We examined Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) prevention practices and their relationship with hospital-onset healthcare facility-associated CDI rates (CDI rates) in Veterans Affairs (VA) acute-care facilities.

Cross-sectional study.

From January 2017 to February 2017, we conducted an electronic survey of CDI prevention practices and hospital characteristics in the VA. We linked survey data with CDI rate data for the period January 2015 to December 2016. We stratified facilities according to whether their overall CDI rate per 10,000 bed days of care was above or below the national VA mean CDI rate. We examined whether specific CDI prevention practices were associated with an increased risk of a CDI rate above the national VA mean CDI rate.

All 126 facilities responded (100% response rate). Since implementing CDI prevention practices in July 2012, 60 of 123 facilities (49%) reported a decrease in CDI rates; 22 of 123 facilities (18%) reported an increase, and 41 of 123 (33%) reported no change. Facilities reporting an increase in the CDI rate (vs those reporting a decrease) after implementing prevention practices were 2.54 times more likely to have CDI rates that were above the national mean CDI rate. Whether a facility’s CDI rates were above or below the national mean CDI rate was not associated with self-reported cleaning practices, duration of contact precautions, availability of private rooms, or certification of infection preventionists in infection prevention.

We found considerable variation in CDI rates. We were unable to identify which particular CDI prevention practices (i.e., bundle components) were associated with lower CDI rates.

Clostridioides difficile (C. difficile) poses a major challenge to the healthcare system. We assessed factors that should be considered when designing subprocesses of a C. difficile infection (CDI) prevention bundle.

Phenomenological qualitative study.

We conducted 3 focus groups of environmental services (EVS) staff, physicians, and nurses to assess their perspectives on a CDI prevention bundle. We used the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model to examine 5 subprocesses of the CDI bundle: diagnostic testing, empiric isolation, contact isolation, hand hygiene, and environmental disinfection. We coded transcripts to the 5 SEIPS elements and ensured scientific rigor. We sought to determine common, unique, and conflicting factors across stakeholder groups and subprocesses of the CDI bundle.

Each focus group lasted 1.5 hours on average. Common work-system barriers included inconsistencies in knowledge and practice of CDI management procedures; increased workload; poor setup of aspects of the physical environment (eg, inconvenient location of sinks); and inconsistencies in CDI documentation. Unique barriers and facilitators were related to specific activities performed by the stakeholder group. For instance, algorithmic approaches used by physicians facilitated timely diagnosis of CDI. Conflicting barriers or facilitators were related to opposing objectives; for example, clinicians needed rapid placement of a patient in a room while EVS staff needed time to disinfect the room.

A systems engineering approach can help to holistically identify factors that influence successful implementation of subprocesses of infection prevention bundles.

To identify facilitators and barriers to implementation of a Clostridium difficile screening intervention among bone marrow transplant (BMT) patients and to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of the intervention on the rate of hospital-onset C. difficile infection (HO-CDI).

Before-and-after trial

A 505-bed tertiary-care medical center

All 5,357 patients admitted to the BMT and general medicine wards from January 2014 to February 2017 were included in the study. Interview participants included 3 physicians, 4 nurses, and 4 administrators.

All BMT patients were screened within 48 hours of admission. Colonized patients, as defined by a C. difficile–positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) stool result, were placed under contact precautions for the duration of their hospital stay.

Interview responses were coded according to the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety conceptual framework. We compared pre- and postintervention HO-CDI rates on BMT and general internal medicine units using time-series analysis.

Stakeholder engagement, at both the person and organizational level, facilitates standardization and optimization of intervention protocols. While the screening intervention was generally well received, tools and technology were sources of concern. The mean incidence of HO-CDI decreased on the BMT service postintervention (P<.0001). However, the effect of the change in the trend postintervention was not significantly different on BMT compared to the control wards (P=.93).

We report the first mixed-methods study to evaluate a C. difficile screening intervention among the BMT population. The positive nature by which the intervention was received by front-line clinical staff, laboratory staff, and administrators is promising for future implementation studies.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:177–185

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is the most common infectious cause of nosocomial diarrhea, and its prevention is an urgent public health priority. However, reduction of CDI is challenging because of its complex pathogenesis, large reservoirs of colonized patients, and the persistence of infectious spores. The literature lacks high-quality evidence for evaluating interventions, and many hospitals have implemented bundled interventions to reduce CDI with variable results. Thus, we conducted a systematic review to examine the components of CDI bundles, their implementation processes, and their impact on CDI rates.

