Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-dlb68 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T19:35:13.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A survey of infection control strategies for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in Department of Veterans’ Affairs facilities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2020

Swetha Ramanathan*
Affiliation:
Department of Veterans’ Affairs, Center of Innovation for Complex Chronic Healthcare, Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois
Katie J. Suda
Affiliation:
Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Health Care System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Margaret A. Fitzpatrick
Affiliation:
Department of Veterans’ Affairs, Center of Innovation for Complex Chronic Healthcare, Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois
Marylou Guihan
Affiliation:
Department of Veterans’ Affairs, Center of Innovation for Complex Chronic Healthcare, Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
Cassie Cunningham Goedken
Affiliation:
Center for Comprehensive Access Delivery & Research, Iowa City, Iowa Department of Veterans’ Affairs, Iowa City VA Health Care System, Iowa City, Iowa
Nasia Safdar
Affiliation:
Department of Veterans’ Affairs, William S. Middleton Memorial VA Medical Center, Madison, Wisconsin Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Wisconsin School of Public Health and Medicine, Madison, Wisconsin
Martin Evans
Affiliation:
Department of Veterans’ Affairs, Lexington VA Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky
Makoto Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Veterans’ Affairs, VA Salt Lake City Healthcare System, Salt Lake City, Utah Department of Medicine, Division of Epidemiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
Christopher D. Pfeiffer
Affiliation:
Department of Veterans’ Affairs, Portland VA Health Care System, Portland, Oregon Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA
Eli N. Perencevich
Affiliation:
Department of Veterans’ Affairs, Iowa City VA Health Care System, Iowa City, Iowa Department of Pathology, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa
Michael Rubin
Affiliation:
Department of Veterans’ Affairs, VA Salt Lake City Healthcare System, Salt Lake City, Utah Department of Medicine, Division of Epidemiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
Charlesnika T. Evans
Affiliation:
Department of Veterans’ Affairs, Center of Innovation for Complex Chronic Healthcare, Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois Center for Healthcare Studies and Department of Preventive Medicine Institute for Public Health and Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
*
Author for correspondence: Swetha Ramanathan, E-mail: Swetha.Ramanathan@va.gov
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A survey of Veterans’ Affairs Medical Centers on control of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) and carbapenem-producing CRE (CP-CRE) demonstrated that most facilities use VA guidelines but few screen for CRE/CP-CRE colonization regularly or regularly communicate CRE/CP-CRE status at patient transfer. Most respondents were knowledgeable about CRE guidelines but cited lack of adequate resources.

Type
Concise Communication
Copyright
© 2020 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved

Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) are multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria that colonize and infect many patients yearly. A subset of CRE, carbapenemase-producing CRE (CP-CRE), are worrisome because they may be responsible for increasing CRE spread in the United States. 1Reference Fitzpatrick, Suda and Ramanathan3 The Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) distributed guidelines in 2015 and updated them in 2017, with a focus on CP-CRE. The guidelines provide information on (1) laboratory identification of CRE including PCR testing for carbapenemases; (2) CRE surveillance, including recommendations for active screening; and (3) infection prevention practices, such as contact precautions and communication within and across healthcare facilities. Findings related to VA guideline laboratory practices showed that most VA laboratories use VA guidelines, but variation existed in CP-CRE identification. Reference Bart, Paul, Eluk, Geffen, Rabino and Hussein4 We now report on an analogous survey identifying practices related to infection prevention and control of CRE and/or CP-CRE in VA facilities.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted via an electronic survey of 161 multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) prevention coordinators (MPCs) at 134 VA Medical Centers (VAMCs) between February 21 and April 30, 2018. MPCs assist with data collection and reporting for MDRO surveillance at most facilities. The survey focused on experiences and practices related to CRE and/or CP-CRE (represented as “CRE/CP-CRE”). It was developed in collaboration with the VA MDRO Program Office and was administered through Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to develop and analyze implementation questions. Reference Damschroder, Aron, Keith, Kirsh, Alexander and Lowery5

Other characteristics collected regarding VA facilities included rural versus urban location and facility complexity from the VA Office of Productivity, Efficiency, & Staffing (OPES) Facility Complexity Model. 6 The OPES classifies complexity based on patient characteristics, complex clinical research, and teaching programs (levels 1a–c, 2, and 3). For this analysis, levels 1a–c were considered high complexity and levels 2 and 3 were considered low complexity. 6

All survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Comparisons of facility complexity, rurality, reported CRE/CP-CRE experience, and nonresponse were assessed using the Fisher exact test. Facility history of CRE/CP-CRE experience was defined as facilities reporting any CRE/CP-CRE. If no cases of CRE/CP-CRE were reported, facilities were defined as not having CRE/CP-CRE experience. Questions were categorized ‘agree’ if respondents ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ with the statement and ‘did not agree’ if they responded ‘neutral,’ ‘disagree,’ or ‘strongly disagree.’ All analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4 software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

Results

In total, 81 MPCs (50.3% of 161 MPCs) from 79 unique facilities (58.9% of 134) responded, including 2 facilities with unique MPCs for acute-care and long-term care unit(s) (n = 4). Responding facilities did not differ significantly (P > .05) from nonresponding facilities by facility complexity (high complexity, 69.1% vs 63.8%), geographic location (urban, 79.0% vs 83.8%), or presence of a long-term care center (85.2% vs 92.5%) or spinal cord injury center (21% vs 17.5%). In addition, 70.4% of respondents reported some CRE/CP-CRE experience.

Most MPCs reported using VA guidelines (97.5%, either 2017 or 2015). Also, 17 MPCs (20.9%) reported routinely screening for CRE/CP-CRE colonization (Figure 1 shows the types of patients screened). The most common reason for not screening was not having a CRE/CP-CRE problem (70.4%). Beyond implementing contact precautions, other infection control processes for CRE/CP-CRE–positive patients included patient (24.7%) and/or nurse cohorting (7.4%).

Fig. 1. Proportion of types of patients routinely screened (among those that do screening/active surveillance, n = 17). *Other includes the following: patients with multiple admissions to acute care, transfers from outside the intensive care unit (ICU), community living center (CLC) transfers, or when the physician suspects it.

Nearly all MPCs (90.1%) used an electronic health record (EHR) flag available to notify providers about patients with CRE/CP-CRE, with half indicating the flag is ‘never’ discontinued (Table 1). Other flag removal responses included ‘after 1 year’ (15.1%) and ‘other’ criteria including but not limited to ‘2 negative rectal swabs’ or ‘on a case-by-case basis.’

Table 1. Survey Responses by Facility Complexity, Location, and CRE Experience

Note. VA, Veterans’ Affairs.

Table 1 illustrates differences in responses by facility complexity level, location, and CRE/CP-CRE experience. Lower complexity and rural facilities were more likely to report no CRE/CP-CRE at their VAMC in the last year. Respondents from high complexity and urban sites were significantly more likely to report actively screening patients at admission. Respondents from facilities with CRE/CP-CRE experience were more likely to never discontinue the EHR flag.

Respondents indicated that they typically received little to no information on patients’ CRE/CP-CRE status when transferred between facilities (Table 1). MPCs reported more often receiving communication on CRE status when their patient was transferred from a VA skilled nursing facility or an acute-care hospital versus a non-VA skilled nursing facility or an acute-care hospital. Similarly, in acute care, information on patient CRE status was received most frequently from VA facilities versus non-VA facilities. Respondents from facilities with CRE/CP-CRE experience more frequently reported ‘usually’ or ‘always’ obtaining CRE/CP-CRE status when transferring from a VA facility. Patients’ CRE/CP-CRE status was most frequently communicated verbally or via interfacility transfer forms (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Mode of communication when transferring CRE/CP-CRE patients from their facility to another facility (n = 81).

Most respondents (85.0%) ‘agreed/strongly agreed’ that they are knowledgeable about the CRE/CP-CRE guidelines. However, only half ‘agreed’ that they had the physical (56.8%), staffing (55.6%), and laboratory resources (65.1%) to accomplish guideline activities. More facilities experiencing CRE/CP-CRE described having adequate physical resources necessary to accomplish guidelines activities (75.0% vs 49.0%; P = .05). Also, 56.8% reported the CRE/CP-CRE guidelines are ‘fully’ implemented at their facility. The main reason reported for guidelines not being fully implemented was lack of active surveillance (59.3%).

Discussion

In the survey results, 29.6% of VA acute-care facilities reported no experience with CRE/CP-CRE, and only a small percentage reported performing active surveillance for CRE/CP-CRE. As of 2017, CRE/CP-CRE has been reported in every state 2 ; therefore, it is critical that all VA facilities are prepared. Implementing CRE/CP-CRE screening is not straightforward; it requires a multidisciplinary plan that allocates resources and time to establish a new process. At sites that are screening, we found variability in the types of patients screened, and respondents reported lack of resources.

An interesting survey finding relates to CRE/CP-CRE EHR alerts. Reference Martischang, Buetti, Balmelli, Saam, Widmer and Harbarth7 Currently, no guidelines or conclusive evidence supports discontinuing alerts and contact isolation for patients with CRE/CP-CRE. Reference Bart, Paul, Eluk, Geffen, Rabino and Hussein4 Hospitals determine their own protocols, based on expert opinion, local MDRO epidemiology, and previous experience with other MDROs. Although most VAMCs reported that they never discontinue the alert, respondents also described other methods that could assist other facilities in establishing protocols for CRE/CP-CRE alerts and contact isolation.

Communication is a key strategy to improve infection control and to interrupt the spread of CRE. Reference Lee, Bartsch and Wong8 Unfortunately, our survey revealed that positive CRE/CP-CRE status is communicated less than half the time to the patient, a finding previously demonstrated in other studies including those in non-VA settings. Reference Trepanier, Mallard and Muenier9,Reference Shimasaki, Segreti, Tomich, Kim, Hayden and Ling10 The greater proportion of respondents reported transfer communication between VA facilities in our survey is encouraging and may be due to their common EHR. However, the implementation of standardized interfacility transfer notification and the development of regional CRE/CP-CRE registries are important steps toward improving communication. To this end, the VA is actively working on implementing a systemwide automated CP-CRE notification system.

Our study was limited by being conducted in the VA, where responses and practices may differ compared with non-VA hospitals. Furthermore, selection bias is possible with only 59% of VAMCs responding; however, we detected no differences in key characteristics between responding and nonresponding facilities. Finally, recall bias may have affected the accuracy of responses, given that this was a cross-sectional survey of self-reported practices related to CRE.

In conclusion, almost all MPCs reported using the VA CRE/CP-CRE guidelines. However, gaps in implementation include the lack of CRE/CPE CRE screening and communication about CRE/CP-CRE status during transfer. Additional work is needed to overcome barriers to guideline implementation and provide stronger education and resources to help support guideline activities for the prevention of MDROs.

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2020.328

Acknowledgments

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs or the US government.

Financial support

This work was supported by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, Veterans’ Health Administration, Office of Research and Development, Health Services Research and Development Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (grant no. QUE 15-269).

Conflicts of interest

All authors report no conflicts of interest or financial disclosures relevant to this article.

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Antibiotic Resistant Threats in the United States, 2019. Atlanta: CDC; 2019.Google Scholar
FAQs about choosing and implementing a CRE definition. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. https://www.cdc.gov/hai/organisms/cre/definition.html. Accessed January 22, 2020.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, MA, Suda, KJ, Ramanathan, S, et al. Laboratory practices for identification and reporting of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in Department of Veterans’ Affairs facilities. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2019;40:463466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bart, Y, Paul, M, Eluk, O, Geffen, Y, Rabino, G, Hussein, K. Risk factors for recurrence of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae carriage: case-control study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015;36:936941.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Damschroder, LJ, Aron, DC, Keith, RE, Kirsh, SR, Alexander, JA, Lowery, JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 2009;4:50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Facility complexity model. VHA Office of Productivity Efficiency & Staffing website. http://opes.vscc.med.va.gov/Pages/Facility-Complexity-Model.aspx. Accessed December 17, 2019.Google Scholar
Martischang, R, Buetti, N, Balmelli, C, Saam, M, Widmer, A, Harbarth, S. Nationwide survey of screening practices to detect carriers of multidrug-resistant organisms upon admission to Swiss healthcare institutions. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2019;8:37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, BY, Bartsch, SM, Wong, KF, et al. Simulation show hospitals that cooperate on infection control obtain better results than hospitals acting alone. Health Affairs 2012;31:22952303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trepanier, P, Mallard, K, Muenier, D, et al. Carbapenem-producing Enterobacteriaceae in the UK: a national study (EuSCAPE-UK) on prevalence, incidence, laboratory detection methods and infection control measures. J Antimicrob Chemother 2017;72:596603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimasaki, T, Segreti, J, Tomich, A, Kim, J, Hayden, MK, Ling, MY. Active screening and interfacility communication of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) in a tertiary-care hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:10581062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Proportion of types of patients routinely screened (among those that do screening/active surveillance, n = 17). *Other includes the following: patients with multiple admissions to acute care, transfers from outside the intensive care unit (ICU), community living center (CLC) transfers, or when the physician suspects it.

Figure 1

Table 1. Survey Responses by Facility Complexity, Location, and CRE Experience

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Mode of communication when transferring CRE/CP-CRE patients from their facility to another facility (n = 81).

Supplementary material: File

Ramanathan et al. Supplementary Materials

Ramanathan et al. Supplementary Materials 1

Download Ramanathan et al. Supplementary Materials(File)
File 192.5 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Ramanathan et al. Supplementary Materials

Ramanathan et al. Supplementary Materials 2

Download Ramanathan et al. Supplementary Materials(PDF)
PDF 647.8 KB