Dataset Information

Unintended consequences of infection prevention and control measures during COVID-19 pandemic.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In the current COVID-19 pandemic, aggressive Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) measures have been adopted to prevent health care-associated transmission of COVID-19. We evaluated the impact of a multimodal IPC strategy originally designed for the containment of COVID-19 on the rates of other hospital-acquired-infections (HAIs).

Methodology

From February-August 2020, a multimodal IPC strategy was implemented across a large health care campus in Singapore, comprising improved segregation of patients with respiratory symptoms, universal masking and heightened adherence to Standard Precautions. The following rates of HAI were compared pre- and postpandemic: health care-associated respiratory-viral-infection (HA-RVI), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, and CP-CRE acquisition rates, health care-facility-associated C difficile infections and device-associated HAIs.

Results

Enhanced IPC measures introduced to contain COVID-19 had the unintended positive consequence of containing HA-RVI. The cumulative incidence of HA-RVI decreased from 9.69 cases per 10,000 patient-days to 0.83 cases per 10,000 patient-days (incidence-rate-ratio = 0.08; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.05-0.13, P< .05). Hospital-wide MRSA acquisition rates declined significantly during the pandemic (incidence-rate-ratio = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.46-0.64, P< .05), together with central-line-associated-bloodstream infection rates (incidence-rate-ratio = 0.24, 95% CI = 0.07-0.57, P< .05); likely due to increased compliance with Standard Precautions. Despite the disruption caused by the pandemic, there was no increase in CP-CRE acquisition, and rates of other HAIs remained stable.

Conclusions

Multimodal IPC strategies can be implemented at scale to successfully mitigate health care-associated transmission of RVIs. Good adherence to personal-protective-equipment and hand hygiene kept other HAI rates stable even during an ongoing pandemic where respiratory infections were prioritized for interventions.

SUBMITTER: Wee LEI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7610096 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background/objectiveInternational travel measures to contain the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic represent a relatively intrusive form of non-pharmaceutical intervention. To inform decision-making on the (re)implementation, adaptation, relaxation or suspension of such measures, it is essential to not only assess their effectiveness but also their unintended effects.MethodsThis scoping review maps existing empirical studies on the unintended consequences, both predicted and unforeseen, and beneficial or harmful, of international travel measures. We searched multiple health, non-health and COVID-19-specific databases. The evidence was charted in a map in relation to the study design, intervention and outcome categories identified and discussed narratively.ResultsTwenty-three studies met our inclusion criteria-nine quasi-experimental, two observational, two mathematical modelling, six qualitative and four mixed-methods studies. Studies addressed different population groups across various countries worldwide. Seven studies provided information on unintended consequences of the closure of national borders, six looked at international travel restrictions and three investigated mandatory quarantine of international travellers. No studies looked at entry and/or exit screening at national borders exclusively, however six studies considered this intervention in combination with other international travel measures. In total, 11 studies assessed various combinations of the aforementioned interventions. The outcomes were mostly referred to by the authors as harmful. Fifteen studies identified a variety of economic consequences, six reported on aspects related to quality of life, well-being, and mental health and five on social consequences. One study each provided information on equity, equality, and the fair distribution of benefits and burdens, environmental consequences and health system consequences.ConclusionThis scoping review represents the first step towards a systematic assessment of the unintended benefits and harms of international travel measures during COVID-19. The key research gaps identified might be filled with targeted primary research, as well as the additional consideration of gray literature and non-empirical studies.

Project description:Controlling the spread of COVID-19 - even after a licensed vaccine is available - requires the effective use of non-pharmaceutical interventions, e.g., physical distancing, limits on group sizes, mask wearing, etc1-7. To date, such interventions have not been uniformly and/or systematically implemented across the United States of America (US)8. For example, even when under strict stay-at-home orders, numerous jurisdictions in the US granted exceptions and/or were in close proximity to locations with entirely different regulations in place. Here, we investigate the impact of such geographic inconsistencies in epidemic control policies by coupling high-resolution mobility, search, and COVID case data to a mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Our results show that while stay-at-home orders decrease contacts in most areas of the US, some specific activities and venues often see an increase in attendance. As an example, over the month of March 2020, between 10 and 30% of churches in the US saw increases in attendance; even as the total number of visits to churches declined nationally. This heterogeneity, where certain venues see substantial increases in attendance while others close, suggests that closure can cause individuals to find an open venue, even if that requires longer-distance travel. And, indeed, the average distance travelled to churches in the US rose by 13% over the same period, and over the summer, churches with more than 50 average weekly visitors saw an increase of 81% in distance visitors had to travel to attend. Strikingly, our mathematical model reveals that, across a broad range of model parameters, partial measures can often be worse than no measures at all. In the most severe cases, individuals not complying with policies by traveling to neighboring jurisdictions can create epidemics when the outbreak would otherwise have been contained. Indeed, using county-level COVID-19 data, we show that mobility from high-incidence to low-incidence associated with travel for venues like churches, parks, and gyms consistently precedes rising case numbers in the low-incidence counties. Taken together, our data analysis of nearly 120 million church visitors across 184,677 churches, 14 million grocery visitors across 7,662 grocery stores, 13.5 million gym visitors across 5,483 gyms, 7.7 million cases across 3,195 counties, and modeling results highlight the potential unintended consequences of inconsistent epidemic control policies and stress the importance of balancing the societal needs of a population with the risk of an outbreak growing into a large epidemic, and the urgent need for centralized implementation and enforcement of non-pharmaceutical interventions.

