus among Patients Diagnosed with Surgical Site Infection at Four Hospitals in Ethiopia
Previous Article in Journal
Prevalence of Carbapenemases in Carbapenem-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii Isolates from the Kingdom of Bahrain
Previous Article in Special Issue
Teicoplanin-Resistant Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci: Do the Current Susceptibility Testing Methods Reliably Detect This Elusive Phenotype?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antibiotics
Volume 12
Issue 7
10.3390/antibiotics12071199
antibiotics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Multi-Model Strategies for Prevention of Infection Caused by Certain Multi-Drug Resistant Organisms in A Rehabilitation Unit: A Semi-Experimental Study

by
Shiyu Li
1,2,
Ji Lin
2,
Siyuan Tao
2,
Linwen Guo
2,
Wenzhi Huang
2,
Jingwen Li
2,
Chunping Du
1,
Zhiting Wang
3,
Liwen Liu
4,
Yi Chen
2,* and
Fu Qiao
2,*
1
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China
2
Department of Infection Control, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China
3
Department of Operation Management, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China
4
Department of Equipment and Materials, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antibiotics 2023, 12(7), 1199; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12071199
Submission received: 14 June 2023 / Revised: 12 July 2023 / Accepted: 17 July 2023 / Published: 18 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Antimicrobial Resistance and Hospital- and Community-Associated Infections)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Objective: To assess the effectiveness of multi-model strategies on healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) caused by multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs) in rehabilitation units. Methods: A semi-experimental study was conducted in a rehabilitation unit with 181 beds from January 2021 to December 2022 in a teaching hospital with 4300 beds in China. In 2021, many basic prevention and control measures were conducted routinely. Based on the basic measures, strengthening multi-model strategies for the prevention and control of MDROs was pursued year-round since 1 January 2022. Results: A total of 6206 patients were enrolled during the study period. The incidence density of HAIs caused by MDROs decreased from 1.22 (95% CI, 0.96~1.54) cases/1000 patient-days in the pre-intervention period to 0.70 (95% CI, 0.50~0.95) cases/1000 patient-days (p = 0.004). Similarly, the incidence of HAIs in the intervention period was 50.85% lower than that in the pre-intervention period (2.02 (95% CI, 1.50~2.72) vs. 4.11 (95% CI, 3.45–4.85) cases/100 patients, p < 0.001). The rate of MDROs isolated from the environment decreased by 30.00%, although the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.259). Conclusion: Multi-model strategies can reduce the incidence of HAIs and HAIs caused by certain MDROs in the rehabilitation unit.

1. Introduction

In recent years, healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) caused by multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs) have become severe challenges to clinical treatment, often prolonging the length of stay (LOS), increasing mortality, and increasing medical costs [1,2,3]. The prevalence of MDROs poses a threat to public health worldwide. A report published by the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that there are more than 25,000 and 23,000 MDRO infection-related deaths every year in Europe and the United States, respectively. The annual economic burden caused by the infection of MDROs is EUR 1.5 billion and USD 3.4 billion in Europe and the United States, respectively [4]. Several recent studies also confirmed that the medical cost of patients with MDRO infections was 1.4~1.7 times that of patients without [5,6,7]. In China, one study conducted in 68 hospitals showed that the average increase in LOS due to infections caused by studied MDROs was 14 days [8].
In recent decades, with the development of early rehabilitation, many surgical patients are transferred to the rehabilitation unit within one or two days after surgery, and some critical patients are transferred to the rehabilitation unit directly from the intensive care unit (ICU). Moreover, many rehabilitation instruments are shared between different patients, and it is almost impossible to disinfect the instruments in time after each use [9]. All of these factors increase the risk of HAIs for patients hospitalized in rehabilitation units, especially the infection of MDROs. A study revealed that the MDRO test-positive rate was 16.70% (96/575) in neurorehabilitation ward patients [10]. Patients colonized or infected with MDROs may severely or moderately limit their rehabilitation outcome [5], and the infection during rehabilitation will increase the length of hospitalization, reduce the rehabilitative outcomes and increase the mortality rate significantly [7]. A bundle of interventions, including education and training, hand hygiene promotion, contact precaution, and environmental disinfection, have been confirmed to reduce the incidence of HAIs caused by MDROs [11,12,13,14]. However, there is less evidence on the strategies for MDRO prevention and control in rehabilitation units. To assess the effectiveness of multi-model strategies on infections caused by MDROs in the rehabilitation unit, especially in carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) endemic areas, we, therefore, conducted this study.

2. Results

2.1. Characteristics of Patients in The Pre-Intervention and Intervention Periods

A total of 7200 patients were admitted to the rehabilitation unit from January 2021 to December 2022, and 6206 patients of them were eligible (Figure 1). A total of 3262 patients and 2944 patients were included in the pre-intervention and intervention periods, respectively (S). The mean age was 53.87 ± 16.13 years in the intervention period, which was significantly higher than that in the pre-intervention period (p < 0.001). Most of the underlying diseases were no significant difference between the two groups, although the proportion of patients with respiratory failure and malignant tumors was statistically different between the two groups, the intervention period was higher than that in the pre-intervention period, 2.65% vs. 1.69% (p = 0.009) and 6.69% vs. 4.20% (p < 0.001), respectively. A total of 19.13% (1187/6206) of the patients had a history of surgery during their hospitalization, but there was no significant difference between the two groups. Forty-five patients had at least one MDRO infection at admission in the intervention period, which was slightly higher than the pre-intervention group, but there was no significant difference (p = 0.552). The details of the two groups are shown in Table 1.

2.2. The Compliance of Infection Control Measures

The rate of family caregivers for patients decreased to 38.48% in the intervention period. Hand hygiene compliance during the intervention period was 89.08% (1771/1988) while it was 90.54% in the pre-intervention period (p = 0.071). The differences in the consumption of liquid soap and alcohol-based hand rub between the intervention and pre-intervention periods were also not statistically significant (S). The consumption of gloves in the intervention period was 2.15 ± 0.26 pairs per patient day which was statistics significantly higher than that in the pre-intervention period (p = 0.010), while the consumption of gowns was 64.67 ± 10.01 pieces per 1000 patient days, which was higher than that in the pre-intervention period but not statistical significance (p = 0.892).
At the end of December 2021, 84 environmental samples, including bed rails and tables, were collected randomly from the wards, and 18 (21.34%) of them were positive for MDROs, including 14 CRKP and 4 CRAB strains. In March 2023, environmental sampling was conducted again, and 100 samples were taken randomly from the wards. Of the 100 samples, 15 (15.00%) were positive for MDROs, including 10 CRKP strains and 5 CRAB strains. No other target MDRO was isolated from the environmental sampling. The environmental pollution rate of MDROs decreased by 30.00%, although the difference was not statistical significance (p = 0.259). The details are shown in Table 2.

2.3. Healthcare-Associated Infections Caused by MDROs

In total, 134 cases and 60 cases of HAIs were confirmed in the pre-intervention period and intervention period, respectively, and the incidence of HAIs was significantly lower in the intervention period than in the pre-intervention period (2.04% (95% CI, 1.56~2.62) vs. 4.11% (95% CI, 3.45~4.85), p < 0.001). In those infection cases, 113 cases of MDROs were isolated from 109 patients more than 48 h after admission during the study period, and the total incidence density of HAIs caused by MDROs was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.96–1.54) cases per 1000 patient days. CRKP was the most common pathogen, accounting for 35.40% of HAIs caused by MDROs. Lower respiratory tract infections were the most common sites of HAIs, followed by urinary tract infections, which accounted for 62.83% (71/113) and 30.09% (34/113) of the whole infection site, respectively.
During the intervention period, only 39 cases of MDROs were isolated from eligible patients, and the incidence density of HAIs caused by MDROs was significantly decreased compared with that during the pre-intervention period (0.70 (95% CI, 0.50–0.95) cases per 1000 patient-days vs. 1.22 (95% CI, 0.96–1.54) cases per 1000 patient days, p = 0.004). HAIs caused by CRKP decreased from 0.48 (95% CI, 0.32–0.69) cases per 1000 patient days to 0.20 (95% CI, 0.10–0.35) cases per 1000 patient days, p = 0.008. However, HAIs caused by CRAB decreased by 47.37%, but the difference was not statistically significant (0.20 (95% CI, 0.10–0.35) cases per 1000 patient days vs. 0.38 (95% CI, 0.24–0.57) cases per 1000 patient days). The incidence density of HAIs caused by other MDROs was also not significantly decreased between the intervention period and pre-intervention period because of low incidence density. The monthly variation of the incidence density is shown in Figure 2.
In terms of infection site, both the incidence density of lower respiratory tract infection and urinary tract infection caused by MDROs were decreased statistically significantly between the intervention period and pre-intervention period, that is, 0.43 (95% CI, 0.27–0.64) cases per 1000 patient-days vs. 0.78 (95% CI, 0.57–1.03) cases per 1000 patient days and 0.18 (95% CI, 0.09–0.33) cases per 1000 patient days vs. 0.40 (95% CI, 0.25–0.59) cases per 1000 patient days, separately. The details of the incidence density between the intervention period and the pre-intervention period are shown in Table 3.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Design