We conducted a comprehensive literature search of multiple computerized databases from their date of inception through April 30, 2016. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO, an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Bundle effectiveness, adherence, and study quality were assessed for each study meeting our criteria for inclusion.

In the 26 studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review, implementation and adherence factors to interventions were variably and incompletely reported, making study reproducibility and replicability challenging. Despite contextual differences and the variety of bundle components utilized, all 26 studies reported an improvement in CDI rates. However, given the lack of randomized controlled trials in the literature, assessing a causal relationship between bundled interventions and CDI rates is currently impossible.

Cluster randomized trials that include a rigorous assessment of the implementation of bundled interventions are urgently needed to causally test the effect of intervention bundles on CDI rates.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:639–650

To examine self-reported practices and policies to reduce infection and transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) in healthcare settings outside the United States.

Cross-sectional survey.

International members of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Research Network.

Electronic survey of infection control and prevention practices, capabilities, and barriers outside the United States and Canada. Participants were stratified according to their country’s economic development status as defined by the World Bank as low-income, lower-middle-income, upper-middle-income, and high-income.

A total of 76 respondents (33%) of 229 SHEA members outside the United States and Canada completed the survey questionnaire, representing 30 countries. Forty (53%) were high-, 33 (43%) were middle-, and 1 (1%) was a low-income country. Country data were missing for 2 respondents (3%). Of the 76 respondents, 64 (84%) reported having a formal or informal antibiotic stewardship program at their institution. High-income countries were more likely than middle-income countries to have existing MDRO policies (39/64 [61%] vs 25/64 [39%], P=.003) and to place patients with MDRO in contact precautions (40/72 [56%] vs 31/72 [44%], P=.05). Major barriers to preventing MDRO transmission included constrained resources (infrastructure, supplies, and trained staff) and challenges in changing provider behavior.

In this survey, a substantial proportion of institutions reported encountering barriers to implementing key MDRO prevention strategies. Interventions to address capacity building internationally are urgently needed. Data on the infection prevention practices of low income countries are needed.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016:1–8

Clostridium difficile is the principal infectious cause of antibiotic-associated diarrhea and accounts for 12% of hospital-acquired infections. Recent literature has shown an increased risk of C. difficile infection (CDI) with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use.

To conduct a systematic assessment of the risk of hospital-acquired CDI following exposure to PPI.

We searched multiple databases for studies examining the relationship between PPI and hospital-acquired CDI. Pooled odds ratios were generated and assessment for heterogeneity performed.

We found 23 observational studies involving 186,033 cases that met eligibility criteria. Across studies, 10,307 cases of hospital-acquired CDI were reported. Significant heterogeneity was present; therefore, a random effects model was used. The pooled odds ratio was 1.81 (95% CI, 1.52–2.14), favoring higher risk of CDI with PPI use. Significant heterogeneity was present, likely due to differences in assessment of exposure, study population, and definition of CDI.

This meta-analysis suggests PPIs significantly increase the risk of hospital-acquired CDI. Given the significant health and economic burden of CDI and the risks of PPI, optimization of PPI use should be included in a multifaceted approach to CDI prevention.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;1408–1417

Compliance with hand hygiene in healthcare workers is fundamental to infection prevention yet remains a challenge to sustain. We examined fidelity reporting in interventions to improve hand hygiene compliance, and we assessed 5 measures of intervention fidelity: (1) adherence, (2) exposure or dose, (3) quality of intervention delivery, (4) participant responsiveness, and (5) program differentiation.

Systematic review

A librarian performed searches of the literature in PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, and Web of Science of material published prior to June 19, 2015. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, and assessment of study quality was conducted for each study reviewed.

A total of 100 studies met the inclusion criteria. Only 8 of these 100 studies reported all 5 measures of intervention fidelity. In addition, 39 of 100 (39%) failed to include at least 3 fidelity measures; 20 of 100 (20%) failed to include 4 measures; 17 of 100 (17%) failed to include 2 measures, while 16 of 100 (16%) of the studies failed to include at least 1 measure of fidelity. Participant responsiveness and adherence to the intervention were the most frequently unreported fidelity measures, while quality of the delivery was the most frequently reported measure.

Almost all hand hygiene intervention studies failed to report at least 1 fidelity measurement. To facilitate replication and effective implementation, reporting fidelity should be standard practice when describing results of complex behavioral interventions such as hand hygiene.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:567–575