Project description:BackgroundThe declaration of SARS-CoV-2 as a public health emergency of international concern in January 2020 prompted the need to strengthen infection prevention and control (IPC) capacities within health care facilities (HCF). IPC guidelines, with standard and transmission-based precautions to be put in place to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 at these HCFs were developed. Based on these IPC guidelines, a rapid assessment scorecard tool, with 14 components, to enhance assessment and improvement of IPC measures at HCFs was developed. This study assessed the level of implementation of the IPC measures in HCFs across the African Region during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodAn observational study was conducted from April 2020 to November 2022 in 17 countries in the African Region to monitor the progress made in implementing IPC standard and transmission-based precautions in primary-, secondary- and tertiary-level HCFs. A total of 5168 primary, secondary and tertiary HCFs were assessed. The HCFs were assessed and scored each component of the tool. Statistical analyses were done using R (version 4.2.0).ResultsA total of 11 564 assessments were conducted in 5153 HCFs, giving an average of 2.2 assessments per HCF. The baseline median score for the facility assessments was 60.2%. Tertiary HCFs and those dedicated to COVID-19 patients had the highest IPC scores. Tertiary-level HCFs had a median score of 70%, secondary-level HCFs 62.3% and primary-level HCFs 56.8%. HCFs dedicated to COVID-19 patients had the highest scores, with a median of 68.2%, followed by the mixed facilities that attended to both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients, with 64.84%. On the components, there was a strong correlation between high IPC assessment scores and the presence of IPC focal points in HCFs, the availability of IPC guidelines in HCFs and HCFs that had all their health workers trained in basic IPC.ConclusionIn conclusion, a functional IPC programme with a dedicated focal person is a prerequisite for implementing improved IPC measures at the HCF level. In the absence of an epidemic, the general IPC standards in HCFs are low, as evidenced by the low scores in the non-COVID-19 treatment centres.

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 has led to the adoption of unprecedented mitigation measures which could trigger many unintended consequences. These unintended consequences can be far-reaching and just as important as the intended ones. The World Health Organization identified the assessment of unintended consequences of COVID-19 mitigation measures as a top priority. Thus far, however, their systematic assessment has been neglected due to the inattention of researchers as well as the lack of training and practical tools.Main textOver six years our team has gained extensive experience conducting research on the unintended consequences of complex health interventions. Through a reflexive process, we developed insights that can be useful for researchers in this area. Our analysis is based on key literature and lessons learned reflexively in conducting multi-site and multi-method studies on unintended consequences. Here we present practical guidance for researchers wishing to assess the unintended consequences of COVID-19 mitigation measures. To ensure resource allocation, protocols should include research questions regarding unintended consequences at the outset. Social science theories and frameworks are available to help assess unintended consequences. To determine which changes are unintended, researchers must first understand the intervention theory. To facilitate data collection, researchers can begin by forecasting potential unintended consequences through literature reviews and discussions with stakeholders. Including desirable and neutral unintended consequences in the scope of study can help minimize the negative bias reported in the literature. Exploratory methods can be powerful tools to capture data on the unintended consequences that were unforeseen by researchers. We recommend researchers cast a wide net by inquiring about different aspects of the mitigation measures. Some unintended consequences may only be observable in subsequent years, so longitudinal approaches may be useful. An equity lens is necessary to assess how mitigation measures may unintentionally increase disparities. Finally, stakeholders can help validate the classification of consequences as intended or unintended.ConclusionStudying the unintended consequences of COVID-19 mitigation measures is not only possible but also necessary to assess their overall value. The practical guidance presented will help program planners and evaluators gain a more comprehensive understanding of unintended consequences to refine mitigation measures.

Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has become a global pandemic affecting a variety of medical treatments, including hemodialysis. This study aims to investigate the implementation of infection control measures, to examine the shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) and disinfectants, and to quantify the number of nosocomial COVID-19 transmissions in hemodialysis facilities in Japan during the pandemic.MethodsWe conducted a nationwide questionnaire survey between 20 October and 16 November 2020 (i.e., between the "second wave" and "third wave" in Japan) in the 4198 dialysis facilities of the Japanese Association of Dialysis Physicians and the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy. A total of 2227 facilities (53.0%) responded. The questionnaire consisted of (i) characteristics of facilities, (ii) infection prevention measures in routine dialysis practices, (iii) shortage of PPE, (iv) feasibility of various isolation measures, and (v) nosocomial transmission.ResultsHalf of the responding facilities were hospitals with multiple departments, and the other half were clinics specialized in dialysis. Several infection prevention measures such as health checks of staff and patients, donning of masks before and after hemodialysis, and disinfection of frequently contacted areas were implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a significant improvement in the implementation rate of these measures during the pandemic, compared to before it, which reached over 90%. More than half of the facilities reported a shortage of disposable masks (67.2%) and hand sanitizer alcohol (56.7%). Isolation of COVID-19 patients in private rooms was possible only in 52.7% of the facilities. The majority of facilities (73.3%) could not accept COVID-19 dialysis patients due to lack of space and manpower. Nosocomial transmission of COVID-19 occurred in 4.0% of the facilities. Of those infected, 51.9% were staff.ConclusionsThis survey revealed that most hemodialysis facilities in Japan had improved implementation of infection control measures and had shortage of PPEs and disinfectants, though some facilities did not implement infection prevention measures adequately, mainly due to the limited space of the facility. It may be recommended that each facility immediately establishes isolation measures to prepare for the pandemic of COVID-19.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41100-021-00350-y.