PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Cassandra D Salgado

Publications and source records attributed to Cassandra D Salgado.

10 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Effect of targeted surveillance for control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a community hospital system.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the cost associated with targeted surveillance for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and the effect of such surveillance on the rate of nosocomial MRSA infection in a community hospital system. DESIGN: A before-and-after study comparing the rate of MRSA infection before (BES) and after (AES) the initiation of expanded surveillance. Cost-effectiveness was calculated as the difference between the cost savings associated with preventing nosocomial MRSA bacteremias and surgical site infections AES and the cost of MRSA cultures and contact isolation for patients colonized with MRSA. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients in a 400-bed tertiary-care facility (Roper Hospital) and a 180-bed suburban hospital (St. Francis Hospital), both in Charleston, South Carolina.Interventions. Beginning in September 2001, patients were screened for MRSA colonization upon admission to the intensive care unit and weekly thereafter. In July 2002, surveillance was expanded to include targeted screening of patients admitted to general wards who were at risk of MRSA colonization. Colonized patients were placed in contact isolation. RESULTS: The mean rate of nosocomial MRSA infection decreased at Roper (0.76 cases per 1,000 patient-days BES and 0.45 per 1000 patient-days AES; P = .05) and at St. Francis (0.73 cases per 1,000 patient-days BES and 0.57 cases per 1000 patient-days AES; P=.35). Surveillance was cost-effective, preventing 13 nosocomial MRSA bacteremias and 9 surgical site infections, for a savings of 1,545,762 US dollars. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted surveillance for MRSA colonization was cost-effective and provided substantial benefits by reducing the rate of nosocomial MRSA infections in a community hospital system.

Cross Infection↗
PubMed2006

What proportion of hospital patients colonized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus are identified by clinical microbiological cultures?

BACKGROUND: Most hospitals in the United States do not perform active surveillance cultures and, thus, rely on clinical microbiological cultures (CMCs) to identify patients colonized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). We sought to determine what proportion of patients who are colonized with MRSA at admission are identified by CMCs during hospitalization. METHODS: From February 1998 through November 2002, patients found to be colonized with MRSA at admission by use of active surveillance cultures were identified. The proportion of colonized patients who had a CMC that was positive for MRSA, the number of CMCs performed and their type (ie, according to the anatomical site from which specimens were obtained for culture), and the number and type of CMCs that were positive for MRSA were calculated. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-seven patients were found to be colonized with MRSA at admission, and 98 of 1,238 CMCs (7.9%; 95% confidence interval, 6.5%-9.6%) performed for 66 of these patients (15%; 95% confidence interval, 11.9%-18.8%) were positive for MRSA. The number of nonisolated days that would have occurred by relying on CMCs to identify MRSA-colonized patients was 3,247 (mean, 7.4 days per patient). Among the anatomical sites from which specimens were obtained for CMC, wounds demonstrated the highest sensitivity (30.2%) for identifying MRSA-colonized patients. CONCLUSIONS: CMCs failed to identify 85% of MRSA-colonized patients, because, in part, CMCs identified only a small proportion of colonized patients. Because many studies have shown a decrease in the transmission of MRSA from colonized patients for whom contact precautions, rather than standard precautions, are used, the findings of this study suggest that failure to identify colonized patients and to use contact precautions may be an important reason for the increasing rate of nosocomial MRSA infection in hospitals in the United States.

Cross Infection↗
PubMed2005

Prevention and control of antimicrobial-resistant infections in intensive care patients.

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature summarizing important aspects of infection control in the critical care setting and to provide recommendations to reduce infections with resistant bacteria in the intensive care unit. DATA SOURCE: Computer searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. DATA: The frequency of antibiotic-resistant, health care-associated infections has increased every year for the past 2 decades. Infections with antibiotic-resistant organisms have been linked to increases in morbidity, length of hospitalization, increased healthcare costs, and increased mortality. A comprehensive approach is necessary to prevent antimicrobial resistance in ICUs. This includes (1) preventing infections; (2) diagnosing and treating infections appropriately; (3) using antimicrobials wisely; and (4) preventing transmission. CONCLUSIONS: The reservoirs for antibiotic-resistant organisms are colonized patients, and the vectors are often healthcare workers. This places an enormous responsibility on healthcare providers to protect their patients. Clinicians must recognize the importance of adhering to the recommendations in the Centers for Disease Control's Campaign to Prevent Antimicrobial Resistance in the healthcare setting.

