Dataset Information

Antibiotic resistance in Swiss nursing homes: analysis of National Surveillance Data over an 11-year period between 2007 and 2017.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We evaluated data from isolates of nursing home (NH) patients sent to the Swiss centre for antibiotic resistance (ANRESIS). We focussed on carbapenem-resistance (CR) among Gram-negative pathogens, extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant (ESC-R) Escherichia coli/Klebsiella pneumoniae, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and glycopeptide-resistant enterococci (GRE).

Methods

NH patient isolates from 01/2007 to 10/2017 were extracted. Temporal trends in resistance were described and risk factors associated with ESC-R and MRSA were assessed. For every administrative subdivision in Switzerland (i.e. canton), we calculated a coverage rate, defined as number of beds of governmentally-supported nursing homes, which sent ?1 isolate in each 2014, 2015, and 2016, divided by the total number of supported beds.

Results

We identified 16'804 samples from 9'940 patients. A majority of samples (12'040; 71.6%) originated from the French/Italian speaking part of Switzerland. ESC-R E. coli increased from 5% (16/299) in 2007 to 22% (191/884) in 2017 (P?P?Pseudomonas aeruginosa was 10% (105/1096) and showed an increasing trend over time; CR among Enterobacteriaceae (37/12'423, 0.3%) and GRE (5/1'273, 0.4%) were uncommon. Overall coverage rate was 9% (range 0-58% per canton). There was a significant difference between the French/Italian (median 13%, interquartile range [IQR] 4-43%) and the German speaking cantons (median 0%, IQR 0-5%) (P?=?0.02).

Conclusions

ESC-R among E. coli is emerging in Swiss NHs, whereas MRSA show a declining trend over time. A minority of NHs are represented in ANRESIS, with a preponderance of institutions from the French/Italian speaking regions. Efforts should be undertaken to improve resistance surveillance in this high-risk setting.

SUBMITTER: Kohler P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6053768 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Antibiotic resistance in Swiss nursing homes: analysis of National Surveillance Data over an 11-year period between 2007 and 2017.

Kohler Philipp P Fulchini Rosamaria R Albrich Werner C WC Egli Adrian A Balmelli Carlo C Harbarth Stephan S Héquet Delphine D Kahlert Christian R CR Kuster Stefan P SP Petignat Christiane C Schlegel Matthias M Kronenberg Andreas A

Antimicrobial resistance and infection control 20180720

<h4>Background</h4>We evaluated data from isolates of nursing home (NH) patients sent to the Swiss centre for antibiotic resistance (ANRESIS). We focussed on carbapenem-resistance (CR) among Gram-negative pathogens, extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant (ESC-R) <i>Escherichia coli</i>/<i>Klebsiella pneumoniae</i>, methicillin-resistant <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> (MRSA), and glycopeptide-resistant enterococci (GRE).<h4>Methods</h4>NH patient isolates from 01/2007 to 10/2017 were extracted. ...[more]

PMID: 30038781

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceControlling antimicrobial resistance in health care is a public health priority, although data describing antimicrobial use in US nursing homes are limited.ObjectiveTo measure the prevalence of antimicrobial use and describe antimicrobial classes and common indications among nursing home residents.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional, 1-day point-prevalence surveys of antimicrobial use performed between April 2017 and October 2017, last survey date October 31, 2017, and including 15 276 residents present on the survey date in 161 randomly selected nursing homes from selected counties of 10 Emerging Infections Program (EIP) states. EIP staff reviewed nursing home records to collect data on characteristics of residents and antimicrobials administered at the time of the survey. Nursing home characteristics were obtained from nursing home staff and the Nursing Home Compare website.ExposuresResidence in one of the participating nursing homes at the time of the survey.Main outcomes and measuresPrevalence of antimicrobial use per 100 residents, defined as the number of residents receiving antimicrobial drugs at the time of the survey divided by the total number of surveyed residents. Multivariable logistic regression modeling of antimicrobial use and percentages of drugs within various classifications.ResultsAmong 15 276 nursing home residents included in the study (mean [SD] age, 77.6 [13.7] years; 9475 [62%] women), complete prevalence data were available for 96.8%. The overall antimicrobial use prevalence was 8.2 per 100 residents (95% CI, 7.8-8.8). Antimicrobial use was more prevalent in residents admitted to the nursing home within 30 days before the survey date (18.8 per 100 residents; 95% CI, 17.4-20.3), with central venous catheters (62.8 per 100 residents; 95% CI, 56.9-68.3) or with indwelling urinary catheters (19.1 per 100 residents; 95% CI, 16.4-22.0). Antimicrobials were most often used to treat active infections (77% [95% CI, 74.8%-79.2%]) and primarily for urinary tract infections (28.1% [95% CI, 15.5%-30.7%]). While 18.2% (95% CI, 16.1%-20.1%) were for medical prophylaxis, most often use was for the urinary tract (40.8% [95% CI, 34.8%-47.1%]). Fluoroquinolones were the most common antimicrobial class (12.9% [95% CI, 11.3%-14.8%]), and 33.1% (95% CI, 30.7%-35.6%) of antimicrobials used were broad-spectrum antibiotics.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional survey of a cohort of US nursing homes in 2017, prevalence of antimicrobial use was 8.2 per 100 residents. This study provides information on the patterns of antimicrobial use among these nursing home residents.

