Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

Cambridge University Press, Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, p. 1-7, 2023

DOI: 10.1017/ice.2022.285

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Quantification of time delay between screening and subsequent initiation of contact isolation for carriers of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)–producing Enterobacterales: A post hoc subgroup analysis of the R-GNOSIS WP5 Trial

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Red circle
Postprint: archiving forbidden
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Abstract Objectives: The aim of this study was to quantify the time delay between screening and initiation of contact isolation for carriers of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)–producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-E). Methods: This study was a secondary analysis of contact isolation periods in a cluster-randomized controlled trial that compared 2 strategies to control ESBL-E (trial no. ISRCTN57648070). Patients admitted to 20 non-ICU wards in Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and Switzerland were screened for ESBL-E carriage on admission, weekly thereafter, and on discharge. Data collection included the day of sampling, the day the wards were notified of the result, and subsequent ESBL-E isolation days. Results: Between January 2014 and August 2016, 19,122 patients, with a length of stay ≥2 days were included. At least 1 culture was collected for 16,091 patients (84%), with a median duration between the admission day and the day of first sample collection of 2 days (interquartile range [IQR], 1–3). Moreover, 854 (41%) of all 2,078 ESBL-E carriers remained without isolation during their hospital stay. In total, 6,040 ESBL-E days (32% of all ESBL-E days) accrued for patients who were not isolated. Of 2,078 ESBL-E-carriers, 1,478 ESBL-E carriers (71%) had no previous history of ESBL-E carriage. Also, 697 (34%) were placed in contact isolation with a delay of 4 days (IQR, 2–5), accounting for 2,723 nonisolation days (15% of ESBL-E days). Conclusions: Even with extensive surveillance screening, almost one-third of all ESBL-E days were nonisolation days. Limitations in routine culture-based ESBL-E detection impeded timely and exhaustive implementation of targeted contact isolation.