Post on 29-Mar-2016
description
Report wi
lessons le
will be pa
A new for
Easy acce
Control Re
new Infec
ill be brief sum
earned, NHSN
ckaged in a u
rmat
ss and utiliza
eport (ICR) co
ction Control
mmaries of N
success stor
user friendly f
tion for our u
ontributors, w
Report!
NC Division of
ies, and infor
format for eas
users is impor
we are publish
ICR:FormThe St
Progra
Infecti
and
Epidem
and th
Divisio
Health
embar
new
comm
collab
Going
Infecti
Repor
contin
knowl
expert
and pr
Public Health
rmation relev
sy access and
rtant to us. W
hing ICR as a
NewCollmattatewide
am for
ion Control
miology
he NC
on of Public
h are
rking on a
munication
oration.
forward,
ion Control
rt will
nue to offer u
edge from UN
ts and to high
rogramming.
h reports, NH
vant to long te
d utilization.
With an increa
website in a
laboratio
p applicable
NC infection
hlight relevan
Added to Inf
HSN tips, trick
erm care facil
asing number
blog format.
n,New
nuggets of
prevention
nt literature, n
fection Contro
ks, hints, and
lities. All of th
of Infection
Welcome to
news,
ol
his
the
NorthCarolinaDivisionofPublicHealthHealthcare‐AssociatedInfectionsPreventionProgram:2012Highlightsby Jennifer MacFarquhar, R.N., M.P.H., C.I.C.
Key accomplishments and activities of the North Carolina Healthcare‐
Associated Infections Prevention Program (N.C. HAI Program) in 2012
include the following:
1. Transitioned from a voluntary to a mandatory surveillance program for healthcare‐associated infections (HAI) effective January 1, 2012.
The permanent version of the North Carolina Administrative Code rule specifying requirements for reporting of healthcare‐associated infections from North Carolina hospitals was adopted by the Commission for Public Health on September 20, 2012 and became effective October 1, 2012.
2. Became the third state partner in the One & Only Campaign, a public health campaign led by the CDC and the Safe Injection Practices Coalition that aims to eradicate outbreaks resulting from unsafe injection practices by raising awareness among patients and healthcare providers about safe injection practices.
3. Released first public report on healthcare‐associated infections on October 1, 2012, as required by the NC Administrative Code.
4. Participated or consulted in responses to more than 75 outbreaks in healthcare settings.
�
DecontaminationofHospitalPrivacyCurtainsby Bill Rutala, M.S., M.P.H., Ph.D.
Over the past decade, substantial scientific evidence has accumulated that
contamination of environmental surfaces in hospital rooms plays an important
role in the transmission of several key healthcare‐associated pathogens, including
methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin‐resistant
Enterococcus spp. (VRE), Clostridium difficile, multidrug‐resistant Acinetobacter
spp., and norovirus.1, 2 All of these pathogens have been demonstrated to persist
in the environment for hour to days (and in some cases months), to frequently
contaminate the surface environment and medical equipment in the rooms of colonized or infected
patients, to transiently colonize the hands of healthcare personnel (HCP), to be associated with person‐
to‐person transmission via the hands of HCP, and to cause outbreaks in which environmental
transmission was deemed to play a role. Furthermore, hospitalization in a room in which the previous
patient had been colonized or infected with MRSA, VRE, Clostridium difficile, multidrug‐resistant
Acinetobacter spp., or multidrug‐resistant Pseudomonas has been shown to be a risk factor for
colonization or infection with the same pathogen for the next patient admitted to the room.2
Hospital curtains that surround patients’ beds to provide privacy have been shown to be contaminated
and can be a source of pathogens on the HCP hands.3, 4 Since HCP are less likely to perform hand
hygiene after contact with inanimate objects such as curtains than direct contact with patients, the
pathogens on the curtains can travel to patients via the contaminated hands of HCP. Since privacy
curtains are normally not changed until visible contaminated or at some routine frequency (e.g., 3
months), they may represent a reservoir for epidemiologically important healthcare‐associated
pathogens such as MRSA, VRE, Acinetobacter, C. difficile or other multidrug‐resistant pathogens.
We recently evaluated the ability of a new, improved hydrogen peroxide (1.4%) product in
decontaminating privacy curtains that are contaminated with MRSA, VRE and other pathogens. This was
done by performing pre‐disinfection and post‐disinfection cultures of the “grab area” of the edge of the
curtain at a height of approximately 3‐6 ft from the floor. After the pre‐disinfection cultures had been
collected, the curtain was disinfected by spraying the “grab area” 3 times, from a distance of 6‐8 inches.
The improved hydrogen peroxide was found to reduce ~98.5% of the pathogens on the privacy curtains.
In the ICU rooms on patients on Contact Precautions the microbial contamination of the curtains ranged
from 0‐341 with an average of 43 MRSA/VRE per Rodac. Post‐disinfection the MRSA and VRE were
completely eliminated (100% reduction).
All decontamination technologies have both advantages and disadvantages. A major advantage of
improved hydrogen peroxide is its rapid action, high effectiveness and low toxicity. A disadvantage is it
is more expensive than a quaternary ammonium compound in ready‐to‐use containers. However, the
cost of decontaminating a privacy curtain with improved hydrogen peroxide (product costs for 3 sprays
per curtain was about $0.01; 2.5 mls per three sprays) would be far less that removing the curtain and
replacing with a new curtain between patients. Other options to minimize the risk of curtains as
reservoirs for healthcare‐associated pathogens include: eliminate privacy curtains for patients in private
rooms (the door would be used for privacy but would require support of nursing and medical staff);
change curtains at discharge of patients on Contact Precautions; or use an antimicrobial privacy curtain.
In summary, improved hydrogen peroxide would be an alternative to decontaminating privacy curtains
between patients. The use of improved hydrogen peroxide could be easily integrated into healthcare
practices where the occupancy is high and fast patient room turnaround time is critical.
References
1. Weber DJ, Rutala WA, Miller MB, Huslage K, Sickbert‐Bennett E. Role of hospital surfaces in the
transmission of emerging health care‐associated pathogens: Norovirus, Clostridium difficile, and
Acinetobacter species. Am J Infect Control 2010;38:S25‐33.
2. Otter JA. The role played by contaminated surfaces in the transmission of nosocomial
pathogens. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011;32:687‐99.
3. Trillis F III EE, Budavich R, Pultz MJ, Donskey CJ. Contamination of hospital curtains with
healthcare‐associated pathogens. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29:1074‐6.
4. Neely AN, Maley MP. The 1999 Lindberg award. 3% hydrogen peroxide for the gram‐positive
disinfection of fabrics. Journal of Burn Care & Rehabilitation 1999;20(6):471‐7
SurveyofCarbapenem‐resistantEnterobacteriaceae(CRE)inNorthCarolinaHospitals:KeyFindingsby Kristin Sullivan, M.P.H.
Carbapenem‐resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) are a growing public health
concern and the current topic of CDC’s Vital Signs campaign
(http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/HAI/CRE/index.html). These organisms are
associated with high mortality rates and have the potential to spread widely
through transmissible gene segments. Although CRE prevalence is on the
rise, the opportunity still exists to prevent widespread transmission.
In the United States, the most common mechanism of carbapenem resistance is the Klebsiella
pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC), which was first identified in North Carolina in 2001. Although KPC‐
producing strains of CRE have been identified in our state, other unusual strains with less common
resistance mechanisms such as New Delhi metallo‐β‐lactamase (NDM), Verona integrin‐encoded
metallo‐β‐lactamase (VIM), and the imipenemase (IMP) metallo‐β‐lactamases have not been reported in
North Carolina. These unusual strains have been found primarily among patients who received overnight
medical treatment outside the United States.
In order to prevent the spread of KPC, as well as to detect and prevent the emergence of unusual forms
of CRE, a coordinated, regional effort among providers, healthcare facilities and public health is
necessary.
Hospital Surveys. In order to estimate the prevalence of CRE in our state, the North Carolina Division of
Public Health (NC DPH) and the North Carolina Statewide Program for Infection Control and
Epidemiology (NC SPICE) requested that hospital infection preventionists (IPs) and hospital laboratories
provide basic information regarding identification of and response to CRE in their facilities. In July 2012,
surveys were sent with questions covering the time period from January 2011‐June 2012. The surveys
were specifically developed to determine 1) the frequency of CRE identification in NC, 2) current
practices for detecting CRE and 3) current practices used to prevent transmission.
Preliminary Results. Eighty‐seven eligible short‐stay, acute‐care hospitals were included in the survey
analysis. Survey responses were received from IPs at 68/87 (78%) hospitals and from microbiology labs
serving 57/87 (66%) of these hospitals. Responses were analyzed on the state and regional level using
the 6 geographic regions defined by the North Carolina Hospital Association.
Frequency of CRE identification. CRE were identified in all six regions within North Carolina during the
survey period. At least one patient with CRE infection or colonization was identified in approximately
half of hospitals completing the IP survey. CRE were identified less frequently than once per month in
the majority of facilities. Given these findings, all regions in North Carolina can be classified as "regions
with few CRE identified" using criteria established by CDC and outlined in the 2012 CRE Toolkit.
Current practices for detecting CRE. Laboratories were asked to report current methods used to identify
CRE, use of interpretive criteria and future expected capabilities for CRE detection. The majority of
responding laboratories indicated the use of automated MIC systems, followed by screening using
automated susceptibility testing and the Modified Hodge Test. At the time of the survey, fewer than
25% of laboratories reported adopting the new January 2012 breakpoints for carbapenems or
cephalosporins. Approximately 40% of laboratories not using the new breakpoints indicated that they
were planning to do so within the next year.
Less than 10% of hospitals reported having ever conducted point prevalence surveys for CRE in high‐risk
units (e.g., intensive care units or units with high antimicrobial use) or performing active surveillance for
patients with known risk factors (e.g., admission or transfer from an area with high prevalence of CRE).
Nineteen facilities (28%) reported that they had performed a review of microbiology records to identify
previously unrecognized CRE cases.
Current practices used to prevent transmission. The most frequently reported prevention strategies
used when a CRE colonized or infected patient was identified included: placing the patient on contact
precautions (97%), placing the patient in a single‐patient room when possible (84%) and enhancing hand
hygiene practices (68%). Facilities often reported implementing more than one measure.
The inter‐facility sharing of patients colonized or infected with CRE has the potential to facilitate
transmission of CRE. Ninety‐seven percent of facilities reported always or sometimes communicating
CRE status to the receiving facility when CRE‐infected or ‐colonized patients are transferred out of the
hospital. However, only 16% of facilities reported ever inquiring about the CRE status of incoming
patients.
Conclusions. Survey results indicate that CRE are present in all regions of North Carolina but is still
identified infrequently in most facilities. To prevent these organisms from becoming more widespread,
providers, healthcare facilities and public health entities must all recognize them as epidemiologically
important and engage in coordinated control efforts.
Baseline information from this survey will help partners better understand the epidemiology of CRE in
North Carolina and better tailor strategies to minimize transmission. The 2012 CRE Toolkit provides
detailed guidance for the detection and prevention of CRE at the facility and regional levels. Public
health professionals, infection preventionists and other stakeholders should familiarize themselves with
this document and ensure that appropriate measures are in place to control the spread of CRE within
and among facilities.
CRE infections can be prevented using the guidelines outlined in the toolkit. Strict adherence to
recommended procedures will allow us to take advantage of this unique opportunity to control the
spread of this multi‐drug resistant organism before it becomes widespread in North Carolina.
For more information about CRE, please visit the NC Healthcare‐Associated Infections website at:
http://epi.publichealth.nc.gov/cd/hai/providers.html.
CDCIssuesVitalSignsReportonCREby Kirk Huslage, R.N., B.S.N., M.S.P.H., C.I.C.
Carbapenem‐resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) (e.g., E. coli, K.
pneumoniae) are The data provided in the CDC report are not surprising,
given the international emergence of these “superbugs”, but they are still
rather sobering. In fact, in the press conference held by the Director of
the CDC, Dr. Thomas Frieden stated:
CRE… pose a triple threat. First, they’re resistant to all or nearly all
antibiotics ‐ even some of our last‐resort drugs. Second, they have high mortality rates. They
kill up to half of people who get serious infections with them. And third, they can spread their
resistance to other bacteria. So one form of bacteria, for example, carbapenem‐resistant
Klebsiella, can spread the genes that destroy our last antibiotics to other bacteria, such as E. coli,
and make E. coli resistant to those antibiotics also… We only have a limited window of
opportunity.
Data from CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) and The Surveillance Network – USA (TSN)
revealed the proportion of Enterobacteriaceae that were CRE rose from 1.2% in 2001 to 4.2% in 2011 in
NHSN hospitals and to 1.4% by 2010 in TSN facilities – A four‐fold increase over 10 years. In Klebsiella
species, the situation is dire with 10.4% classified as CRE in 2011. By 2012, 4.6% of all facilities, 3.9% of
short stay hospitals and 17.8% of long‐term acute‐care hospitals reported at least one CRE in their
facility. Moreover, healthcare institutions in 42 state have now identified at least one case of CRE.
Trends in Resistance to Carbapenems and Third‐Generation Cephalosporins among Clinical Isolates of
Klebsiella pneumoniae in the United States, 1999–2010
So what are the current CDC recommendations for management of the CRE cases? CDC continues to
recommend that facilities follow the CDC guidance for preventing the spread of CRE in healthcare
settings (http://www.cdc.gov/hai/organisms/cre/cre‐toolkit/index.html).
Facilities should:
Ensure that the patient is on Contact Precautions.
Reinforce and evaluate adherence to hand hygiene and Contact Precautions for healthcare personnel who come into contact with the patient (e.g., enter the patient’s room).
Since clinical cultures will identify only a minority of patients with CRE, screen epidemiologically linked patient contacts for CRE colonization with stool, rectal, or perirectal cultures. At a minimum, this should include persons with whom the CRE patient shared a room but could also include patients who were treated by the same healthcare personnel. A laboratory‐based screening protocol is available here: (http://www.cdc.gov/HAI/pdfs/labSettings/Klebsiella_or_Ecoli.pdf)
Should the patient be transferred to another healthcare facility, ensure that the presence of CRE colonization or infection is communicated to the accepting facility. An example transfer form is available here (http://www.cdc.gov/HAI/toolkits/InterfacilityTransferCommunicationForm11‐2010.pdf).
Dedicate rooms and staff to CRE patients when possible. It is preferred that staff caring for CRE patients do not also care for non‐CRE patients.
Remove temporary medical devices as soon as they are no longer needed.
Use antibiotic conservatively
In addition to that guidance, CDC now also recommends the following for patients who had overnight
healthcare stays outside of the US within the last 6 months:
When a CRE is identified in a patient (infection or colonization) with a history of an overnight stay in a healthcare facility (within the last 6 months) outside the United States, send the isolate to a reference laboratory for confirmatory susceptibility testing and test to determine the carbapenem resistance mechanism; at a minimum, this should include evaluation for KPC and NDM carbapenemases.
For patients admitted to healthcare facilities in the United States after recently being hospitalized (within the last 6 months) in countries outside the United States, consider each of the following:
o Perform rectal screening cultures to detect CRE colonization.
o Place patients on Contact Precautions while awaiting the results of these screening cultures.
References:
MJ Scwaber, et. al (2011). Containment of a Country‐wide Outbreak of Carbapenem‐Resistant Klebsiella
Pneumoniae in Israeli Hospitals via a Nationally Implemented Intervention. Clin Infect Dis, 52(7): 848‐
855
Vital Signs: Carbapenem‐Resistant Enterobacteriaceae (2013). MMWR, 62(9):165‐170
CDC CRE Toolkit (http://www.cdc.gov/hai/organisms/cre/cre‐toolkit)
N Braykov, et al (2013). Trends in resistance to carbapenems and third‐gen. cephalosporins among
clinical isolates of Klebsiella pneumoniae in the US, 1999‐2010. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol;34(3):259‐
268
TipsandTricksforNavigatingNHSNGroupRights...AgainandAgainby Cindi Snider, Ph.D.
Already enrolled in the NC DPH user group (User ID: 15728)? Great! Never
have to deal with granting data access rights again? Not quite… Although
the following discussion will focus on the NC DPH user group, keep in
mind that it applies to other user groups as well.
Once a member of the NC DPH user group, your hospital will be
periodically asked to re‐confer data access rights. Why? When reporting requirements change, NC DPH’s
access to hospital data will need to change. For example, NC DPH only had access to hospital data for
CLABSI and CAUTI (in ICUs) as well as SSI (post abdominal hysterectomy and colon surgery) for 2012. In
preparation for the new LabID MRSA bacteremia and C. difficile reporting in January 2013, rights had to
be re‐conferred in fall 2012. NC DPH led changes to data access rights results in NHSN notices in the
“Alerts” page.
But that is not the only type of change that affects NC DPH’s access to hospital data. A common change
is when hospitals add or remove reporting units or wards in NHSN for CLABSI and CAUTI. These types of
changes do not lead to alerts or notifications sent to NC DPH. NC DPH only becomes aware of these
changes when the monthly reconciliation report contains missing data for the unit or ward. Cue the
ominous music…
How can we avoid missing data? Well, data are not missing in NHSN; NC DPH does not have access to
the unit or ward data. This is because when a unit or ward is added, NHSN does not automatically grant
user groups like NC DPH rights to the data. This is a manual step that hospitals have to perform.
What should a hospital do when it adds a unit for reporting or stops reporting from a unit?
1. When reporting stops for a unit or ward: the unit or ward should be changed from “active” to “inactive” in the locations set up in NHSN.
2. When reporting begins for a unit or ward: NC DPH needs hospitals to confer data access rights for the new reporting unit and ward in NHSN.
a. Log into NHSN. At the “NHSN Patient Safety Component Home Page”, go to the blue bar to the left and click Group‐>Confer Rights.
b. Click on the NC Division of Public Health (User ID: 15728). Make sure it is highlighted in blue. Click on the gray “confer rights” button to the right and click “OK” when the pop up screen appears.
c.
d
e
f.
g.
3. FinallyThis wa newward the un
That’s it!
to NC DP
hospital is
And don’t
. Once at thother EvenRequiremebetween sversus inp
. Once the “N/A” is uCLABSI) is to sharing
. Click on thdrop downinforms NHRepeat steshared unl
. Once all ne
y, email NC Dwill ensure futw unit or wardhave been conit or ward, s
Now your ho
PH. Please re
s a member.
t forget – only
he “Confer Rnts (Not specent” box in tshort‐term aatient rehabicorrect eventunchecked. Ifnot to be shadata with NChe box under n. Check the HSN that dataeps d‐e for alless it is a newecessary chan
DPH at nchai@ture monthlyd will begin, monferred to Nimply reques
ospital has su
member thes
Questions? E
y you can cha
Rights‐Patientific to MDRO/this section. Tcute care holitation facilitt has been idf it is checkeared with NC C DPH. “Your Locatibox to the lea from this lol events to bew reporting Nnges have bee
@dhhs.nc.govy reconciliatiomake sure to NC DPH. If yost for assistan
ccessfully gra
se steps sho
Email nchai@
ange your hos
t Safety” pag/CDI)”. Find tThis box inclospitals (ACHties (IRFs). dentified, maed, the interDPH. Therefo
ons”. The neeft of the newcation are to e shared withNICU (CLABSI en made, scro
v detailing whon reports areinclude in theou would like ce in the ema
anted data ac
uld also be c
dhhs.nc.gov a
spital’s data i
ge, go to thethe correct evudes a label
Hs), long‐term
ke sure the crpretation is ore ensuring
ew reporting w reporting ube shared wh NC DPH; CLonly). oll to the bot
hich unit or we not flagged e email that d NC DPH’s asail and a team
ccess rights to
completed fo
and let us kno
n NHSN; NC D
e section titlevent using thethat helps d
m acute care
check box to that data fothis box is un
location shouunit or ward.ith NC DPH. LABSI and CAU
tom and click
ward will startas missing dadata access rissistance in cm member wi
o a new repo
or other user
ow how we c
DPH can acce
ed “Infectione “Other Locadifferentiate hospitals (L
the far left uor this eventnchecked is c
uld be listed . Checking th
UTI data shou
k “Accept”.
t or stop repoata. If reportiights to the uonferring rigill contact you
orting unit or
r groups that
can help.
ess the data.
s and ations rights LTACs)
under t (e.g. critical
in the e box
uld be
orting. ng for unit or hts to u.
ward
t your
OneHospital'sRoadtoZeroCLABSIsby Connie Jones, R.N., C.I.C.
Working with the NC Prevent CLABSI Collaborative, the Vascular Access
Safety Team (V.A.S.T.) at CaroMont Health in Gastonia has reduced Central
Line‐associated Bloodstream Infection (CLABSI) rates to zero across all of
their ICUs for the past six months with the following strategies:
Implemented the IHI Central Line Insertion Bundle at high compliance.
Initiated house‐wide, extensive staff education and incorporated annual competencies for central lines into all staffs’ job descriptions calling for accessing the vascular system.
Implemented a maintenance bundle in 2011 when they recognized that the CLABSIs they did have were occurring, on average, ten days after line insertion, indicating inoculation was most likely happening after line insertion. The bundle included: strict hand hygiene when the central line was entered/manipulated; scrubbing hubs/ports with a sterile 70 percent isopropyl alcohol wipe for at least 15 seconds prior to entering to administer medications, draw blood, etc.; and ensuring all ports were capped at all times. Cap styles were changed and standardized throughout the hospital to promote better disinfection.
Ensuring line dressing changes were performed according to policy written based on the most up‐to‐date published scientific evidence.
Ensuring daily patient rounds to assess need for medical devices such as central lines to promote discontinuation unless medically indicated. (A checklist was developed to help guide these rounds).
Ensuring blood specimens were consistently drawn per current medical science recommendations, e.g. not drawn through central lines unless there was no other alternative.
In early 2012, there was a cluster of CLABSI infections in the hospital. Unable to find a single cause for
the infections, the team searched for additional prevention strategies. At the NC Prevent CLABSI in‐
person conference in May 2012, they learned about the interventional patient hygiene (IPH) strategy of
bathing with the antimicrobial solution chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG). A cost analysis showed the cost‐
per‐bath would increase by $4.68 for the CHG bathing, but there would be an estimated cost savings of
$114,695 if CLABSI rates were to decrease to zero. Subsequently, VAST developed a three‐month pilot in
their surgical ICU. There were no CLABSIs during the pilot, so the CHG bathing protocols were
implemented throughout the house. CLABSI rates fell to zero from July through December 2012 in all
four of CaroMont Health’s ICUs. The team credited strong support from the organization and the Chief
Medical Officer.
Contact David Avalos, BSN, RN, OCN, CaroMont Infection Preventionist at
AvalosD@CaroMontHealth.org.
Excerpted from N.C. Quality Highlights, Feb. 2013. N.C. Center for Hospital Quality and Patient Safety
InsulinPenReuseImplicatedinPotentialBloodbornePathogenExposuresinNYandNCby Kirk Huslage, R.N., B.S.N., M.S.P.H., C.I.C.
At least two Veterans Affairs (V.A.) medical centers in New York and North Carolina, and one general
hospital in New York have recently detected potential exposures as a result of improper insulin pen re‐
use in former inpatients. Officials in the Buffalo V.A. Medical Center (N.Y.) uncovered several incidents
over a two year period where multi‐dose insulin pens intended for use by a single patient were reused
on more than one patient. Although the needles were changed, the stored insulin could have been
contaminated by a back flow of blood; changing the needle does not make it safe for multi‐patient use.
As a result of these unsafe injection practices at least 700 former inpatients were notified and tested.
The case in New York prompted an audit of practices in all V.A. medical centers across the country.
During an audit at the W.G. Hefner V.A. Medical Center in Salisbury, N.C., auditors uncovered insulin pen
re‐use identical to what was reported in NY.
So far, at least 200 former inpatients have
been notified and tested following the
potential exposures.
A similar case to those reported at the V.A.s
occurred at Olean General Hospital in New
York. Multiple instances of inadvertent reuse
among inpatients from 2009‐2013, resulting in
notification of more than 2000 former
inpatients. Following notification, at least 3
lawsuits have been filed by former patients
alleging contracting hepatitis C as a result of
the exposure and a potential class action suit
against the hospital, its managing
organization, and two pharmaceutical
companies who manufactured pens used by
the hospital.
All facilities have suspended use of insulin
pens.
Insulin Pen Safety Recommendations
Insulin pens are meant for use on a single person only, and should never be used for more than one person, even when the needle is changed.
Insulin pens should be clearly labeled with the person’s name or other identifying information to ensure that the correct pen is used only on the correct individual.
If use of a pen for more than 1 person is identified, consider this a reportable error; exposed patients should be promptly notified and offered appropriate follow‐up, including bloodborne pathogen testing.
These recommendations apply to any setting where insulin pens are used, including assisted living or
residential care facilities, skilled nursing facilities, clinics, health fairs, shelters, detention facilities, senior
centers, schools, and camps as well as licensed healthcare facilities. Protection from infections, including
bloodborne pathogens, is a basic expectation anywhere healthcare is provided. Use of insulin pens for
more than one person, like other forms of syringe reuse, imposes unacceptable risks and should be
considered a 'never event'. Hospitals and other facilities should review their policies and educate their
staff regarding safe use of insulin pens and similar devices.
References:
CBS News, January 15, 2013. N.Y. hospital patients potentially exposed to HIV, hepatitis through reused
insulin pens. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301‐204_162‐57564040/n.y‐hospital‐patients‐potentially‐
exposed‐to‐hiv‐hepatitis‐through‐reused‐insulin‐pens/)
E Cook. Misuse of insulin pens at VA leads to testing. Salisbury Post, March 8, 2013. Print
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Safe Injection Practices Coalition (SIPC)
RegulatoryUpdate:CMSIssuesClarificationofFTag441‐LaundryandInfectionControlby Kirk Huslage, R.N., B.S.N., M.S.P.H., C.I.C.
On January 25, 2013, The Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services
(CMS) released a memo notifying State
Survey Agencies of a change. The memo
addressed laundry detergents with and
without antimicrobial claims, use of
chlorine bleach rinses, water
temperatures during the process of
washing laundry, maintenance of laundry
equipment and items, and ozone laundry
cleaning systems. The summary of
changes is as follows:
Laundry Detergents – New laundry detergents are more effective at removing soil and reducing the presence of microbes. CMS has determined that facilities may use any detergent designated for laundry in laundry processing, and are not required to have antimicrobial claims. Facilities should follow manufacturers’ Instructions for Use (IFUs)
Water Temperatures and Chlorine Bleach Rinses ‐ Laundry processing within facilities occurs at a lower temperature, and many laundry items are made of bleach incompatible materials. Chlorine bleach rinse is not required for all laundry items processed in low temperature washing environments due to improvements in detergents in producing hygienically clean laundry without bleach. Chlorine bleach rinse may still be used for items composed of materials like cotton. Hot water washing at temperatures ≥160°F for 25 minutes and low temperature washing at 71‐77°F with a 125 ppm chlorine bleach rinse remain effective ways to process
laundry. For facilities using hot water (≥160°F), the temperature must be maintained for 25 minutes.
Maintenance of Equipment and Laundry Items ‐ Facilities do not have to maintain a record of water temperatures during laundry processing cycles. Facilities should leave washing machines open to air when not in use to prevent microbial growth. Facilities must follow manufactures’ IFUs for all laundry processing items (e.g., washing machines, dryers, detergents, and other additives), and for all clothing, linens, and other laundry items to determine the appropriate method for producing hygienically clean products.
Ozone Cleaning – Ozone systems are relatively new, but have been determined by CMS and CDC to be acceptable methods for processing laundry. Facilities utilizing this processing method must follow manufacturer’s IFUs, and have an agreement between the laundry service and facility that laundry will be hygienically clean and handled in a way to prevent re‐contamination during loading and transport.
NursingHomesGetTheirVeryOwnSoap!By Amy Powell, M.P.H.
A partnership between the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and NC Division of Health Service Regulation has provided funding for the development of educational modules to promote infection prevention in nursing homes. During the two year funding period SPICE will develop four modules: management of antibiotic resistant bacteria, isolation precautions, safe injection practices, and environmental disinfection. The modules will be web-based and user-friendly with the aim of reaching a wide array of healthcare personnel. The only proven method to increase compliance with key infection control activities is ongoing, periodic education. The first module, Antibiotic Resistant Organisms, was launched on February 25th. A second module on Isolation Precautions will roll out later this spring.
“We are excited about the opportunity to put together learning modules that will engage and educate nursing home personnel across NC and beyond,” said SPICE Associate Director, Kirk Huslage. “While the end goal is reducing healthcare-associated infections in nursing homes, learners will be on the edge of their seats to find out what happens next on our nursing home soap opera, Gowns and Gloves,” said Huslage.
Soap opera mini-episodes that appear throughout the first two modules reinforce information presented in a more traditional slide format. The learning modules are intentionally developed to educate all nursing home employees – not just nursing staff. “Infection control and prevention is so fundamental,” said Huslage. “Bad bugs may have long scientific names that are hard to pronounce, but other than that – this is not rocket science. Good hand hygiene is key, and there’s nothing difficult about that.”
NC nursing homes will be notified by email about the launch of each module. “We hope that viewers will find the soap opera vignettes engaging and fun, and that the modules will be viewed by many. Who knows – they may even go viral!” said Huslage. (Excuse the pun.)
GownsandGlovesSoapOperawinsaTellyAwardThe Telly Awards has named SPICE and Rucci Productions as an Bronze winner in the 34th Annual Telly
Awards for our piece titled Gowns and Gloves. With nearly 11,000 entries from all 50 states and
numerous countries, this is truly an honor.
The Telly Awards was founded in 1979 and is the premier award honoring outstanding local, regional,
and cable TV commercials and programs, the finest video and film productions, and online commercials,
video and films. Winners represent the best work of the most respected advertising agencies,
production companies, television stations, cable operators, and corporate video departments in the
world.
For its 34th season, The Telly Awards once again joined forces with YouTube to give the public the
power to view and rate videos submitted as part of the People’s
Telly Awards. In addition to recognition from the Silver Telly
Council, the judging panel that selects the Telly Awards winners,
the Internet community helps decide the People’s Telly Awards
winners.
A prestigious judging panel of over 500 accomplished industry
professionals, each a past winner of a Silver Telly and a member of
The Silver Telly Council, judged the competition, upholding the
historical standard of excellence that Telly represents. The Silver
Council evaluated entries to recognize distinction in creative work
– entries do not compete against each other – rather entries are
judged against a high standard of merit. Less than 10% of entries
are chosen as Winners of the Silver Telly, our highest honor.
Approximately 25% of entries are chosen as Winners of the Bronze
Telly.
“The Telly Awards has a mission to honor the very best in film and video,” said Linda Day, Executive
Director of the Telly Awards. “SPICE and Rucci Productions' accomplishment illustrates their creativity,
skill, and dedication to their craft and serves as a testament to great film and video production.”
demonstraDisease Crecommeinfluenza track influto improvepersonneuse of mocan often demonstra
UNC Heaprofessioncontra-ind9,529 wer(94.4%) wreligious eown medivaccine caand our p
Also of intinfluenza vaccine, a(numbersinactivate
ated to reducControl and Pnded that all vaccine. Furenza vaccinee uptake of thl, providing va
obile carts, anachieve immated that to e
alth Care madnal staff) for tdications are vre compliant w
were vaccinateexemption; 1,cal provider. an successfuatients and h
terest, at UNCvaccine (IIV)
and inactivateare an approd intradermal
InfluenzaaPrograVaccineby David
Each yearleading toincreased(e.g., obesimmunococoverage
ce the risk of arevention (CDhealthcare perthermore, The coverage byhe vaccine incaccine at con
nd rewards forunization covxceed these
e receipt of inhe 2012-2013valid reasonswith our policyed, 116 (1.2%048 employe Our experienlly be made aealthcare fac
C Health Carewhich is give
ed intradermaoximate): inacl vaccine, 580
aImmunizamwhereCo
Weber, M.D.
r approximateo thousands o
in persons wsity, diabetesompromised (rates of influe
acquisition of DC) and manersonnel, unlee Joint Comm
y healthcare pcluding the fovenient timesr taking vacciverage of 70%levels, influen
nfluenza imm3 influenza se for not receivy (99.9%) and
%) had medicaees provided dnce at UNC Ha condition of ilities should
e we allow ouen as an intra-al influenza vactivated IM va0.
ationatUNContinuedEm
., M.P.H.
ely 10% to 20of deaths. Thewho are very ys, renal failure(e.g., HIV-infeenza vaccine influenza by y professionaess they havemission (TJC)personnel. Mllowing: prov
s and locationne. By using
% to 80%. Honza immuniza
unization a coeason. We diving vaccine. d the other 4 al contra-indicdocumentatioHealth Care d
employmentcomply with C
ur healthcare -muscular inje
accine. Our paccine, 8600,
CHealthCaremployeeisC
0% of Americae risk of seveyoung, older, e, cardiac diseected, solid oramong healtpatients. For
al organizatione a medical co) and CMS reany intervent
viding vaccinens, strong supg ALL these inowever, publisation must be
ondition of emid accept relig Of 9,533 emwere terminacations, and 3
on of receipt oemonstrates . Influenza vaCDC and TJC
personnel to ection (IM), at
personnel mad attenuated in
e:Impactofonditionalo
ans develop vere illness and
have comorbease), or are rgan transplathcare personr these reasons (e.g., SHEontra-indicatio
equire that heations have bee at no cost topport by senionterventions hshed papers h a condition o
mployment (ogious objectio
mployees at Uated. Overall,370 (3.88%) w
of influenza vathat receipt oaccine protec
C recommend
choose amonttenuated inhde the followinhaled vaccin
fImplementonReceipto
viral influenzad death is bid conditions
ant, cancer). Hnnel have beens, the Cente
EA, APIC) havon receive althcare facilien demonstra
o healthcare or administrathealthcare fachave of employmen
r accreditatioons and mediUNC Health C, 9,002 emplowere grantedaccine by theof influenza cts our employdations for use
ng inactivatedhaled influenzing choices ne, 460, and
tingof
a
s
High en ers for ve
ties ated
ion, cilities
nt.
n for cal
Care, oyees d a ir
yees e.
d a