To determine whether HCP were at higher risk than adults working in nonhealthcare roles (non-HCP).

Prospective cohort study.

Acute-care hospitals and other businesses in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Adults aged 18–69 years were enrolled for 1 or more of the 2010/2011, 2011/2012, and 2012/2013 influenza seasons. Swabs collected during acute respiratory illnesses were tested for influenza and pre- and postseason blood samples were tested for influenza-specific immune response.

The adjusted odds of influenza were similar for HCP and non-HCP (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63–2.63). Older adults and those vaccinated against influenza had lower odds, and those who shared their workspace and who used corrective eyewear had higher odds of influenza.

HCP and other working adults are at similar risk of influenza infection.

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at risk of acquiring and transmitting respiratory viruses while working in healthcare settings.

To investigate the incidence of and factors associated with HCWs working during an acute respiratory illness (ARI).

HCWs from 9 Canadian hospitals were prospectively enrolled in active surveillance for ARI during the 2010–2011 to 2013–2014 influenza seasons. Daily illness diaries during ARI episodes collected information on symptoms and work attendance.

At least 1 ARI episode was reported by 50.4% of participants each study season. Overall, 94.6% of ill individuals reported working at least 1 day while symptomatic, resulting in an estimated 1.9 days of working while symptomatic and 0.5 days of absence during an ARI per participant season. In multivariable analysis, the adjusted relative risk of working while symptomatic was higher for physicians and lower for nurses relative to other HCWs. Participants were more likely to work if symptoms were less severe and on the illness onset date compared to subsequent days. The most cited reason for working while symptomatic was that symptoms were mild and the HCW felt well enough to work (67%). Participants were more likely to state that they could not afford to stay home if they did not have paid sick leave and were younger.

HCWs worked during most episodes of ARI, most often because their symptoms were mild. Further data are needed to understand how best to balance the costs and risks of absenteeism versus those associated with working while ill.

Adherence to hand hygiene among healthcare workers (HCWs) is widely believed to be a key factor in reducing the spread of healthcare-associated infection. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a multifaceted intervention to increase rates of adherence to hand hygiene among HCWs and to assess the effect on the incidence of hospital-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization.

Cluster-randomized controlled trial.

Thirty hospital units in 3 tertiary care hospitals in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

After a 3-month baseline period of data collection, 15 units were randomly assigned to the intervention arm (with performance feedback, small-group teaching seminars, and posters) and 15 units to usual practice. Hand hygiene was observed during randomly selected 15-minute periods on each unit, and the incidence of MRSA colonization was measured using weekly surveillance specimens from June 2007 through May 2008.

We found that 3,812 (48.2%) of 7,901 opportunities for hand hygiene in the intervention group resulted in adherence, compared with 3,205 (42.6%) of 7,526 opportunities in the control group (P < .001; independent t test). There was no reduction in the incidence of hospital-acquired MRSA colonization in the intervention group.

Among HCWs in Ontario tertiary care hospitals, the rate of adherence to hand hygiene had a statistically significant increase of 6% with a multifaceted intervention, but the incidence of MRSA colonization was not reduced.

To determine the incidence and describe the changing epidemiology of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization or infection in Canadian hospitals from 1995–2007.

Forty-eight hospitals participating in the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program.

Prospective, laboratory-based surveillance for incident cases of MRSA colonization or infection among hospitalized patients.

Clinical and epidemiologic data were obtained by review of hospital records. Standard criteria were used to determine whether MRSA colonization or infection was present and whether the MRSA strain was healthcare associated or community associated. A representative subset of isolates was characterized by use of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and staphylococcal cassette chromosome (SCC) mec typing.

From 1995 to 2007, a total of 37,169 hospitalized patients were newly identified as either infected or colonized with MRSA, and the overall incidence of both MRSA colonization and MRSA infection increased from 0.65 to 11.04 cases per 10,000 patient-days (P < .001). Of these 37,169 patients, 11,828 (32%) had an MRSA infection, and infection rate increased from 0.36 to 3.43 cases per 10,000 patient-days. The proportion of community-associated MRSA strains increased from 6% to 23% (P < .001). The most common genotype (47% of isolates) was CMRSA-2 (USA100/800); in 2007, CMRSA-10 (USA300) was the second most common strain (27% of isolates), associated with SCCmec type IV. Patients with CMRSA-10 were predominantly from western Canada and were more likely to be children (odds ratio [OR], 10.0 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 7.4–13.4]) and to have infection (OR, 2.3 [95% CI, 1.9–2.7]), especially skin and/or soft tissue infection (OR, 5.9 [95% CI, 5.0–6.9]).

