Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T00:33:00.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Healthcare-associated infections in Japanese hospitals: results from a large-scale multicenter point-prevalence survey in Aichi, 2020

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2024

Hiroshi Morioka*
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases, Nagoya University Hospital, Nagoya, Japan
Yusuke Koizumi
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Infectious Diseases, Aichi Medical University Hospital, Nagakute, Japan Department of Infection Prevention and Control, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, Japan
Keisuke Oka
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases, Nagoya University Hospital, Nagoya, Japan Antimicrobial Stewardship Team, Kariya Toyota General Hospital, Kariya, Japan
Masami Okudaira
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacy, Anjo Kosei Hospital, Anjo, Japan
Yuka Tomita
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases, Japanese Red Cross Aichi Medical Center Nagoya Daini Hospital, Nagoya, Japan
Yumi Kojima
Affiliation:
Infection Control Team, Nagoya Ekisaikai Hospital, Nagoya, Japan
Toshitaka Watariguchi
Affiliation:
Department of General Internal Medicine, Toyota Kosei Hospital, Toyota, Japan
Koichi Watamoto
Affiliation:
Department of Hematology, Komaki City Hospital, Komaki, Japan
Yoshikazu Mutoh
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases, Tosei General Hospital, Seto, Japan
Takeshi Tsuji
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Okazaki City Hospital, Okazaki, Japan
Manabu Yokota
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacy, Handa City Hospital, Handa, Japan
Junichi Shimizu
Affiliation:
Department of Thoracic Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Nagoya, Japan
Chihiro Hasegawa
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases, Nagoya City University East Medical Center, Nagoya, Japan
Susumu Iwata
Affiliation:
Department of Respiratory Medicine, Kasugai Municipal Hospital, Kasugai, Japan
Masatoshi Nagaoka
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacy, Nagoya Memorial Hospital, Nagoya, Japan
Yuji Ito
Affiliation:
Department of Respiratory Medicine, Sougo Daiyukai Hospital, Ichinomiya, Japan
Shohei Kawasaki
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacy, Nishichita General Hospital, Tokai, Japan
Hiroki Kato
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases, Toyota Memorial Hospital, Toyota, Japan
Yuichi Kitagawa
Affiliation:
Department of Infection Control, National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Obu, Japan
Takuya Goto
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacy, NHO Nagoya Medical Center, Nagoya, Japan
Yasuhiro Nozaki
Affiliation:
Department of Respiratory Medicine, Tokoname Municipal Hospital, Tokoname, Japan
Kenji Akita
Affiliation:
Infection Control Team, Nagoya City University West Medical Center, Nagoya, Japan
Shinsuke Shimizu
Affiliation:
Infection Control Team, Kamiiida Daiichi Hospital, Nagoya, Japan
Masanori Nozawa
Affiliation:
Department of Pharmacy, Chita Kosei Hospital, Chita, Japan
Munehiro Kato
Affiliation:
Department of Respiratory Medicine, Japan Organization of Occupational Health and Safety, Asahi Rosai Hospital, Owariasahi, Japan
Masamitsu Ishihara
Affiliation:
Department of Internal Medicine, Holy Spirit Hospital, Nagoya, Japan
Kenta Ito
Affiliation:
Aichi Children’s Health and Medical Center, Obu, Japan
Tetsuya Yagi
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases, Nagoya University Hospital, Nagoya, Japan
*
Corresponding author: Hiroshi Morioka; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) pose significant challenges to healthcare systems worldwide. Epidemiological data are essential for effective HAI control; however, comprehensive information on HAIs in Japanese hospitals is limited. This study aimed to provide an overview of HAIs in Japanese hospitals.

Methods:

A multicenter point-prevalence survey (PPS) was conducted in 27 hospitals across the Aichi Prefecture between February and July 2020. This study encompassed diverse hospital types, including community, university, and specialized hospitals. Information on the demographic data of the patients, underlying conditions, devices, HAIs, and causative organisms was collected.

Results:

A total of 10,199 patients (male: 5,460) were included in this study. The median age of the patients was 73 (interquartile range [IQR]: 56–82) years, and the median length of hospital stay was 10 (IQR: 4–22) days. HAIs were present in 6.6% of patients, with pneumonia (1.83%), urinary tract infection (1.09%), and surgical site infection (SSI) (0.87%) being the most common. The prevalence of device-associated HAIs was 0.91%. Staphylococcus aureus (17.3%), Escherichia coli (17.1%), and Klebsiella pneumoniae (7.2%) were the primary pathogens in 433 organisms; 29.6% of the Enterobacterales identified showed resistance to third-generation cephalosporins. Pneumonia was the most prevalent HAI in small-to-large hospitals (1.69%–2.34%) and SSI, in extra-large hospitals (over 800 beds, 1.37%).

Conclusions:

This study offers vital insights into the epidemiology of HAIs in hospitals in Japan. These findings underscore the need for national-level PPSs to capture broader epidemiological trends, particularly regarding healthcare challenges post-COVID-19.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America

Introduction

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are infections that patients acquire during treatment or surgery in healthcare facilities, many of which are preventable through appropriate measures. 1 HAIs are serious events for patients, hospitals, and governments, leading to increased mortality, lengthy hospital stays, and increased medical costs. 2 The World Health Organization (WHO) reported that the prevalence of HAIs is 7% in high-income countries and 15% in low- and middle-income countries; the overall HAI-associated mortality rate is approximately 10%. Reference Drysdale3 In the European Union and European Economic Area, more than 3.5 million cases of HAIs are estimated to occur each year, leading to more than 90,000 deaths. 1 Several factors increase the risk of acquiring HAIs, such as invasive surgical procedures, severity of illness, inappropriate infection prevention measures (eg, poor hand hygiene and prolonged use of devices), and inappropriate antibiotic use. 4 The control and prevention of HAIs have become a worldwide concern. Large-scale and precise inpatient data are essential for formulating effective policies to reduce HAI.

Catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) are well-known device-associated HAIs, 4 accounting for 9.8%–25.6% of all HAIs. Reference Morioka, Nagao and Yoshihara5,Reference Cai, Venkatachalam and Tee6 Targeted surveillance has been commonly conducted to monitor HAIs worldwide and can determine the incidence of these HAIs. However, it cannot provide a complete picture of the HAIs in a hospital at a particular time.

The point-prevalence survey (PPS) is a useful tool for understanding the prevalence of HAIs and antimicrobial use at a certain time. PPSs have been conducted worldwide, including a multistate PPS in the United States, a multi-country PPS in Europe, and a global PPS. Reference Phu, Wertheim and Larsson711 However, only small PPSs in one to four university hospitals and two community hospitals have been conducted in Japan, revealing the prevalence of HAIs to be 7.4%–9.0%. Reference Morioka, Nagao and Yoshihara5,Reference Komagamine, Yabuki, Kobayashi and Okabe12,Reference Morioka, Iguchi and Tetsuka13 This study aimed to investigate the epidemiology and characteristics of inpatients, HAIs, and causative organisms in Japanese hospitals using a multicenter PPS.

Methods

Setting and patients

Aichi Prefecture is in central Japan and is the fourth most populous prefecture, with approximately 7.5 million residents in 2020. Nagoya City is the most populous city in Aichi Prefecture, with approximately 2.3 million residents in 2020. 14 In 2020, there were 321 hospitals with 66,487 beds in Aichi Prefecture. 15 In the fiscal year 2019, 57 hospitals charged an infection prevention fee-1 (IPF-1). The IPF-1 can be charged when hospitals meet specific infection control criteria: having an infection control team (ICT), employing full-time ICT staff, conducting regular conferences on infection control with other hospitals, and mutually assessing infection control. 16

Participating IPF-1 charged hospitals were recruited publicly via meetings or letters sent by the research group of our institution from January 2019 to October 2019. Letters were sent to the chief of ICT at each IPF-1 charged hospital and included the description of the PPS, the purpose of the study, and the benefits and expected burden of participation. First, multicenter PPSs were planned for use from February 2020 to April 2020. However, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, the study period was extended to the end of July 2020.

All patients in the hospital at 9:00 am on the PPS day were eligible, except those who declined to participate. Due to the excessive workload imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, participating hospitals were given the option to conduct either a full survey or a half survey. For the half survey, the initial step involved compiling a complete list of all patients. The selection of patients was then based on choosing either an odd or even number from the patient list number, with the decision on which numbering system to use left to the discretion of the hospital.