Project description:BackgroundDespite widespread adoption of surveillance testing for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) among staff members in skilled nursing facilities, evidence is limited regarding its relationship with outcomes among facility residents.MethodsUsing data obtained from 2020 to 2022, we performed a retrospective cohort study of testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among staff members in 13,424 skilled nursing facilities during three pandemic periods: before vaccine approval, before the B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant wave, and during the omicron wave. We assessed staff testing volumes during weeks without Covid-19 cases relative to other skilled nursing facilities in the same county, along with Covid-19 cases and deaths among residents during potential outbreaks (defined as the occurrence of a case after 2 weeks with no cases). We reported adjusted differences in outcomes between high-testing facilities (90th percentile of test volume) and low-testing facilities (10th percentile). The two primary outcomes were the weekly cumulative number of Covid-19 cases and related deaths among residents during potential outbreaks.ResultsDuring the overall study period, 519.7 cases of Covid-19 per 100 potential outbreaks were reported among residents of high-testing facilities as compared with 591.2 cases among residents of low-testing facilities (adjusted difference, -71.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], -91.3 to -51.6). During the same period, 42.7 deaths per 100 potential outbreaks occurred in high-testing facilities as compared with 49.8 deaths in low-testing facilities (adjusted difference, -7.1; 95% CI, -11.0 to -3.2). Before vaccine availability, high- and low-testing facilities had 759.9 cases and 1060.2 cases, respectively, per 100 potential outbreaks (adjusted difference, -300.3; 95% CI, -377.1 to -223.5), along with 125.2 and 166.8 deaths (adjusted difference, -41.6; 95% CI, -57.8 to -25.5). Before the omicron wave, the numbers of cases and deaths were similar in high- and low-testing facilities; during the omicron wave, high-testing facilities had fewer cases among residents, but deaths were similar in the two groups.ConclusionsGreater surveillance testing of staff members at skilled nursing facilities was associated with clinically meaningful reductions in Covid-19 cases and deaths among residents, particularly before vaccine availability.

Project description:BackgroundPolypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) are still frequent among older adults in nursing homes. Deprescribing is an intervention that has been shown to be effective in reducing their use. However, the implementation of deprescribing in clinical practice has not yet been widely evaluated. The Quality Circle Deprescribing Module (QC-DeMo) intervention has been trialled through an effectiveness-implementation hybrid type 2 design. The intervention consists of a quality circle workshop session between healthcare professionals HCPs (physicians, nurses, and pharmacists) within a nursing home, in which they define a consensus to deprescribe specific PIMs classes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the implementation of the QC-DeMo intervention in nursing homes.MethodsThis observational study focuses on the implementation part of the QC-DeMo trial. Implementation was based on the Framework for Implementation of Pharmacy Services (FISpH). Questionnaires at baseline and follow-up were used to evaluate reach, adoption, implementation effectiveness, fidelity, implementation, maintenance and the implementation strategies. Other data were collected from the QC-DeMo trial and routine data collected as part of the integrated pharmacy service where the QC-Demo trial was embedded. Implementation strategies included training of pharmacists, integration of the intervention into an existing quality circle dynamic and definition of tailored strategies to operationalise the consensus by each nursing home.ResultsThe QC-DeMo intervention was successfully implemented in 26 nursing homes in terms of reach, fidelity, adoption, implementation and implementation effectiveness. However, the intervention was found to be implemented with low maintenance as none of the nursing homes repeated the intervention after the trial. Implementation strategies were well received by HCPs: training was adequate according to pharmacists. Pre-existing quality circle dynamic facilitated interprofessional collaboration as involvement and support of each HCP was rated as high. HCPs recognized a specific and important role for each HCP in the deprescribing process. The most relevant tailored strategies to implement the consensus defined by each nursing home were identification of the patients by the pharmacist and a systematic review of medication's patients.ConclusionsThe implementation of a Quality Circle on Deprescribing is feasible but its maintenance in practice remains challenging. This study explores multiple implementation outcomes to better inform future implementation efforts of these types of interventions.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03688542 ), registered on 26.09.2018.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) occurs in 2-25% of nursing home residents, which may lead to dehydration, malnutrition, severe complications and hospitalizations. Research shows that probiotics can be effective and safe in reducing AAD. However, probiotics are not routinely used in Dutch nursing homes. The objectives of this evaluation were to develop a procedure for the implementation of probiotics to prevent AAD in nursing homes, to evaluate effects on AAD occurrence, and to evaluate the implementation process of probiotics in daily care. METHODS:A pragmatic participatory evaluation (PPE) design was chosen, as it seemed a suitable approach for implementation of probiotics, as well as for evaluation of its effectiveness in daily nursing home practice. Probiotics administration was implemented in three nursing homes of the Rivas Zorggroep for residents with somatic and/or psychogeriatric conditions. Ninety-three residents provided data on 167 episodes of antibiotics use, of which 84 episodes that included supplementation with probiotics and 83 episodes with no probiotics supplementation. A multispecies probiotics was administered twice daily upon start of antibiotic treatment, up to 1?week after completing the antibiotics course. The occurrence of AAD was monitored and a process evaluation was conducted to assess facilitators and barriers of probiotics implementation. RESULTS:The number of episodes with AAD when using probiotics was significantly lower than when no probiotics was used (20% vs 36%; p?=?0,022, Chi-square). No significant differences in the occurrence of AAD were found between the residents taking amoxicillin/clavulanic acid or ciprofloxacin. Reported facilitators for implementation were perceived benefits of probiotics and prescription by medical staff. Reported challenges were probiotics intake by residents and individual decision-making as to which resident would benefit from it. CONCLUSION:Successful implementation of probiotics demonstrated the prevention of AAD in nursing home residents. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN 94786163, retrospectively registered on 3 February 2020.

Dataset Information

Antibiotic resistance in Swiss nursing homes: analysis of National Surveillance Data over an 11-year period between 2007 and 2017.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Antibiotic resistance in Swiss nursing homes: analysis of National Surveillance Data over an 11-year period between 2007 and 2017.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets