Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T00:19:49.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Control of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci at a Community Hospital: Efficacy of Patient and Staff Cohorting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Elise M. Jochimsen*
Affiliation:
Hospital Infections Program, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
Laurie Fish
Affiliation:
Community Hospital East, Indianapolis, Indiana
Kelly Manning
Affiliation:
Community Hospital East, Indianapolis, Indiana
Sally Young
Affiliation:
Community Hospital East, Indianapolis, Indiana
Daniel A. Singer
Affiliation:
Hospital Infections Program, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
Robert Baker
Affiliation:
Community Hospital East, Indianapolis, Indiana
William R. Jarvis
Affiliation:
Hospital Infections Program, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
*
Hospital Infections Program, Mailstop E-69, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30333

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the efficacy of patient and staff cohorting to control vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) at an Indianapolis community hospital.

Design:

To interrupt transmission of VRE, a VRE point-prevalence survey of hospital inpatients was conducted, and VRE-infected or -colonized patients were cohorted on a single ward with dedicated nursing staff and patient-care equipment. To assess the impact of the intervention, staff compliance with contact isolation procedures was observed, and the VRE point-prevalence survey was repeated 2 months after the cohort ward was established.

Results:

Following the establishment of the cohort ward, VRE prevalence among all hospitalized inpatients decreased from 8.1% to 4.7% (25 positive cultures among 310 patients compared to 13 positive cultures among 276 patients, P=.14); VRE prevalence among patients whose VRE status was unknown before cultures were obtained decreased from 5.9% to 0.8% (18 positive cultures among 303 patients compared to 2 positive cultures among 262 patients, P=.002); and observed staff-patient interactions compliant with published isolation recommendations increased (5 [22%] of 23 interactions compared to 36 [88%] of 41 interactions, P<.0001).

Conclusions:

Our data suggest that, in hospitals with endemic VRE or continued VRE transmission despite implementation of contact isolation measures, establishing a VRE cohort ward may be a practical and effective method to improve compliance with infection control measures and thereby to control epidemic or endemic VRE transmission.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nosocomial enterococci resistant to vancomycin—United States, 1989-1993. MMWR 1993;42:597599.Google Scholar
2.Morris, JG, Shay, DK, Hebden, JN, McCarter, RJ, Perdue, BE, Jarvis, W, et al. Enterococci resistant to multiple antimicrobial agents, including vancomycin: establishment of endemicity in a university medical center. Ann Intern Med 1995;123:250259.Google Scholar
3.Shay, DK, Maloney, SA, Montecalvo, M, Banerjee, S, Wormser, GP, Arduino, MJ, et al. Epidemiology and mortality risk of vancomycin-resis-tant enterococcal bloodstream infections. J Infect Dis 1995;172:9931000.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Wells, DL, Juni, BA, Cameron, SB, Mason, KR, Dunn, DL, Ferrieri, P, et al. Stool carriage, clinical isolation, and mortality during an outbreak of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in hospitalized medical and/or surgical patients. Clin Infect Dis 1995;21:4550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Handwerger, S, Raucher, B, Altarac, D, Monka, J, Marchione, S, Singh, KV, et al. Nosocomial outbreak due to Enterococcus faecium highly resistant to vancomycin, penicillin, and gentamicin. Clin Infect Dis 1993;16:750755.Google Scholar
6.Karanfil, LV, Murphy, M, Josephson, A, Gaynes, R, Mandel, L, Hill, BC, et al. A cluster of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium in an intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13:195200.Google Scholar
7.Rosenberg, J, Vugia, D, Jarvis, W. Surveillance for vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), San Francisco Bay area, 1993-96. In: Program and Abstracts of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 35th Annual Meeting; San Francisco, CA; September 1997:206.Google Scholar
8.Noble, WC, Virani, Z, Cree, R. Co-transfer of vancomycin and other resistance genes from Enterococcus faecalis NCTC 12201 to Staphylococcus aureus. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1992;72:195198.Google Scholar
9.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendations for preventing the spread of vancomycin resistance: recommendations of the Hospital Infection Control Practices (HICPAC). MMWR 1995;44:112.Google Scholar
10.Garner, JS, Jarvis, WR, Emori, TG, Horan, TC, Hughes, JM. CDC definitions for nosocomial infections, 1988. Am J Infect Control 1988;16: 128140.Google Scholar
11.Singer, DA, Jochimsen, EM, Gielerak, P, Jarvis, WR. Pseudo-outbreak of Enterococcus durons infections and colonization associated with introduction of an automated identification system software update. J Clin Microbiol 1996;34:26852687.Google Scholar
12.Kaplan, AH, Gilligan, PH, Facklam, RR. Recovery of resistant enterococci during vancomycin prophylaxis. J Clin Microbiol 1988;26:12161218.Google Scholar
13.Wade, J, Rolando, N, Casewell, M. Resistance of Enterococcus faecium to vancomycin and gentamicin. Lancet 1991;337:1616.Google Scholar
14.Quale, J, Landman, D, Saurina, G, Atwood, E, DiTore, V, Patel, K. Manipulation of a hospital antimicrobial formulary to control and outbreak of vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Clin Infect Dis 1996; 10201025.Google Scholar