Background: Awareness and compliance with international guidelines for diagnosis and clinical management of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) are unknown.Aim: To compare the awareness and... Show moreBackground: Awareness and compliance with international guidelines for diagnosis and clinical management of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) are unknown.Aim: To compare the awareness and compliance with the recommended strategies for diagnosis and clinical management of CDI across Europe in 2018-2019.Methods: Hospital sites and their associated community practices across 12 European countries completed an online survey in 2018-2019, to report on their practices in terms of surveillance, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CDI. Responses were collected from 105 hospitals and 39 community general practitioners (GPs).Findings: Hospital sites of 11 countries reported participation in national surveillance schemes compared with six countries for international schemes. The European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID)-recommended CDI testing meth-odologies were used by 82% (86/105) of hospitals, however countries reporting the highest incidence of CDI used non-recommended tests. Over 75% (80/105) of hospitals were aware of the most recent European CDI treatment guidelines at the time of this survey compared with only 26% (10/39) of surveyed GPs. However, up to 15% (16/105) of hospitals reported using the non-recommended metronidazole for recurrent CDI cases, sites in countries with lower awareness of CDI treatment guidelines. Only 37% (39/105) of hospitals adopted contact isolation precautions in case of suspected CDI.Conclusion: Good awareness of guidelines for the management of CDI was observed across the surveyed European hospital sites. However, low compliance with diagnostic testing guidelines, infection control measures for suspected CDI, and insufficient awareness of treatment guidelines continued to be reported in some countries. 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Healthcare Infection Society. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
Kooi, T.I.I. van der; Boshuizen, H.; Wille, J.C.; Greeff, S.C. de; Dissel, J.T. van; Schoffelen, A.F.; Gaalen, R.D. van 2019
Seven hospitals participated in the Dutch national surveillance for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and its risk factors. We analysed time-independent and time-dependent risk factors for VAP... Show moreSeven hospitals participated in the Dutch national surveillance for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and its risk factors. We analysed time-independent and time-dependent risk factors for VAP using the standard Cox regression and the flexible Weighted Cumulative Effects method (WCE) that evaluates both current and past exposures. The prospective surveillance of intensive care patients aged. 16 years and ventilated. 48 hours resulted in the inclusion of 940 primary ventilation periods, comprising 7872 ventilation days. The average VAP incidence density was 10.3/1000 ventilation days. Independent risk factors were age (16-40 years at increased risk: HR 2.42 95% confidence interval 1.07-5.50), COPD (HR 0.19 [0.04-0.78]), current sedation score (higher scores at increased risk), current selective oropharyngeal decontamination (HR 0.19 [0.04-0.91]), jet nebulizer (WCE, decreased risk), intravenous antibiotics for selective decontamination of the digestive tract (ivSDD, WCE, decreased risk), and intravenous antibiotics not for SDD (WCE, decreased risk). The protective effect of ivSDD was afforded for 24 days with a delay of 3 days. For some time-dependent variables, the WCE model was preferable over standard Cox proportional hazard regression. The WCE method can furthermore increase insight into the active time frame and possible delay herein of a time-dependent risk factor. Show less
