We have located links that may give you full text access.
Audit of the management of patients at high risk of carbapenemase-producing enterobacteriaceae (CPE): Are we ready?
Journal of Infection Prevention 2017 November
Background: Incidence of carbapenemase-producing enterobacteriaceae (CPE) in the UK is increasing. In 2013, Public Health England (PHE) published a toolkit to control spread of CPE within healthcare settings.
Aim: To assess compliance to hospital CPE policy (adapted from PHE) in the identification, isolation and screening of suspected CPE patients.
Methods: Admission booklets of 150 patients were evaluated to see whether the relevant section had been completed to identify high-risk CPE patients. Where necessary, patients were interviewed or their GPs were contacted to assess their CPE risk. Additionally, 28 patients screened for CPE were audited to assess compliance to screening and isolation.
Findings: Only 23 patients out of 147 (15.6%) were risk assessed on admission. Risk status of 27 (18.4%) patients could not be assessed due to lack of data. Fifteen patients out of 28 (54%) screened for CPE were identified and isolated on admission. Ten out of 19 patients (53%) had three screens 48 h apart.
Discussion: This audit highlights difficulties in screening based on individual risk factors as the majority of patients were not screened on admission and documentation on isolation and screening was poor. More needs to be done to raise awareness of the requirements for routine assessment, isolation and screening.
Aim: To assess compliance to hospital CPE policy (adapted from PHE) in the identification, isolation and screening of suspected CPE patients.
Methods: Admission booklets of 150 patients were evaluated to see whether the relevant section had been completed to identify high-risk CPE patients. Where necessary, patients were interviewed or their GPs were contacted to assess their CPE risk. Additionally, 28 patients screened for CPE were audited to assess compliance to screening and isolation.
Findings: Only 23 patients out of 147 (15.6%) were risk assessed on admission. Risk status of 27 (18.4%) patients could not be assessed due to lack of data. Fifteen patients out of 28 (54%) screened for CPE were identified and isolated on admission. Ten out of 19 patients (53%) had three screens 48 h apart.
Discussion: This audit highlights difficulties in screening based on individual risk factors as the majority of patients were not screened on admission and documentation on isolation and screening was poor. More needs to be done to raise awareness of the requirements for routine assessment, isolation and screening.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app