BACKGROUND: Incidence of carbapenemase-producing enterobacteriaceae (CPE) in the UK is increasing. In 2013, Public Health England (PHE) published a toolkit to control spread of CPE within healthcare settings. AIM: To assess compliance to hospital CPE policy (adapted from PHE) in the identification, isolation and screening of suspected CPE patients. METHODS: Admission booklets of 150 patients were evaluated to see whether the relevant section had been completed to identify high-risk CPE patients. Where necessary, patients were interviewed or their GPs were contacted to assess their CPE risk. Additionally, 28 patients screened for CPE were audited to assess compliance to screening and isolation. FINDINGS: Only 23 patients out of 147 (15.6%) were risk assessed on admission. Risk status of 27 (18.4%) patients could not be assessed due to lack of data. Fifteen patients out of 28 (54%) screened for CPE were identified and isolated on admission. Ten out of 19 patients (53%) had three screens 48 h apart. DISCUSSION: This audit highlights difficulties in screening based on individual risk factors as the majority of patients were not screened on admission and documentation on isolation and screening was poor. More needs to be done to raise awareness of the requirements for routine assessment, isolation and screening.
BACKGROUND: Incidence of carbapenemase-producing enterobacteriaceae (CPE) in the UK is increasing. In 2013, Public Health England (PHE) published a toolkit to control spread of CPE within healthcare settings. AIM: To assess compliance to hospital CPE policy (adapted from PHE) in the identification, isolation and screening of suspected CPE patients. METHODS: Admission booklets of 150 patients were evaluated to see whether the relevant section had been completed to identify high-risk CPE patients. Where necessary, patients were interviewed or their GPs were contacted to assess their CPE risk. Additionally, 28 patients screened for CPE were audited to assess compliance to screening and isolation. FINDINGS: Only 23 patients out of 147 (15.6%) were risk assessed on admission. Risk status of 27 (18.4%) patients could not be assessed due to lack of data. Fifteen patients out of 28 (54%) screened for CPE were identified and isolated on admission. Ten out of 19 patients (53%) had three screens 48 h apart. DISCUSSION: This audit highlights difficulties in screening based on individual risk factors as the majority of patients were not screened on admission and documentation on isolation and screening was poor. More needs to be done to raise awareness of the requirements for routine assessment, isolation and screening.
Authors: K Poole; R George; V Decraene; K Shankar; J Cawthorne; N Savage; W Welfare; A Dodgson Journal: J Hosp Infect Date: 2016-06-29 Impact factor: 3.926
Authors: Jonathan A Otter; Eleonora Dyakova; Karen N Bisnauthsing; Antonio Querol-Rubiera; Amita Patel; Chioma Ahanonu; Olga Tosas Auguet; Jonathan D Edgeworth; Simon D Goldenberg Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2016-08-11 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Jacqueline Findlay; Katie L Hopkins; Michel Doumith; Danièle Meunier; Camilla Wiuff; Robert Hill; Rachel Pike; Richard Loy; Nazim Mustafa; David M Livermore; Neil Woodford Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2016-02-03 Impact factor: 5.790