Infection Control Programs in Long-Term-Care Facilities: Structure and Process

1999 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. 764-769 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara A. Goldrick
Keyword(s):  
Infection Control ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Skilled Nursing ◽  
Healthcare Facilities ◽  
Control Programs ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
Rapid Transfer

AbstractDue to the rapid transfer of patients from the acute-care setting, the intensity of nursing care among residents in long-term-care facilities (LTCFs) has increased, transforming today's LTCFs into subacute healthcare facilities. Given the increased risk of infection among residents in LTCFs and the associated morbidity and mortality, evaluation of infection control programs in skilled nursing LTCFs is warranted. This article addresses the current structure and process of infection control programs in skilled nursing LTCFs.

What is the Status of Infection Control Programs in Long-Term Care Facilities?

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (6) ◽  
pp. S164
Author(s):  
Colleen Roberts ◽  
Katherine Buechel ◽  
Kelley Tobey ◽  
Pamela Talley ◽  
Marion Kainer
Keyword(s):  
Infection Control ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Control Programs ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
The Status

Infection Control in Pediatric Extended Care Facilities

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 598-603 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jo-Ann S. Harris
Keyword(s):  
Infection Control ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Residential Care Facilities ◽  
Control Programs ◽  
Specialty Hospitals ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
Extended Care ◽  
Care Facilities

Pediatric extended care facilities provide for the biopsychosocial needs of patients younger than 21 years of age who have sustained self-care deficits. These facilities include long-term and residential care facilities, chronic disease and specialty hospitals, and residential schools. Infection control policies and procedures developed for adult long-term care facilities, primarily nursing homes for elderly people, are not applicable to long-term care facilities that serve pediatric patients. This article reviews the characteristics of pediatric extended care facilities and their residents, and the epidemic and endemic nosocomial infections, infection control programs, and antimicrobial resistance profiles found in pediatric extended care facilities.

scholarly journals Reducing Morbidity and Mortality Rates from COVID-19, Influenza and Pneumococcal Illness in Nursing Homes and Long-Term Care Facilities by Vaccination and Comprehensive Infection Control Interventions

Geriatrics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 48
Author(s):  
Roger E. Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Nursing Homes ◽  
Infection Control ◽  
Strong Evidence ◽  
Disease Transmission ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Tract Infections

The COVID-19 pandemic identifies the problems of preventing respiratory illnesses in seniors, especially frail multimorbidity seniors in nursing homes and Long-Term Care Facilities (LCTFs). Medline and Embase were searched for nursing homes, long-term care facilities, respiratory tract infections, disease transmission, infection control, mortality, systematic reviews and meta-analyses. For seniors, there is strong evidence to vaccinate against influenza, SARS-CoV-2 and pneumococcal disease, and evidence is awaited for effectiveness against COVID-19 variants and when to revaccinate. There is strong evidence to promptly introduce comprehensive infection control interventions in LCFTs: no admissions from inpatient wards with COVID-19 patients; quarantine and monitor new admissions in single-patient rooms; screen residents, staff and visitors daily for temperature and symptoms; and staff work in only one home. Depending on the vaccination situation and the current risk situation, visiting restrictions and meals in the residents’ own rooms may be necessary, and reduce crowding with individual patient rooms. Regional LTCF administrators should closely monitor and provide staff and PPE resources. The CDC COVID-19 tool measures 33 infection control indicators. Hand washing, social distancing, PPE (gowns, gloves, masks, eye protection), enhanced cleaning of rooms and high-touch surfaces need comprehensive implementation while awaiting more studies at low risk of bias. Individual ventilation with HEPA filters for all patient and common rooms and hallways is needed.

scholarly journals The Impact of Enhanced Antimicrobial Stewardship Support on Antibiotic Starts in Long-Term Care Facilities

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s527-s527
Author(s):  
Gabriela Andujar-Vazquez ◽  
Kirthana Beaulac ◽  
Shira Doron ◽  
David R Snydman
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Infection Control ◽  
Antimicrobial Stewardship ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
The Impact

Background: The Tufts Medical Center Antimicrobial Stewardship (ASP) Team has partnered with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) to provide broad-based educational programs (BBEP) to long-term care facilities (LTCFs) in an effort to improve ASP and infection control practices. LTCFs have consistently expressed interest in individualized and hands-on involvement by ASP experts, yet they lack resources. The goal of this study was to determine whether “enhanced” individualized guidance provided by an ASP expert would lead to antibiotic start decreases in LTCFs participating in our pilot study. Methods: A pilot study was conducted to test the feasibility and efficacy of providing enhanced ASP and infection control practices to LTCFs. In total, 10 facilities already participating in MDPH BBEP and submitting monthly antibiotic start data were enrolled, were stratified by bed size and presence of dementia unit, and were randomized 1:1 to the “enhanced” group (defined as reviewing protocols and antibiotic start cases, providing lectures and feedback to staff and answering questions) versus the “nonenhanced” group. Antibiotic start data were validated and collected prospectively from January 2018 to July 2019, and the interventions began in April 2019. Due to staff turnover and lack of engagement, intervention was not possible in 2 of the 5 LTCFs randomized to the enhanced group, which were therefore analyzed as a nonenhanced group. An incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% CIs were calculated comparing the antibiotic start rate per 1,000 resident days between periods in the pilot groups. Results: The average bed sizes for enhanced groups versus nonenhanced groups were 121 (±71.0) versus 108 (±32.8); the average resident days per facility per month were 3,415.7 (±2,131.2) versus 2,911.4 (±964.3). Comparatively, 3 facilities in the enhanced group had dementia unit versus 4 in the nonenhanced group. In the per protocol analysis, the antibiotic start rate in the enhanced group before versus after the intervention was 11.35 versus 9.41 starts per 1,000 resident days (IRR, 0.829; 95% CI, 0.794–0.865). The antibiotic start rate in the nonenhanced group before versus after the intervention was 7.90 versus 8.23 antibiotic starts per 1,000 resident days (IRR, 1.048; 95% CI, 1.007–1.089). Physician hours required for ASP for the enhanced group totaled 8.9 (±2.2) per facility per month. Conclusions: Although the number of hours required for intervention by an expert was not onerous, maintaining engagement proved difficult and in 2 facilities could not be achieved. A statistically significant 20% decrease in the antibiotic start rate was achieved in the enhanced group after interventions, potentially reflecting the benefit of enhanced ASP support by an expert.Funding: This study was funded by the Leadership in Epidemiology, Antimicrobial Stewardship, and Public Health (LEAP) fellowship training grant award from the CDC.Disclosures: None