A semi-experimental study was conducted in a rehabilitation unit with 181 beds from 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2022 in a teaching hospital with 4300 beds in mainland China. This unit was major for spinal cord injury disease, musculoskeletal disease, and nervous system disease. In 2021, a bundle of basic prevention and control measures was conducted routinely. Based on the basic measures, strengthening multi-model strategies for the prevention and control of infections caused by MDROs have been implemented all year round since 1 January 2022, which was the intervention period.

3.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

All the patients (Age ≥18 years) older than 18 years and above admitted to the rehabilitation unit in the study period were included. Patients were excluded if they were (1) Age < 18 years; (2) stayed in the unit for less than 48 h; or (3) had a length of stay between 2021 and 2022.

3.3. Prevention and Control Measures in The Pre-Intervention Period

(1) Notification. A notification phone call was given to the doctors in charge by microbiology laboratory workers immediately when the MDRO was isolated, and the results were uploaded to the laboratory information system (LIS) immediately. A contact precaution marker was labeled automatically on the hospital information system (HIS). (2) Contact precautions. Patients with MDROs were isolated when the nurse received the notification, and a contact precaution label was posted on the patient’s bed. All healthcare workers must wear gloves and gowns during care work. The infection control link nurses in the ward checked the compliance of contact precautions, and the infection control practitioners did an audit within 24 h to ensure that the clinicians correctly understood the communication and, therefore, consequently acted. (3) Reduce the number of people. Only three doctors were allowed to take the turnaround at the same time. One fixed family member or one professional nurse assistant was permitted to accompany, and only one visitor was enabled each time. (4) Routine disinfection. All of the rehabilitation instruments were cleaned and disinfected with 500 mg/L effective chlorine disinfectant twice a day.

3.4. Multi-Model Strategies for Prevention of HAIs Caused by MDROs in The Intervention Period

3.4.1. System Change

An MDRO prevention and control work group was established in the unit, which was composed of a vice director, chief rehabilitation technician, head nurse, medical team leader, nursing team leader, infection control link nurse, and infection control professional. The responsibilities of the group included (1) coordinating and allocating beds in the whole unit to cohort patients with MDROs; (2) analyzing and discussing the reason for infection case by case; and (3) drafting prevention and control guidelines.

3.4.2. Personnel and Behavior Management

(1) Family visits were canceled during hospitalization. (2) Whether the patients needed to be cared for by family members was assessed by the doctor in charge based on the patient’s condition. None of the family members were permitted to care for patients in the quasi-intensive care unit. (3) One doctor and one nurse were fixed in the quasi-intensive care unit to conduct the ward rounds and care work per shift. The treatment and ward rounds were carried out at different intervals. Only one technician was allowed to work at the same time except in emergencies.

3.4.3. Education and Training

(1) All of the new healthcare workers must finish the course of prevention and control measures for MDROs before they engage in clinical work. (2) Regular education was carried out for different types of professions. (3) A training and test of infection prevention and control measures must be completed for doctors and nurses before they work in a quasi-intensive care unit.

3.4.4. Communication and Data Feedback

(1) Weekly communication meetings were built between infection control practitioners and link nurses to feedback on the audit results and discuss work plans for next step since January 2022. (2) All of MDROs data in the pre-intervention period were feedback to the management group in January 2022. Then, a quarterly data feedback meeting was conducted with the directors, head nurse, and other management group members. (3) Statistical data of HAIs of MDROs was feedback to all of the healthcare workers on morning shift irregularly.

3.4.5. Environmental Control

(1) All instruments and equipment were disinfected by the rehabilitation therapist immediately after use by the MDRO’s patient. (2) The concentration of disinfectant was checked by a designated nurse every day. (3) A fluorescent marker was used to check compliance with cleaning twice a week. (4) Environmental surveillance culture was conducted to assess the environmental burden of MDROs. The environment swabbing was taken by sterile rayon swabs (Copan, Brescia, Italy) moistened with tryptic soy broth (TSB, Hopebio, Qingdao, China). The swabs were immediately placed into 15 mL sterile tubes containing 6 mL of TSB. The tubes were incubated at 37 °C overnight and centrifuged. The supernatant was discarded, and precipitates were resuspended in 1 mL of TSB. A 50 µL suspension was streaked onto Acinetobacter selected-agar plates (CHROMagarTM, Paris, France) containing 4 μg/mL meropenem to screen CRAB, Pseudomonas selected-agar plates (CHROMagarTM, Paris, France) containing 4 μg/mL meropenem to screen CRPA, Simmon citrate agar plates containing 2 μg/mL meropenem to screen CRK, Orientation selected-agar plates (CHROMagarTM, Paris, France) containing 2 μg/mL meropenem to screen CRE, MRSA, and VRE selected-agar plates (CHROMagarTM, Paris, France) to screen MRSA and VRE separately. The plates were incubated at 37 °C for 18~24 h, and suspected colonies were subjected to preliminary species identification based on matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization–time of flight mass spectrometry (Bruker, Billerica, MA, USA).