The overall incidence of both MRSA colonization and MRSA infection increased 17-fold in Canadian hospitals from 1995 to 2007. There has also been a dramatic increase in cases of community-associated MRSA infection due to the CMRSA-10 (USA300) clone. Continued surveillance is needed to monitor the ongoing evolution of MRSA colonization or infection in Canada and globally.

To review the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) infection control practices, the types of exposure to patients with SARS, and the activities associated with treatment of such patients among healthcare workers (HCWs) who developed SARS in Toronto, Canada, after SARS-specific infection control precautions had been implemented.

A retrospective review of work logs and patient assignments, detailed review of medical records of patients with SARS, and comprehensive telephone-based interviews of HCWs who met the case definition for SARS after implementation of infection control precautions.

Seventeen HCWs from 6 hospitals developed disease that met the case definition for SARS after implementation of infection control precautions. These HCWs had a mean age ( ± SD) of 39 ± 2.3 years. Two HCWs were not interviewed because of illness. Of the remaining 15, only 9 (60%) reported that they had received formal infection control training. Thirteen HCWs (87%) were unsure of proper order in which personal protective equipment should be donned and doffed. Six HCWs (40%) reused items (eg, stethoscopes, goggles, and cleaning equipment) elsewhere on the ward after initial use in a room in which a patient with SARS was staying. Use of masks, gowns, gloves, and eyewear was inconsistent among HCWs. Eight (54%) reported that they were aware of a breach in infection control precautions. HCWs reported fatigue due to an increase number and length of shifts; participants worked a median of 10 shifts during the 10 days before onset of symptoms. Seven HCWs were involved in the intubation of a patient with SARS. One HCW died, and the remaining 16 recovered.

Multiple factors were likely responsible for SARS in these HCWs, including the performance of high-risk patient care procedures, inconsistent use of personal protective equipment, fatigue, and lack of adequate infection control training.

To determine the impact of the screening test, nursing workload, handwashing rates, and dependence of handwashing on risk level of patient visit on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) transmission among hospitalized patients.

General medical ward.

Monte Carlo simulation was used to model MRSA transmission (median rate per 1,000 patient-days). Visits by healthcare workers (HCWs) to patients were simulated, and MRSA was assumed to be transmitted among patients via HCWs.

The transmission rate was reduced from 0.89 to 0.56 by the combination of increasing the sensitivity of the screening test from 80% to 99% and being able to report results in 1 day instead of 4 days. Reducing the patient-to-nurse ratio from 4.3 in the day and 6.8 at night to 3.8 and 5.7, respectively, reduced the number of nosocomial infections from 0.89 to 0.85; reducing the ratio to 1 and 1, respectively, further reduced the number of nosocomial infections to 0.32. Increases in handwashing rates by 0%, 10%, and 20% for high-risk visits yielded reductions in nosocomial infections similar to those yielded by increases in handwashing rates for all visits (0.89, 0.36, and 0.24, respectively). Screening all patients for MRSA at admission reduced the transmission rate to 0.81 per 1,000 patient-days from 1.37 if no patients were screened.

Within the ranges of parameters studied, the most effective strategies for reducing the rate of MRSA transmission were increasing the handwashing rates for visits involving contact with skin or bodily fluid and screening patients for MRSA at admission. (Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005;26:607- 615)

To compare the efficacy of the polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine in older adults between clinical trial and observational studies and to discuss the implications for long-term–care facilities (LTCFs).

A Medline search (to April 2003).

All meta-analyses of randomized and quasi-randomized trials of pneumococcal vaccines with placebo or no treatment were sought. All cohort or case–control studies were sought.

Of the 16 individual randomized clinical trials included in the reviews, 8 compared pneumococcal vaccine in individuals 55 years and older individuals. Only one study specifically addressed LTCF residents. Although no significant protective effect of the vaccine in elderly subpopulations was found, on the basis of wide confidence intervals and small subpopulation sample sizes, beneficial effects, particularly for pneumococcal bacteremia, could not be ruled out. Of the individual observational studies, 11 specifically evaluated vaccine efficacy in older adults. Vaccine efficacy was demonstrated in 9 of the 11 studies with no protective effect was shown in 2 studies.

Although the pooling of clinical trial data does not demonstrate significant efficacy of the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine in subgroups of older adults, these subgroup studies lacked power to show significant differences. Observational studies repeatedly demonstrate efficacy in older adults, and the vaccine has been demonstrated to be cost-effective and safe. It is strongly promoted by U.S. and Canadian advisory committees. On the basis of this available evidence, the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine should currently be recommended for older adults, especially those who are residents of LTCFs.