scholarly journals Case–control study to estimate odds of death within 28 days of positive test for SARS-CoV-2 prior to vaccination for residents of long-term care facilities in England, 2020–2021

2021 ◽  
pp. jech-2021-218135
Author(s):  
Karthik Paranthaman ◽  
Hester Allen ◽  
Dimple Chudasama ◽  
Neville Q Verlander ◽  
James Sedgwick
Keyword(s):  
Long Term Care ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Positive Test ◽  
Mortality Data ◽  
Multivariable Logistic Regression Analysis ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Care Facilities

BackgroundPersons living in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are presumed to be at higher risk of adverse outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection due to increasing age and frailty, but the magnitude of increased risk is not well quantified.MethodsAfter linking demographic and mortality data for cases with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 2020 and January 2021 in England, a random sample of 6000 persons who died and 36 000 who did not die within 28 days of a positive test was obtained from the dataset of 3 020 800 patients. Based on an address-matching process, the residence type of each case was categorised into one of private home and residential or nursing LTCF. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted.ResultsMultivariable analysis showed that an interaction effect between age and residence type determined the outcome. Compared with a 60-year-old person not living in LTCF, the adjusted OR (aOR) for same-aged persons living in residential and nursing LTCFs was 1.77 (95% CI 1.21 to 2.6, p=0.0017) and 3.95 (95% CI 2.77 to 5.64, p<0.0001), respectively. At 90 years of age, aORs were 0.87 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.06, p=0.21) and 0.74 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.9, p=0.001), respectively. The model had an overall accuracy of 94.2% (94.2%) when applied to the full dataset of 2 978 800 patients.ConclusionThis study found that residents of LTCFs in England had higher odds of death up to 80 years of age. Beyond 80 years, there was no difference in the odds of death for LTCF residents compared with those in the wider community.

scholarly journals 1236. Infection Control Risk Mitigation and Implementation of Best Practice Recommendations in Long-Term Care Facilities

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S375-S376
Author(s):  
Teresa Fitzgerald ◽  
Regina Nailon ◽  
Kate Tyner ◽  
Sue Beach ◽  
Margaret Drake ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Infection Control ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Audit And Feedback ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Practice Recommendations ◽  
Care Facilities

Abstract Background Nebraska (NE) Infection Control Assessment and Promotion Program (ICAP) is a quality improvement initiative supported by the NE Department of Health and Human Services. This initiative utilizes subject matter experts (SMEs) including infectious diseases physicians and certified infection preventionists (IP) to assess and improve infection prevention and control programs (IPCP) in various healthcare settings. NE ICAP conducted on-site surveys and observations of IPCP in many volunteer facilities to include long-term care facilities (LTCF) between November 2015 and July 2017. SMEs provided on-site coaching and made best practice recommendations (BPR) for priority implementation. Impact of this intervention on LTCF IPCP was examined. Methods Using a standardized questionnaire, follow-up phone calls were made with LTCF to evaluate implementation of the BPR one-year post-assessment. Descriptive analyses were performed to examine BPR implementation in LTCF that had follow-up between 4/4/17 to 4/17/18 and to identify factors that promoted or impeded BPR implementation. Results Overall, 45 LTCF were assessed. The top 5 IC categories requiring improvement were audit and feedback practices (28 of 45, 62%), PPE supplies at point of use (62%), IC risk assessments (58%), TB risk assessments (56%), and supply and linen storage practices (56%). Follow-up assessments were completed for 270 recommendations in 25 LTCF. Recommendations reviewed ranged from three to 26 per LTCF (median = 15). The majority of the 270 recommendations (n = 162, 60%) had been either completely (35%) or partially (25%) implemented by the time of the follow-up calls. The ICAP visit itself was reported as the most helpful resource for BPR implementation (77 of 162). Lack of staffing was the most commonly mentioned barrier to implementation when LTCF implemented BPR partially or implementation was not planned (37 of 85). BPR Implementation most frequently involved additional staff training (64 of 162), review of policies and procedures (38 of 162), and implementing audit (34 of 162) and/or feedback (23 of 162) programs. Conclusion Numerous IC gaps exist in LTCF. Peer-to-peer feedback and coaching by SMEs facilitated implementation of many BPR directed toward mitigating identified IC gaps. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document