3.5. Definitions

The diagnostic criteria for HAIs were the diagnostic standards for HAIs published by the Ministry of Health in 2001 [15]. The certain MDROs in this study included Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB), Carbapenem-resistant Enterobaceteriacae (CRE), Carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRPA), Vancomycin-resistant Enterococci (VRE), and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

3.6. Main Outcomes

The primary study outcome was the incidence density of HAIs caused by MDROs in inpatients. The secondary outcome was the incidence density of HAIs. We also report the compliance of hand hygiene and usage of protective equipment during two periods.

3.7. Clinical Data Collection and Statistical Analysis

Demographic and clinical data of eligible patients were collected, including gender, age, diagnosis, underlying disease, infection of MDROs at admission, and the length of stay.
For descriptive analysis, qualitative data were expressed in terms of frequency, and the incidence of MDROs was expressed as incidence density (cases per 1000 patient days). Quantitative variables with a normal distribution were expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD), which were expressed as median (25% percentile, 75% percentile) if the normal distribution was not met. Qualitative data were analyzed by the Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test, Kolmogorov–Smirnov normality test was used for normality test. T-test was used if quantitative variables were normal distribution; otherwise, Mann–Whitney U-test was conducted. The difference of MDROs incidence density among interventions was analyzed by Poisson analysis, and RR was used to indicate the relative risk. Analyses were performed using R v. 4.3.0.

4. Discussion

Patients colonized or infected with MDROs may affect their rehabilitation programs. One survey conducted in Germany showed that 27% of rehabilitation facilities refused to accept patients with MDROs, and only 27% of the rehabilitation centers allowed patients with MDROs to participate in full rehabilitation programs [16]. Another survey conducted in Europe showed that patients with MDROs wait longer for admission in 36% of facilities and have been refused admission in 11% of facilities [17]. However, the prevalence of MDROs in rehabilitation units is still very high and sometimes causes outbreaks [9]. A multicenter observation study for neurorehabilitation showed that 55% of HAIs needed functional isolation due to multidrug-resistant germs [18]. Another study in Germany showed that 2.2% of general rehabilitation patients were colonized with VRE, and 6.7% of them had multi-drug-resistant gram-negative pathogens [19]. In this study, we found out that the incidence of HAIs caused by MDROs in the pre-intervention period was 2.27% (1.22 cases per 1000 patient days), and the most common MDROs were CRKP, CRAB, and CRPA. The incidence is lower than that in a previous study conducted in Southwest China and some other studies [10], which may be because of the difference in case definition. However, the concept of MDROs was similar.
How patients with MDRO infections should be managed in a rehabilitation setting is still lacking due to a survey in Europe [17]. Effective strategies to prevent HAIs caused by MDROs are still limited. In our study, multi-model strategies, including system change, personnel and behavior management, education and training, communication and data feedback, and environmental control, were carried out in the intervention period in the rehabilitation unit, and the incidence of HAIs caused by MDROs decreased significantly through the strategies during the intervention period, even though the infection rate at admission was slightly higher. We indeed explored a way to decrease HAIs caused by MDROs in the rehabilitation department. System change may play a key role in our multi-strategies, and one study conducted in the China Rehabilitation Research Centre decreased HAIs caused by MDROs through the PDCA cycle. In their study, the detection rate of MRSA and CRPA decreased significantly, but that of MDRAB did not [20].
In this study, the average age in the pre-intervention period was lower than that in the intervention period, but the difference was only 1.73 years. Several studies reported that age was an independent risk factor for MDROs infection [21,22]. The older the age, the higher the risk of infection. Although the average age in the intervention group was higher than that in the control group in this study, there was still a decreased incidence of MDROs, indicating a relatively robust result. Respiratory failure, which reflected the severity of the patients’ illness, has been reported as an independent risk factor for MDROs infection [23]. In this study, the proportion of respiratory failure in the intervention period was higher than that in the pre-intervention period; there was still a decrease in the infection rate of MDROs, which indicated a relatively robust result.
Personal and behavior management are always hard to execute. In China, the rate of family caregivers is as high as 90% for cultural reasons [24], and compliance with hand hygiene and other infection control measures is very low, even when the patients they care for have communicable diseases [25,26]. In this study, to decrease the rate of family caregivers and reduce the number of persons in each ward, family visits were canceled, and each family caregiver was evaluated by the doctor in charge. The family caregiver rate decreased to 38.48% in 2022. However, we did not collect the details of family caregivers all year round in 2021, and the exact rate of family caregivers was not acquired, but we estimate that the rate was as high as 65% based on limited data collected by the head nurse.
Compliance with environmental cleaning for the immediate surrounding area is also a key recommendation to decrease infection caused by MDROs [27]. One study showed that the MDRO-positive rate was 7.7% in the common area and rehabilitation gym environment [28]. In this study, the contamination rate of common areas in the rehabilitation unit was 21.43%, which is much higher than that in a previous study. However, the contamination rate decreased by 30% through the intervention. This may contribute to reducing the risk of MDRO transmission. Although the consumption of gloves increased during the intervention period, there might have been misused gloves, so the consumption of gloves only partially reflects compliance.
There are several limitations to this study. First, the study is a single-center study in an area where MDROs are notably prevalent, especially CRAB and CRKP, which limits the extrapolation of the results to primary hospitals; however, it has significance for areas with high MDRO prevalence. Second, this study was conducted in the rehabilitation unit that received many severe patients transferred from ICUs or surgical units in a large teaching hospital, which also limits the reference to other units and other rehabilitation units receiving traditional patients, but it has significance for the rehabilitation units that are developing rapid rehabilitation medicine. Finally, we did not conduct active surveillance screening of MDROs for the patients on admission and during their hospitalization, and we could not evaluate the effect of multi-strategies on colonized organisms.

5. Conclusions

This semi-experimental study found that the comprehensive multi-model strategies reduced the incidence of HAIs and the HAIs caused by MDROs. It also reduced the contamination rate of MDROs in patients’ room environments. These findings demonstrate that these interventions can effectively decrease the burden of MDROs in rehabilitation units.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.L., Y.C. and F.Q.; methodology, S.L., F.Q. and J.L. (Ji Lin); formal analysis, J.L. (Ji Lin), S.T., L.G. and W.H.; investigation, S.L., S.T., J.L. (Jingwen Li) and C.D.; data curation, S.L. and J.L. (Ji Lin); resources, Z.W. and L.L.; writing—original draft, S.L. and F.Q.; writing—review and editing, S.L., F.Q., J.L. (Ji Lin) and W.H.; supervision, F.Q. and S.L.; project administration, Y.C. and F.Q.; visualization, S.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by grants from the China National Health Development Research Center (No. 2020-53).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the ethics committee of West China Hospital of Sichuan University (No. 2023 (651)).

Informed Consent Statement

Patient consent was waived due to the ethical review.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the physicians and allied health staff in the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine of West China Hospital and the Department of Electronic Medical Record system of West China Hospital.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no confict of interest.

References

  1. Zong, Z.; Wu, A.; Hu, B. Infection Control in the Era of Antimicrobial Resistance in China: Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2020, 71, S372–S378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. European Antimicrobial Resistance Collaborators. The burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in the WHO European region in 2019: A cross-country systematic analysis. Lancet Public Health 2022, 7, e897–e913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Global Antimicrobial Resistance and Use Surveillance System (GLASS) Report: 2021. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240027336 (accessed on 5 June 2023).
  4. Johnston, K.J.; Thorpe, K.E.; Jacob, J.T.; Murphy, D.J. The incremental cost of infections associated with multidrug-resistant organisms in the inpatient hospital setting-A national estimate. Health Serv. Res. 2019, 54, 782–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Stewardson, A.J.; Allignol, A.; Beyersmann, J.; Graves, N.; Schumacher, M.; Meyer, R.; Tacconelli, E.; De Angelis, G.; Farina, C.; Pezzoli, F.; et al. The health and economic burden of bloodstream infections caused by antimicrobial-susceptible and non-susceptible Enterobacteriaceae and Staphylococcus aureus in European hospitals, 2010 and 2011: A multicentre retrospective cohort study. Eurosurveillance 2016, 21, 30319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Vasudevan, A.; Memon, B.I.; Mukhopadhyay, A.; Li, J.; Tambyah, P.A. The costs of nosocomial resistant gram negative intensive care unit infections among patients with the systemic inflammatory response syndrome—A propensity matched case control study. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2015, 4, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Morales, E.; Cots, F.; Sala, M.; Comas, M.; Belvis, F.; Riu, M.; Salvadó, M.; Grau, S.; Horcajada, J.P.; Montero, M.M.; et al. Hospital costs of nosocomial multi-drug resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa acquisition. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2012, 12, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Jia, H.; Li, L.; Li, W.; Hou, T.; Ma, H.; Yang, Y.; Wu, A.; Liu, Y.; Wen, J.; Yang, H.; et al. Impact of Healthcare-Associated Infections on Length of Stay: A Study in 68 Hospitals in China. BioMed Res. Int. 2019, 2019, 2590563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Boonstra, M.B.; Spijkerman, D.C.M.; Voor In ’t Holt, A.F.; van der Laan, R.J.; Bode, L.G.M.; van Vianen, W.; Klaassen, C.H.W.; Vos, M.C.; Severin, J.A. An outbreak of ST307 extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae in a rehabilitation center: An unusual source and route of transmission. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2020, 41, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jiang, W.; Li, L.; Wen, S.; Song, Y.; Yu, L.; Tan, B. Gram-negative multidrug-resistant organisms were dominant in neurorehabilitation ward patients in a general hospital in southwest China. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 11087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Allegranzi, B.; Pittet, D. Role of hand hygiene in healthcare-associated infection prevention. J. Hosp. Infect. 2009, 73, 305–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chen, W.; Li, S.; Li, L.; Wu, X.; Zhang, W. Effects of daily bathing with chlorhexidine and acquired infection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus: A meta-analysis. J. Thorac. Dis. 2013, 5, 518–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Septimus, E.J.; Schweizer, M.L. Decolonization in Prevention of Health Care-Associated Infections. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2016, 29, 201–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Hayden, M.K.; Lin, M.Y.; Lolans, K.; Weiner, S.; Blom, D.; Moore, N.M.; Fogg, L.; Henry, D.; Lyles, R.; Thurlow, C.; et al. Prevention of colonization and infection by Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing enterobacteriaceae in long-term acute-care hospitals. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2015, 60, 1153–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ministry of Health of the People’s Republic of China Diagnostic criteria for nosocomial infections(proposed). Natl. Med. J. China 2001, 81, 314–320. [CrossRef]
  16. Heudorf, U.; Berres, M.; Hofmann, S.; Steul, K. Management of patients with multidrug-resistant organisms in rehabilitation facilities. Results of a survey in the Rhine-Main region, Germany, 2019. GMS Hyg. Infect. Control 2020, 15, Doc15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Doherty, A.; McNicholas, S.; Burger, H.; Boldrini, P.; Delargy, M. European survey of management of patients with multidrug-resistant organisms in rehabilitation facilities. Eur. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 2019, 55, 418–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bartolo, M.; Zucchella, C.; Aabid, H.; Valoriani, B.; Copetti, M.; Fontana, A.; Intiso, D.; Mancuso, M. Impact of healthcare-associated infections on functional outcome of severe acquired brain injury during inpatient rehabilitation. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 5245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Steul, K.; Schmehl, C.; Berres, M.; Hofmann, S.; Klaus-Altschuck, A.; Hogardt, M.; Kempf, V.A.; Pohl, M.; Heudorf, U. Multidrug Resistant Organisms (MDRO) in Rehabilitation: Prevalence and Risk Factors for MRGN and VRE. Die Rehabil. 2020, 59, 366–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Li, C.; Liu, Z.; Xie, J.; Zhang, H.; Bai, Z. Effects of PDCA Cycle Quality Management Model on Multi-drug Resistant Organism Infection Control in Reha- bilitation Hospital. Chin. J. Rehabil. Theory Pract. 2016, 22, 1476–1479. [Google Scholar]
  21. Forde, C.; Stierman, B.; Ramon-Pardo, P.; Dos Santos, T.; Singh, N. Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in Barbados: Driving change in practice at the national level. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0176779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Guo, N.; Xue, W.; Tang, D.; Ding, J.; Zhao, B. Risk factors and outcomes of hospitalized patients with blood infections caused by multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii complex in a hospital of Northern China. Am. J. Infect. Control 2016, 44, e37–e39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Kim, S.Y.; Jung, J.Y.; Kang, Y.A.; Lim, J.E.; Kim, E.Y.; Lee, S.K.; Park, S.C.; Chung, K.S.; Park, B.H.; Kim, Y.S.; et al. Risk factors for occurrence and 30-day mortality for carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii bacteremia in an intensive care unit. J. Korean Med. Sci. 2012, 27, 939–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Zhu, H.; Zhou, Y.; Yang, X.; Zheng, S.; Wu, Y.; Chen, G. Construction and application of the closed caregivers closed-loop management scheme of the ward under the pandemic prevention and control. Chin. J. Emerg. Crit. Care Nurs. 2022, 3, 458–463. [Google Scholar]