Data collection

The PPS protocol was adapted from the 2016 European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) PPS protocols version 5.3. 17 The collected data included hospital information (eg, bed count, hospital category, and staff), patient information (age, sex, admission date, ward type, department, and devices in place), specific underlying diseases (malignant tumor, hematological diseases, and bone marrow transplantation), active HAIs, causative pathogens, and antimicrobial use. A history of malignant tumor was excluded if the patient was clinically cured (eg, >5 years post-treatment).

Prior to data collection, the research group at our institution conducted comprehensive briefings for all participating hospitals. These briefings included a detailed explanation of the PPS protocol and definitions of HAIs. Updated questions and answers were distributed to the hospitals in a timely manner. Each hospital’s surveyor, either an ICT member or a pharmacist, examined the patients’ records. Hospitals identified the devices in place through medical records or interviews.

Ethical statement

This study complied with the Japanese Ethical Guidelines for Epidemiological Studies, and all study protocols were approved by the Institutional Review Board of Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine (approval no. 15,728). The requirement for written informed consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of the study.

Definitions of HAIs

HAIs were defined according to the ECDC-PPS protocols and the 2019 version of the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN 2019) Patient Safety Component Manual. 17,18 The definitions of HAI in both the ECDC-PPS protocol 5.3 and NHSN 2019 are nearly identical but differ in some aspects. Supplementary Table S1 lists the codes and sources of the HAI used in this study.

Surgical site infection (SSI) is evaluated within 30 days after the operation if no implant is in place and within 90 days if an implant is present. Catheter-related infection (CRI) encompasses both CRBSI and CRI without positive blood culture. Laboratory-confirmed bloodstream infection (LCBI) is defined by at least one set of positive blood cultures under the following conditions: (1) no evident origin of infection, and (2) the development of at least two sets in cases involving common commensal organisms. It is important to note that LCBI does not include CRBSI. Notably, NHSN definitions do not encompass the category of systemic infection, which includes suspected infection without clear diagnosis (clinical sepsis) and viral infection (disseminated infection); thus, we adopted the systemic infection category from ECDC-PPS protocol 5.3.

In this study, active HAIs were defined as follows: (1) HAIs that met the definition of any HAIs for which antimicrobials were administered. (2) HAIs that developed 48 h after admission, patients who presented with an infection but were readmitted less than 48 h after previous admission to an acute care hospital, or patients meeting the definition of SSIs. “Device-associated HAIs” comprised VAP, CAUTI, and CRBSI. 17

Statistical analysis

Categorical variables are presented as total number and percentages and evaluated using Fisher’s exact test. Continuous variables are expressed as mean and interquartile ranges (IQR) and evaluated using the Mann–Whitney test. All statistical analyses were two-sided, and statistical significance was set at P < .05. All statistical analyses were performed using R (version 4.3.2; The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

Results

Table 1 summarizes the backgrounds of the hospitals and patients. Twenty-seven hospitals participated, including 22 community hospitals, 2 university hospitals, and 3 specialized hospitals (geriatric, pediatric and cancer hospitals). The hospital size categories were as follows: eight small (200–399 beds), nine medium (400–599 beds), seven large (600–799 beds), and three extra-large (800+ beds; one community and two university) hospitals. The hospitals were located in areas with varying population densities: 10 in high-density cities (Nagoya City, 7,121/km2, 3,712 patients), 10 in medium-density areas (2,000–4,000/km2, 4,408 patients), and 6 in low-density areas (<2,000/km2, 2,079 patients) (Supplementary Table S2). Data were collected in February (10 hospitals), March (8 hospitals), and April–July 2020 (9 hospitals). A total of 10,199 patients were included, and none were excluded due to refusal or privacy concerns. Two community hospitals (medium and large) surveyed half of the inpatients, whereas 25 hospitals surveyed all inpatients. Of all the patients, 77.3% (7,883/10,199) were admitted to community hospitals. There was one missing data point each for sex and peripheral venous catheterization. The data of the participating hospitals and patients’ information by hospital size are shown in Supplementary Table S3.

Table 1. Background data of patients

Note. Data were presented unweighted number (percentage) of patients unless otherwise indicated. