Ulrich Nikos, Gastmeier Petra
Institute for Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Charité - University Medicine, Berlin, Germany.
GMS Hyg Infect Control. 2017 Aug 28;12:Doc14. doi: 10.3205/dgkh000299. eCollection 2017.
Some infection control recommendations distinguish epidemic and endemic levels for infection control. However, it is often difficult to separate long lasting outbreaks from high endemic levels and it remains open, if this distinction is really useful. To compare infection control measures in endemic and epidemic outbreaks. The example of vancomycin-resistant outbreaks in haematology or oncology departments was used to analyse differences in infection control measures between outbreaks and high endemic levels. The outbreak database and PubMed, including long lasting outbreaks, were used for this analysis. Two time limits were used for separation: 6 and 12 months. In addition, monoclonal and polyclonal outbreaks were distinguished. A total of 36 outbreaks were included. 13 outbreaks lasted 6 months or less, 9 outbreaks more than 6 months but at maximum 12 months and 9 more than 12 months. For the remaining outbreaks, no information about their duration was available. Altogether, 11 outbreaks were monoclonal and 20 polyclonal. Considering infection control measures, there were almost no differences between the different groups compared. Patient screening was given up in 37.5% of long lasting outbreaks (>12 months) and hand hygiene not reported in the majority of polyclonal outbreaks (77.8%). Despite many institutions trying to add further infection control measures in case of an outbreak, evidence based infection control measures should be implemented in endemic and epidemic situations. The crucial aspect is probably the degree of implementation and its control in both situations.
一些感染控制建议区分了感染控制的流行水平和地方流行水平。然而,通常很难将持续时间较长的暴发与高地方流行水平区分开来,而且这种区分是否真的有用仍无定论。为了比较地方流行和流行暴发中的感染控制措施。以血液科或肿瘤科耐万古霉素暴发为例,分析暴发与高地方流行水平之间感染控制措施的差异。本次分析使用了暴发数据库和PubMed,包括持续时间较长的暴发。使用了两个时间界限进行区分:6个月和12个月。此外,区分了单克隆和多克隆暴发。共纳入36起暴发。13起暴发持续6个月或更短时间,9起暴发持续时间超过6个月但最长为12个月,另有9起暴发持续时间超过12个月。对于其余暴发,没有关于其持续时间的信息。总共,11起暴发为单克隆,20起为多克隆。考虑到感染控制措施,所比较的不同组之间几乎没有差异。在37.5%的持续时间较长的暴发(>12个月)中放弃了患者筛查,在大多数多克隆暴发(77.8%)中未报告手部卫生情况。尽管许多机构在暴发时试图增加进一步的感染控制措施,但在地方流行和流行情况下都应实施基于证据的感染控制措施。关键方面可能是这两种情况下措施的实施程度及其控制情况。