Browsing by Author "Barbut, F."
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- How to: Surveillance of Clostridium difficile infectionsPublication . Krutova, M.; Kinross, P.; Barbut, F.; Hajdu, A.; Wilcox, M.H.; Kuijper, E.J.; The survey contributorsBackground: The increasing incidence of Clostridium difficile infections (CDI) in healthcare settings in Europe since 2003 has affected both patients and healthcare systems. The implementation of effective CDI surveillance is key to enable monitoring of the occurrence and spread of C. difficile in healthcare and the timely detection of outbreaks. Aims: The aim of this review is to provide a summary of key components of effective CDI surveillance and to provide some practical recommendations. We also summarize the recent and current national CDI surveillance activities, to illustrate strengths and weaknesses of CDI surveillance in Europe. Sources: For the definition of key components of CDI surveillance, we consulted the current European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) CDI-related guidance documents and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) protocol for CDI surveillance in acute care hospitals. To summarize the recent and current national CDI surveillance activities, we discussed international multicentre CDI surveillance studies performed in 2005e13. In 2017, we also performed a new survey of existing CDI surveillance systems in 33 European countries. Content: Key components for CDI surveillance are appropriate case definitions of CDI, standardized CDI diagnostics, agreement on CDI case origin definition, and the presentation of CDI rates with well-defined numerators and denominators. Incorporation of microbiological data is required to provide information on prevailing PCR ribotypes and antimicrobial susceptibility to first-line CDI treatment drugs. In 2017, 20 European countries had a national CDI surveillance system and 21 countries participated in ECDCcoordinated CDI surveillance. Since 2014, the number of centres with capacity for C. difficile typing has increased to 35 reference or central laboratories in 26 European countries. Implications: Incidence rates of CDI, obtained from a standardized CDI surveillance system, can be used as an important quality indicator of healthcare at hospital as well as country level.
- Underdiagnosis of Clostridium difficile across Europe: the European, multicentre, prospective, biannual, point-prevalence study of Clostridium difficile infection in hospitalised patients with diarrhoea (EUCLID)Publication . Davies, K.A.; Longshaw, C.M.; Davis, G.; Bouza, E.; Barbut, F.; Barna, Z.; Delmée, M.; Fitzpatrick, F.; Ivanova, K.; Kuipjer, E.; Macovei, I.S.; Mentula, S.; Mastrantonio, P.; von Müller, L.; Oleastro, M.; Petinaki, E.; Pituch, H.; Norén, T.; Nováková, E.; Nyc, O.; Rupnik, M.; Schmid, D.; Wilcox, M.H.BACKGROUND: Variations in testing for Clostridium difficile infection can hinder patients' care, increase the risk of transmission, and skew epidemiological data. We aimed to measure the underdiagnosis of C difficile infection across Europe. METHODS: We did a questionnaire-based study at 482 participating hospitals across 20 European countries. Hospitals were questioned about their methods and testing policy for C difficile infection during the periods September, 2011, to August, 2012, and September, 2012, to August, 2013. On one day in winter, 2012-13 (December, 2012, or January, 2013), and summer, 2013 (July or August), every hospital sent all diarrhoeal samples submitted to their microbiology laboratory to a national coordinating laboratory for standardised testing of C difficile infection. Our primary outcome measures were the rates of testing for and cases of C difficile infection per 10 000 patient bed-days. Results of local and national C difficile infection testing were compared with each other. If the result was positive at the national laboratory but negative at the local hospital, the result was classified as undiagnosed C difficile infection. We compared differences in proportions with the Mann-Whitney test, or McNemar's test if data were matched. FINDINGS: During the study period, participating hospitals reported a mean of 65·8 tests (country range 4·6-223·3) for C difficile infection per 10 000 patient-bed days and a mean of 7·0 cases (country range 0·7-28·7) of C difficile infection per 10 000 patient-bed days. Only two-fifths of hospitals reported using optimum methods for testing of C difficile infection (defined by European guidelines), although the number of participating hospitals using optimum methods increased during the study period, from 152 (32%) of 468 in 2011-12 to 205 (48%) of 428 in 2012-13. Across all 482 European hospitals on the two sampling days, 148 (23%) of 641 samples positive for C difficile infection (as determined by the national laboratory) were not diagnosed by participating hospitals because of an absence of clinical suspicion, equating to about 74 missed diagnoses per day. INTERPRETATION: A wide variety of testing strategies for C difficile infection are used across Europe. Absence of clinical suspicion and suboptimum laboratory diagnostic methods mean that an estimated 40 000 inpatients with C difficile infection are potentially undiagnosed every year in 482 European hospitals.