Bacterial Infections↗
PubMed2004

Preventing nosocomial influenza by improving the vaccine acceptance rate of clinicians.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions to prevent transmission of influenza and to increase employee compliance with influenza vaccination. DESIGN: The change in the proportion of hospitalized patients with laboratory-confirmed nosocomial influenza was observed over time and assessed using chi-square for trend analysis. The association between nosocomial influenza in patients and healthcare worker (HCW) compliance with vaccine was assessed by logistic regression. SETTING: A 600-bed, tertiary-care academic hospital. METHODS: After an outbreak of influenza A at this hospital in 1988, a mobile cart program was instituted with increased efforts to motivate employees to be vaccinated and furloughed when ill as well as new measures to prevent nosocomial spread. RESULTS: HCW vaccination rates increased from 4% in 1987-1988 to 67% in 1999-2000 (P < .0001). Proportions of nosocomially acquired influenza cases among employees or patients both declined significantly (P < .0001). Logistic regression analysis revealed a significant inverse association between HCW compliance with vaccination and the rate of nosocomial influenza among patients (P < .001). CONCLUSION: A mobile cart vaccination program and an increased emphasis on HCWs to receive the vaccine were associated with a significant increase in vaccine acceptance and a significant decrease in the rate of nosocomial influenza among patients.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Failure to develop vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus with oral vancomycin treatment of Clostridium difficile.

OBJECTIVE: Oral vancomycin therapy has been a risk factor for turning culture positive for vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE). VRE colonization status was reviewed for all patients who received oral vancomycin and underwent prospective cultures. METHODS: Data were extracted from the medical records of all patients receiving oral vancomycin between August 1995 and February 2001 regarding history, hospital course, and perirectal VRE cultures. Hospital policy required contact isolation for patients receiving oral vancomycin until colonization with VRE was excluded. RESULTS: Twenty-six courses of oral vancomycin were given to 22 patients. VRE colonization status after completion of therapy was evaluated for 23 courses in 20 (91%) of these patients. None of these patients became VRE culture positive during a median follow-up of 18 days (range, 9 to 39 days), with a median duration of treatment of 10 days (range, 3 to 58 days), and with a median total dose of 6,500 mg (range, 1,250 to 29,000 mg). All patients received other antibiotics within 30 days prior to therapy with oral vancomycin, during therapy with oral vancomycin, or both; 95% had received anti-anaerobic therapy and 35% had received parenteral vancomycin. CONCLUSIONS: Even when other risk factors were present, no patient receiving oral vancomycin at our facility subsequently became culture positive for VRE. This suggests that oral vancomycin therapy or other antibiotic use, including anti-anaerobic therapy, may not be a significant independent risk factor for turning culture positive for VRE among patients not previously exposed to the microbe.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2003

Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a meta-analysis of prevalence and risk factors.

Reports suggest that carriage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) among persons without health care-associated risks has increased. A meta-analysis of studies reporting the prevalence of community-acquired MRSA (CA-MRSA) among MRSA isolates from hospitalized patients or the prevalence of MRSA colonization among community members was conducted. The CA-MRSA prevalence among hospital MRSA was 30.2% in 27 retrospective studies and 37.3% in 5 prospective studies; 85% of all patients with CA-MRSA had > or =1 health care-associated risk. The pooled MRSA colonization rate among community members was 1.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04%-1.53%), but there was significant heterogeneity among study populations. Community members from whom samples were obtained in health care facilities were more likely to be carrying MRSA than were community members from whom samples were obtained outside of the health care setting (relative risk, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.56-3.53). Among studies that excluded persons with health care contacts, the MRSA prevalence was 0.2%. Moreover, most persons with CA-MRSA had > or =1 health care-associated risk, which suggests that the prevalence of MRSA among persons without risks remains low (< or =0.24%). Effective control of dissemination of MRSA throughout the community likely will require effective control of nosocomial MRSA transmission.

Community-Acquired Infections↗
PubMed2003

Outcomes associated with vancomycin-resistant enterococci: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Because patients with vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus bacteremia (VREB) usually have a higher severity of illness, it has been unclear whether VREB is worse than vancomycin-susceptible Enterococcus bacteremia (VSEB). METHODS: Data on morbidity and case fatality rates and costs were pooled from studies comparing VREB and VSEB, identified by Medline January 1986 to April 2002) and meeting abstracts. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed with contingency table chi-square. Multivariate analyses (MVAs) controlling for other predictors were evaluated. RESULTS: Thirteen studies compared case-fatality rates of VREB and VSEB. VREB case fatality was significantly higher (48.9% vs 19%; RR, 2.57; CI95, 2.27 to 2.91; attributable mortality = 30%). Five studies compared VREB with VSEB when bacteremia was the direct cause of death; VREB case fatality was significantly higher (39.1% vs 21.8%; RR, 1.79; CI95, 1.28 to 2.5; attributable mortality = 17%). Four MVAs found significant increases in case-fatality rates (OR, 2.10 to 4.0), 3 showed trends toward increase (OR, 1.74 to 3.34 with wide confidence intervals), and 3 with low statistical power found no difference. VREB recurred in 16.9% versus 3.7% with VSEB (P < .0001). Three studies reported significant increases in LOS, costs, or both with VREB. CONCLUSION: Most studies have had inadequate sample size, inadequate adjustment for other predictors of adverse outcomes, or both, but available data suggest that VREB is associated with higher recurrence, mortality, and excess costs than VSEB including multiple studies adjusting for severity of illness.

Bacteremia↗
PubMed2002

Influenza in the acute hospital setting.

Influenza poses special hazards inside healthcare facilities and can cause explosive outbreaks of illness. Healthcare workers are at risk of acquiring influenza and thus serve as an important reservoir for patients under their care. Annual influenza immunisation of high-risk persons and their contacts, including healthcare workers, is the primary means of preventing nosocomial influenza. Despite influenza vaccine effectiveness, it is substantially underused by healthcare providers. Influenza can be diagnosed by culturing the virus from respiratory secretions and by rapid antigen detection kits; recognition of a nosocomial outbreak is important in order to employ infection-control efforts. Optimal control of influenza in the acute-care setting should focus upon reducing potential influenza reservoirs in the hospital, including: isolating patients with suspected or documented influenza, sending home healthcare providers or staff who exhibit typical symptoms of influenza, and discouraging persons with febrile respiratory illness from visiting the hospital during a known influenza outbreak in the community. (Note: influenza and other respiratory viruses can cause non-febrile illness but are still transmissible.) The antiviral M2 protein inhibitors (amantadine, rimantadine) and neuraminidase inhibitors (zanamivir, oseltamivir) have proven efficacy in treating and preventing influenza illness; however, their role in the prevention and control of influenza in the acute hospital setting remains to be more fully studied.

Acetamides↗
PubMed2002

Low rate of false-positive results with use of a rapid HIV test.

BACKGROUND: Occupational exposure to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is an important threat to healthcare workers. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines recommend prompt institution of prophylaxis. This requires (1) immediate prophylaxis after exposure, pending test results that may take more than 24 hours in many hospitals; or (2) performance of a rapid test. The Single Use Diagnostic System (SUDS) HIV-1 Test is used to screen rapidly for antibodies to HIV type 1 in plasma or serum, with a reported sensitivity of more than 99.9%. We used this test from January 1999 until September 2000, when it was withdrawn from the market following reports claiming a high rate of false-positive results. METHODS: We reviewed the results of postexposure HIV testing during 21 months. RESULTS: A total of 884 SUDS tests were performed on source patients after occupational exposures (883 negative results, 1 reactive result). The results of repeat SUDS testing on the reactive specimen were also reactive, but the results of enzyme immunoassay and Western blot testing were negative. A new specimen from the same patient showed a negative result on SUDS testing. This suggested a specificity of 99.9%. In the 4 months after SUDS testing was suspended, there was 1 false-positive result on enzyme immunoassay for 1 of 132 source patients (presumed specificity, 99.2%). CONCLUSION: Use of the SUDS test facilitated rapid and accurate evaluation of source specimens, obviating unnecessary prophylaxis.

False Positive Reactions↗