Objective: To evaluate the potential contribution of “extrinsic” contamination of intravenous fluids in hospital bacteremia and infection.

Design: Prospective cross-sectional survey of infusate contamination, December 1992 to December 1993.

Setting: A pediatric department (1,500 admissions per year) in a general, urban teaching hospital, serving low-income patients.

Samples and Patients: Infusate samples (0.5 to 1.0 mL) from the injection port used by the staff were taken for cultures from all febrile or septic patients in hospital wards. At least four samples were taken each day; if no febrile or septic patients were available, other patients were sampled at convenience.

Results: A 6.8% positive culture rate (87 contaminates in 1,277 infusates) was obtained, without significant differences among the wards. Gram-negative organisms were recovered from 56 samples (62.9%), mainly of the tribe Klebsielleae (56.1%). Coagulase-negative staphylococci were isolated in 30 samples (33.7%). There was no significant difference between the febrile-septic group and the asymptomatic group in the rate of infusate contamination (P=.59). In eight patients, the same organisms were recovered from infusate and blood culture. The overall bacteremia rate was 2.5 per 100 discharges.

Conclusions: Compared to previous reports, higher infusate contamination rates and different organisms (mainly gram-negative) were observed. In hospitals of underdeveloped countries, nosocomial infection control frequently is disregarded. Infusate contamination may be common and could lead to gram-negative bacteremia. In such settings, it seems advisable to perform surveillance studies to identify infusate contamination, because a single infusate contamination could be a signal for an epidemic.

Objective: To determine the cause(s) of an outbreak of gram-negative bacteremia (GNB) in open-heart–surgery (OHS) patients at hospital A.

Design: Case-control and cohort studies and an environmental survey.

Results: Nine patients developed GNB with Enterobacter cloacae (6), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (5), Klebsiella pneumoniae (3), Serratia marcescens (2), or Klebsiella oxytoca (1) following OHS; five of nine patients had polymicrobial bacteremia. When the GNB patients were compared with randomly selected OHS patients, having had the first procedure of the day (8 of 9 versus 12 of 27, P=.02), longer cardiopulmonary bypass (median, 122 versus 83 minutes, P=.01) or cross-clamp times (median, 75 versus 42 minutes, P=.008), intraoperative dopamine infusion (9 of 9 versus 15 of 27, P=.01), or exposure to scrub nurse 6 (6 of 9 versus 4 of 27, P=.001) were identified as risk factors. When stratified by length of the procedure, only being the first procedure of the day and exposure to scrub nurse 6 remained significant. First procedures used pressure-monitoring equipment that was assembled before surgery and left open and uncovered overnight in the operating room, whereas other procedures used pressure-monitoring equipment assembled immediately before the procedure. At night, operating rooms were cleaned by maintenance personnel who used a disinfectant-water solution sprayed through a hose connected to an automatic diluting system. Observation of the use of this hose documented that this solution could have contacted and entered uncovered pressure-monitoring equipment left in the operating room. Water samples from the hose revealed no disinfectant, but grew P aeruginosa. The outbreak was terminated by setting up pressure-monitoring equipment immediately before the procedure and discontinuing use of the hose-disinfectant system.

Conclusions: This outbreak most likely resulted from contamination of uncovered preassembled pressure-monitoring equipment by water from a malfunctioning spray disinfectant device. Pressure-monitoring equipment should be assembled immediately before use and protected from possible environmental contamination.

Objective: To implement and evaluate an algorithm designed to assist in the consistent placement of patients with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis into negative-pressure isolation rooms (NPIRs).

Design: A standard algorithm was designed for the appropriate room placement of patients with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis using clinical, radiographic, and laboratory criteria and reported risk factors. A case-patient was defined as an inpatient who had at least one Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture-positive respiratory specimen from January 1, 1993, through December 31, 1994. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, case contact, and isolation and room placement data were collected prospectively on all case-patients.

Setting: A 900-bed university teaching and referral center.

Results: During 1993 and 1994, 69 patients were evaluated for possible pulmonary tuberculosis, and 31 case-patients were identified. Of the 31 case-patients, 26 (84%) were placed on respiratory isolation in NPIRs, including 19 (61%) who were isolated within 24 hours of admission (1993, 14 of 20 [70%]; 1994, 5 of 11 [45%]). Seven case-patients (23%) were isolated in NPIRs following delays that ranged from 2 to 31 days (median, 9 days), and five case-patients (16%) never were isolated during admissions of from 3 to 28 days (median, 4 days). These 12 case-patients contributed a total of 136 patient-exposure days during their hospitalizations. Misclassification of patient risk status by user error delayed isolation of five (42%) of the 12 improperly isolated case-patients.

Conclusions: The use of an algorithm incorporating radiographic, laboratory, and clinical criteria and reported risk factors may assist in the rapid isolation of patients with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis.

Widespread use of antimicrobials in the inpatient and outpatient setting has been associated with the emergence of multidrug-resistant microorganisms. A variety of methods exist to improve the appropriateness of antimicrobial use in the inpatient setting, including guidelines, antimicrobial use evaluations, microbiology laboratory guidance, formulary development and antimicrobial restriction, use of antimicrobial order or automatic stop order forms, and antimicrobial audits. To decrease the selective pressure that leads to development of pathogen resistance and to reduce antimicrobial expenditures, infectious disease, infection control, pharmacy, and administrative staff need to improve clinician use of antimicrobials through development and implementation of antimicrobial use committees. Through the implementation of a comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach to antimicrobial use and development of clinician education programs, inappropriate antimicrobial use can be reduced, patient care can be improved, and substantial cost savings can be realized.