  25. Chang, W.; Chen, X.; Li, Y.; He, W.; Lin, T. Hand hygiene compliance of caregivers for patients with multidrug-resistant bacteria: A study based on contact path. J. Med. Theory Pract. 2021, 34, 3831–3833. [Google Scholar]
  26. Chang, W.; Chen, X.; Li, Y.; He, W.; Lin, T. Hand contact behaviors among caregivers of patients with multidrug- resistant organism infection. Chin. J. Infect. Control 2021, 20, 1088–1093. [Google Scholar]
  27. WHO. Guidelines for the Prevention and Control of Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae, Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Health Care Facilities. 2017. Available online: http://www.who.int/infection-prevention/publications/guidelines-cre/en/ (accessed on 7 August 2019).
  28. Gontjes, K.J.; Gibson, K.E.; Lansing, B.; Cassone, M.; Mody, L. Contamination of Common Area and Rehabilitation Gym Environment with Multidrug-Resistant Organisms. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2020, 68, 478–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Antibiotics 12 01199 g001 550
Figure 1. Flow chart and cohorts for analyses.
Figure 1. Flow chart and cohorts for analyses.
Antibiotics 12 01199 g001
Antibiotics 12 01199 g002 550
Figure 2. Monthly incidence density of HAIs caused by CRKP, CRAB, CRPA, and MRSA. Abbreviations: HAIs, healthcare-associated infections; CRKP, carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae; CRAB, carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii; CRPA, carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa; MRSA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
Figure 2. Monthly incidence density of HAIs caused by CRKP, CRAB, CRPA, and MRSA. Abbreviations: HAIs, healthcare-associated infections; CRKP, carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae; CRAB, carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii; CRPA, carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa; MRSA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
Antibiotics 12 01199 g002
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the study population in each period.
Table 1. Characteristics of the study population in each period.
All Patients
(n = 6206)		Pre-Intervention Period
(n = 3262)		Intervention Period
(n = 2944)		p Value
Age, mean (SD), y52.96 (16.75)52.14 (17.25)53.87 (16.13)<0.001
Sex (n, %)
Female2646 (42.63)1313 (40.25)1333 (45.28)<0.001
Male3560 (57.36)1949 (59.75)1611 (54.72)
Underlying diseases (n, %)
Hypertension1797 (28.96)959 (29.40)838 (28.46)0.418
Diabetes770 (12.41)404 (12.39)366 (12.43)0.955
Respiratory failure133 (2.14)55 (1.69)78 (2.65)0.009
Tuberculosis40 (0.64)24 (0.74)16 (0.54)0.345
Heart failure103 (1.66)46 (1.41)57 (1.94)0.105
Renal failure93 (1.5)50 (1.53)43 (1.46)0.815
Hepatic insufficiency82 (1.32)40 (1.23)42 (1.43)0.490
Malignant tumors334 (5.38)137 (4.20)197 (6.69)<0.001
Hematological diseases5 (0.08)2 (0.06)3 (0.10)0.909
COPD59 (0.95)27 (0.83)32 (1.09)0.293
HIV5 (0.08)2 (0.06)3 (0.1)0.909
Hemiplegia/Paraplegia1306 (21.04)687 (21.06)619 (21.03)0.973
Mortality (n, %)15 (0.24)9 (0.28)6 (0.20)0.564
Surgery (n, %)1187 (19.13)600 (18.39)587 (19.94)0.065
LOS, median (IQR), d19 (12–22)20 (13–22)18 (11–23)0.467
MDROs at admission (n, %)89 (1.43)44 (1.35)45 (1.53)0.552
Abbreviations: COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; LOS, length of stay.
Table
Table 2. The process index in each period.
Table 2. The process index in each period.
