H Dormann1, L Eichelsdörfer2, M V Karg3, H Mang4, A-K Schumacher3. 1. Zentrale Notaufnahme, Klinikum Fürth, Jakob-Henle-Str. 1, 90766, Fürth, Deutschland. harald.dormann@klinikum-fuerth.de. 2. Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Nürnberg, Deutschland. 3. Zentrale Notaufnahme, Studienzentrale, Klinikum Fürth, Fürth, Deutschland. 4. Medical Process Management, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Nürnberg, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiresistant Gram-negative bacteria (MRGN) are a growing clinical problem. The practical implementation of the recommendation of the Commission for Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention (KRINKO) for screening according to 4MRGN (MRGN resistant to all four categories of antibiotics), however, varies considerably between emergency departments. OBJECTIVES: This study is intended to give an overview of the status quo and the quality assurance of 4MRGN screening and to show possibilities for process optimization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2018, a web-based survey was conducted among emergency room directors and directors of clinics in the Association of Hospital Directors in Germany (VKD). RESULTS: The response rate of the 267 clinics surveyed was 31.1%. In all, 83.4% of the emergency rooms surveyed routinely screen for multiresistant pathogens. In 71.8% a standard procedure (SOP) is defined and 82.0% of the test criteria refer to the KRINKO recommendation. Only 39.7% of the clinics follow it without in-house adaptation. No clinic can give an exact number of actual risk patients per year. According to the median, 55 patients in an emergency room met the KRINKO screening criteria in 2017. Only 40 patients were screened for suspected 4MRGN. Quality assurance of the screening was performed by 41.0% of emergency departments. The responsibility lies mainly with the hygiene department. CONCLUSIONS: Even if screenings are carried out as far as possible, there is a lack of standardization in the recording of case numbers and quality assurance. Therefore, it can be assumed that there are numerous individuals with undetected 4MRGN. As a quality indicator, SOPs could clearly assign responsibilities and improve infection hygiene.
BACKGROUND: Multiresistant Gram-negative bacteria (MRGN) are a growing clinical problem. The practical implementation of the recommendation of the Commission for Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention (KRINKO) for screening according to 4MRGN (MRGN resistant to all four categories of antibiotics), however, varies considerably between emergency departments. OBJECTIVES: This study is intended to give an overview of the status quo and the quality assurance of 4MRGN screening and to show possibilities for process optimization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2018, a web-based survey was conducted among emergency room directors and directors of clinics in the Association of Hospital Directors in Germany (VKD). RESULTS: The response rate of the 267 clinics surveyed was 31.1%. In all, 83.4% of the emergency rooms surveyed routinely screen for multiresistant pathogens. In 71.8% a standard procedure (SOP) is defined and 82.0% of the test criteria refer to the KRINKO recommendation. Only 39.7% of the clinics follow it without in-house adaptation. No clinic can give an exact number of actual risk patients per year. According to the median, 55 patients in an emergency room met the KRINKO screening criteria in 2017. Only 40 patients were screened for suspected 4MRGN. Quality assurance of the screening was performed by 41.0% of emergency departments. The responsibility lies mainly with the hygiene department. CONCLUSIONS: Even if screenings are carried out as far as possible, there is a lack of standardization in the recording of case numbers and quality assurance. Therefore, it can be assumed that there are numerous individuals with undetected 4MRGN. As a quality indicator, SOPs could clearly assign responsibilities and improve infection hygiene.
Authors: Frauke Mattner; Franz-C Bange; Elisabeth Meyer; Harald Seifert; Thomas A Wichelhaus; Iris F Chaberny Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2012-01-20 Impact factor: 5.594