Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018 August 30; Volume 39; DOI:10.1017/ice.2018.213
Chaintarli K, Lenglet AD, Beauzile BD, Senat-Delva R, Mabou MM, et al.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018 August 30; Volume 39; DOI:10.1017/ice.2018.213
Patient colonization with extended-spectrum β-lactamase–producing gram-negative bacteria (ESBL-GNB) could serve as a
potential reservoir for transmission of multidrug-resistant (MDR)
bacteria in a hospital setting. Individuals colonized with ESBLEnterobacteriaceae are also known to be at a higher risk of ESBLGNB infection following their colonization.1 We encountered an
outbreak of MDR Klebsiella pneumoniae in the neonatal care unit
(NCU) of the Médecins Sans Frontiéres (MSF) obstetric emergency hospital in Port au Prince (CRUO), Haiti, between 2014
and 2015.2 As part of ongoing surveillance activities for MDR
bacteria and in an effort to better target infection, prevention,
and control (IPC) measures throughout the hospital, we conducted a point-prevalence survey to estimate the prevalence of
colonization with ESBL-GNB and to identify risk factors for
colonization with ESBL-GNB in women and neonates admitted
to this hospital.
potential reservoir for transmission of multidrug-resistant (MDR)
bacteria in a hospital setting. Individuals colonized with ESBLEnterobacteriaceae are also known to be at a higher risk of ESBLGNB infection following their colonization.1 We encountered an
outbreak of MDR Klebsiella pneumoniae in the neonatal care unit
(NCU) of the Médecins Sans Frontiéres (MSF) obstetric emergency hospital in Port au Prince (CRUO), Haiti, between 2014
and 2015.2 As part of ongoing surveillance activities for MDR
bacteria and in an effort to better target infection, prevention,
and control (IPC) measures throughout the hospital, we conducted a point-prevalence survey to estimate the prevalence of
colonization with ESBL-GNB and to identify risk factors for
colonization with ESBL-GNB in women and neonates admitted
to this hospital.
Journal Article > ReviewFull Text
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2020 October 8; Volume 42 (Issue 1); DOI:10.1017/ice.2020.1243
Toomey EC, Conway Y, Burton C, Smith SL, Smalle M, et al.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2020 October 8; Volume 42 (Issue 1); DOI:10.1017/ice.2020.1243
Background: Shortages of personal protective equipment during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have led to the extended use or reuse of single-use respirators and surgical masks by frontline healthcare workers. The evidence base underpinning such practices warrants examination.
Objectives: To synthesize current guidance and systematic review evidence on extended use, reuse, or reprocessing of single-use surgical masks or filtering face-piece respirators.
Data sources: We used the World Health Organization, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Public Health England websites to identify guidance. We used Medline, PubMed, Epistemonikos, Cochrane Database, and preprint servers for systematic reviews.
Methods: Two reviewers conducted screening and data extraction. The quality of included systematic reviews was appraised using AMSTAR-2. Findings were narratively synthesized.
Results: In total, 6 guidance documents were identified. Levels of detail and consistency across documents varied. They included 4 high-quality systematic reviews: 3 focused on reprocessing (decontamination) of N95 respirators and 1 focused on reprocessing of surgical masks. Vaporized hydrogen peroxide and ultraviolet germicidal irradiation were highlighted as the most promising reprocessing methods, but evidence on the relative efficacy and safety of different methods was limited. We found no well-established methods for reprocessing respirators at scale.
Conclusions: Evidence on the impact of extended use and reuse of surgical masks and respirators is limited, and gaps and inconsistencies exist in current guidance. Where extended use or reuse is being practiced, healthcare organizations should ensure that policies and systems are in place to ensure these practices are carried out safely and in line with available guidance.
Objectives: To synthesize current guidance and systematic review evidence on extended use, reuse, or reprocessing of single-use surgical masks or filtering face-piece respirators.
Data sources: We used the World Health Organization, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Public Health England websites to identify guidance. We used Medline, PubMed, Epistemonikos, Cochrane Database, and preprint servers for systematic reviews.
Methods: Two reviewers conducted screening and data extraction. The quality of included systematic reviews was appraised using AMSTAR-2. Findings were narratively synthesized.
Results: In total, 6 guidance documents were identified. Levels of detail and consistency across documents varied. They included 4 high-quality systematic reviews: 3 focused on reprocessing (decontamination) of N95 respirators and 1 focused on reprocessing of surgical masks. Vaporized hydrogen peroxide and ultraviolet germicidal irradiation were highlighted as the most promising reprocessing methods, but evidence on the relative efficacy and safety of different methods was limited. We found no well-established methods for reprocessing respirators at scale.
Conclusions: Evidence on the impact of extended use and reuse of surgical masks and respirators is limited, and gaps and inconsistencies exist in current guidance. Where extended use or reuse is being practiced, healthcare organizations should ensure that policies and systems are in place to ensure these practices are carried out safely and in line with available guidance.