Process IndicatorsPre-Intervention PeriodIntervention Periodp Value
Compliance with hand hygiene (n, %)3937 (90.54%)1771 (89.08%)0.071
HH equipment consumption (mL per patient day)27.6627.380.923
Liquid soap (mL per patient day)7.84 ± 3.1810.92 ± 6.530.156
ABHR (mL per patient day)19.83 ± 5.3616.46 ± 4.670.115
PPE usage
Gloves (pairs per patient day)1.42 ± 0.112.15 ± 0.260.010
Gowns (pieces per 1000 patient day)60.75 ± 14.7264.67 ± 10.010.892
Environment surveillance culture (n, %)18 (21.43%)15 (15.00%)0.259
CRKP14 (16.67%)10 (10.00%)0.182
CRAB4 (4.76%)5 (5.00%)0.940
Abbreviations: HH, hand hygiene; ABHR, alcohol-based hand rub; PPE, personal protective equipment; CRKP, carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae; CRAB, carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii.
Table
Table 3. Effect of multi-strategies on HAIs caused by MDROs.
Table 3. Effect of multi-strategies on HAIs caused by MDROs.
Pre-Intervention PeriodIntervention PeriodRR (95% CI)p Value
Case (n)Incidence Density a (95% CI)Case (n)Incidence Density a (95% CI)
MDROs741.22 (0.96, 1.54)390.70 (0.50, 0.95)0.57 (0.39, 0.84)0.004
CRE340.56 (0.39, 0.79)160.29 (0.16, 0.46)0.51 (0.28,0.92)0.022
CRKP290.48 (0.32, 0.69)110.20 (0.10, 0.35)0.41 (0.20, 0.82)0.008
CR-E. cloacae40.07 (0.02, 0.17)10.02 (0.01,0.10)0.27 (0.30, 2.42)0.199
CR-K. oxytoca10.02 (0, 0.09)20.04 (0.01, 0.13)2.16 (0.19, 23.86)0.262
CR-E.coli00 (0, 0.06)20.04 (0.01, 0.13)----
CRAB230.38 (0.24, 0.57)110.20 (0.10, 0.35)0.52 (0.25, 1.06)0.064
CRPA130.21 (0.11, 0.37)70.13 (0.05, 0.26)0.58 (0.23, 1.46)0.249
MRSA30.05 (0.01, 0.14)50.09 (0.03, 0.21)1.80 (0.43, 7.54)0.209
VRE10.02 (0.01, 0.09)00 (0, 0.07)----
MDRO Infection site711.17 (0.92, 1.48)340.61 (042, 0.85)0.52 (0.34, 0.78)
LRTI470.78 (0.57, 1.03)240.43 (0.27, 0.64)0.55 (0.34, 0.90)0.015
UTI240.40 (0.25, 0.59)100.18 (0.09, 0.33)0.45 (0.22, 0.94)0.027
Notes: a cases per 1000 patient days. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; RR, relative risk; MDROs, multi-drug resistant organisms; CRE, carbapenem-resistant Enterobaceteriacae; CRKP, carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae; CRAB, carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii; CRPA, carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa; VRE, vancomycin-resistant Enterococci; MRSA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; LRTI, lower respiratory tract infection; UTI, urinary tract infection.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, S.; Lin, J.; Tao, S.; Guo, L.; Huang, W.; Li, J.; Du, C.; Wang, Z.; Liu, L.; Chen, Y.; et al. Multi-Model Strategies for Prevention of Infection Caused by Certain Multi-Drug Resistant Organisms in A Rehabilitation Unit: A Semi-Experimental Study. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 1199. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12071199

AMA Style

Li S, Lin J, Tao S, Guo L, Huang W, Li J, Du C, Wang Z, Liu L, Chen Y, et al. Multi-Model Strategies for Prevention of Infection Caused by Certain Multi-Drug Resistant Organisms in A Rehabilitation Unit: A Semi-Experimental Study. Antibiotics. 2023; 12(7):1199. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12071199

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Shiyu, Ji Lin, Siyuan Tao, Linwen Guo, Wenzhi Huang, Jingwen Li, Chunping Du, Zhiting Wang, Liwen Liu, Yi Chen, and et al. 2023. "Multi-Model Strategies for Prevention of Infection Caused by Certain Multi-Drug Resistant Organisms in A Rehabilitation Unit: A Semi-Experimental Study" Antibiotics 12, no. 7: 1199. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12071199

APA Style

Li, S., Lin, J., Tao, S., Guo, L., Huang, W., Li, J., Du, C., Wang, Z., Liu, L., Chen, Y., & Qiao, F. (2023). Multi-Model Strategies for Prevention of Infection Caused by Certain Multi-Drug Resistant Organisms in A Rehabilitation Unit: A Semi-Experimental Study. Antibiotics, 12(7), 1199. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12071199

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop