Cargando…

The relative importance of large problems far away versus small problems closer to home: insights into limiting the spread of antimicrobial resistance in England

BACKGROUND: To combat the spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), hospitals are advised to screen high-risk patients for carriage of antibiotic-resistant bacteria on admission. This often includes patients previously admitted to hospitals with a high AMR prevalence. However, the ability of such a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Donker, Tjibbe, Henderson, Katherine L., Hopkins, Katie L., Dodgson, Andrew R., Thomas, Stephanie, Crook, Derrick W., Peto, Tim E. A., Johnson, Alan P., Woodford, Neil, Walker, A. Sarah, Robotham, Julie V.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5406888/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28446169
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0844-2
_version_ 1783232056074960896
author Donker, Tjibbe
Henderson, Katherine L.
Hopkins, Katie L.
Dodgson, Andrew R.
Thomas, Stephanie
Crook, Derrick W.
Peto, Tim E. A.
Johnson, Alan P.
Woodford, Neil
Walker, A. Sarah
Robotham, Julie V.
author_facet Donker, Tjibbe
Henderson, Katherine L.
Hopkins, Katie L.
Dodgson, Andrew R.
Thomas, Stephanie
Crook, Derrick W.
Peto, Tim E. A.
Johnson, Alan P.
Woodford, Neil
Walker, A. Sarah
Robotham, Julie V.
author_sort Donker, Tjibbe
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To combat the spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), hospitals are advised to screen high-risk patients for carriage of antibiotic-resistant bacteria on admission. This often includes patients previously admitted to hospitals with a high AMR prevalence. However, the ability of such a strategy to identify introductions (and hence prevent onward transmission) is unclear, as it depends on AMR prevalence in each hospital, the number of patients moving between hospitals, and the number of hospitals considered ‘high risk’. METHODS: We tracked patient movements using data from the National Health Service of England Hospital Episode Statistics and estimated differences in regional AMR prevalences using, as an exemplar, data collected through the national reference laboratory service of Public Health England on carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) from 2008 to 2014. Combining these datasets, we calculated expected CPE introductions into hospitals from across the hospital network to assess the effectiveness of admission screening based on defining high-prevalence hospitals as high risk. RESULTS: Based on numbers of exchanged patients, the English hospital network can be divided into 14 referral regions. England saw a sharp increase in numbers of CPE isolates referred to the national reference laboratory over 7 years, from 26 isolates in 2008 to 1649 in 2014. Large regional differences in numbers of confirmed CPE isolates overlapped with regional structuring of patient movements between hospitals. However, despite these large differences in prevalence between regions, we estimated that hospitals received only a small proportion (1.8%) of CPE-colonised patients from hospitals outside their own region, which decreased over time. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to the focus on import screening based on assigning a few hospitals as ‘high risk’, patient transfers between hospitals with small AMR problems in the same region often pose a larger absolute threat than patient transfers from hospitals in other regions with large problems, even if the prevalence in other regions is orders of magnitude higher. Because the difference in numbers of exchanged patients, between and within regions, was mostly larger than the difference in CPE prevalence, it would be more effective for hospitals to focus on their own populations or region to inform control efforts rather than focussing on problems elsewhere. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-017-0844-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5406888
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54068882017-04-27 The relative importance of large problems far away versus small problems closer to home: insights into limiting the spread of antimicrobial resistance in England Donker, Tjibbe Henderson, Katherine L. Hopkins, Katie L. Dodgson, Andrew R. Thomas, Stephanie Crook, Derrick W. Peto, Tim E. A. Johnson, Alan P. Woodford, Neil Walker, A. Sarah Robotham, Julie V. BMC Med Research Article BACKGROUND: To combat the spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), hospitals are advised to screen high-risk patients for carriage of antibiotic-resistant bacteria on admission. This often includes patients previously admitted to hospitals with a high AMR prevalence. However, the ability of such a strategy to identify introductions (and hence prevent onward transmission) is unclear, as it depends on AMR prevalence in each hospital, the number of patients moving between hospitals, and the number of hospitals considered ‘high risk’. METHODS: We tracked patient movements using data from the National Health Service of England Hospital Episode Statistics and estimated differences in regional AMR prevalences using, as an exemplar, data collected through the national reference laboratory service of Public Health England on carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) from 2008 to 2014. Combining these datasets, we calculated expected CPE introductions into hospitals from across the hospital network to assess the effectiveness of admission screening based on defining high-prevalence hospitals as high risk. RESULTS: Based on numbers of exchanged patients, the English hospital network can be divided into 14 referral regions. England saw a sharp increase in numbers of CPE isolates referred to the national reference laboratory over 7 years, from 26 isolates in 2008 to 1649 in 2014. Large regional differences in numbers of confirmed CPE isolates overlapped with regional structuring of patient movements between hospitals. However, despite these large differences in prevalence between regions, we estimated that hospitals received only a small proportion (1.8%) of CPE-colonised patients from hospitals outside their own region, which decreased over time. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to the focus on import screening based on assigning a few hospitals as ‘high risk’, patient transfers between hospitals with small AMR problems in the same region often pose a larger absolute threat than patient transfers from hospitals in other regions with large problems, even if the prevalence in other regions is orders of magnitude higher. Because the difference in numbers of exchanged patients, between and within regions, was mostly larger than the difference in CPE prevalence, it would be more effective for hospitals to focus on their own populations or region to inform control efforts rather than focussing on problems elsewhere. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-017-0844-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-04-27 /pmc/articles/PMC5406888/ /pubmed/28446169 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0844-2 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Donker, Tjibbe
Henderson, Katherine L.
Hopkins, Katie L.
Dodgson, Andrew R.
Thomas, Stephanie
Crook, Derrick W.
Peto, Tim E. A.
Johnson, Alan P.
Woodford, Neil
Walker, A. Sarah
Robotham, Julie V.
The relative importance of large problems far away versus small problems closer to home: insights into limiting the spread of antimicrobial resistance in England
title The relative importance of large problems far away versus small problems closer to home: insights into limiting the spread of antimicrobial resistance in England
title_full The relative importance of large problems far away versus small problems closer to home: insights into limiting the spread of antimicrobial resistance in England
title_fullStr The relative importance of large problems far away versus small problems closer to home: insights into limiting the spread of antimicrobial resistance in England
title_full_unstemmed The relative importance of large problems far away versus small problems closer to home: insights into limiting the spread of antimicrobial resistance in England
title_short The relative importance of large problems far away versus small problems closer to home: insights into limiting the spread of antimicrobial resistance in England
title_sort relative importance of large problems far away versus small problems closer to home: insights into limiting the spread of antimicrobial resistance in england
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5406888/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28446169
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0844-2
work_keys_str_mv AT donkertjibbe therelativeimportanceoflargeproblemsfarawayversussmallproblemsclosertohomeinsightsintolimitingthespreadofantimicrobialresistanceinengland
AT hendersonkatherinel therelativeimportanceoflargeproblemsfarawayversussmallproblemsclosertohomeinsightsintolimitingthespreadofantimicrobialresistanceinengland
AT hopkinskatiel therelativeimportanceoflargeproblemsfarawayversussmallproblemsclosertohomeinsightsintolimitingthespreadofantimicrobialresistanceinengland
AT dodgsonandrewr therelativeimportanceoflargeproblemsfarawayversussmallproblemsclosertohomeinsightsintolimitingthespreadofantimicrobialresistanceinengland
AT thomasstephanie therelativeimportanceoflargeproblemsfarawayversussmallproblemsclosertohomeinsightsintolimitingthespreadofantimicrobialresistanceinengland
AT crookderrickw therelativeimportanceoflargeproblemsfarawayversussmallproblemsclosertohomeinsightsintolimitingthespreadofantimicrobialresistanceinengland
AT petotimea therelativeimportanceoflargeproblemsfarawayversussmallproblemsclosertohomeinsightsintolimitingthespreadofantimicrobialresistanceinengland
AT johnsonalanp therelativeimportanceoflargeproblemsfarawayversussmallproblemsclosertohomeinsightsintolimitingthespreadofantimicrobialresistanceinengland
AT woodfordneil therelativeimportanceoflargeproblemsfarawayversussmallproblemsclosertohomeinsightsintolimitingthespreadofantimicrobialresistanceinengland
AT walkerasarah therelativeimportanceoflargeproblemsfarawayversussmallproblemsclosertohomeinsightsintolimitingthespreadofantimicrobialresistanceinengland
AT robothamjuliev therelativeimportanceoflargeproblemsfarawayversussmallproblemsclosertohomeinsightsintolimitingthespreadofantimicrobialresistanceinengland
AT donkertjibbe relativeimportanceoflargeproblemsfarawayversussmallproblemsclosertohomeinsightsintolimitingthespreadofantimicrobialresistanceinengland
AT hendersonkatherinel relativeimportanceoflargeproblemsfarawayversussmallproblemsclosertohomeinsightsintolimitingthespreadofantimicrobialresistanceinengland
AT hopkinskatiel relativeimportanceoflargeproblemsfarawayversussmallproblemsclosertohomeinsightsintolimitingthespreadofantimicrobialresistanceinengland
AT dodgsonandrewr relativeimportanceoflargeproblemsfarawayversussmallproblemsclosertohomeinsightsintolimitingthespreadofantimicrobialresistanceinengland
AT thomasstephanie relativeimportanceoflargeproblemsfarawayversussmallproblemsclosertohomeinsightsintolimitingthespreadofantimicrobialresistanceinengland
AT crookderrickw relativeimportanceoflargeproblemsfarawayversussmallproblemsclosertohomeinsightsintolimitingthespreadofantimicrobialresistanceinengland
AT petotimea relativeimportanceoflargeproblemsfarawayversussmallproblemsclosertohomeinsightsintolimitingthespreadofantimicrobialresistanceinengland
AT johnsonalanp relativeimportanceoflargeproblemsfarawayversussmallproblemsclosertohomeinsightsintolimitingthespreadofantimicrobialresistanceinengland
AT woodfordneil relativeimportanceoflargeproblemsfarawayversussmallproblemsclosertohomeinsightsintolimitingthespreadofantimicrobialresistanceinengland
AT walkerasarah relativeimportanceoflargeproblemsfarawayversussmallproblemsclosertohomeinsightsintolimitingthespreadofantimicrobialresistanceinengland
AT robothamjuliev relativeimportanceoflargeproblemsfarawayversussmallproblemsclosertohomeinsightsintolimitingthespreadofantimicrobialresistanceinengland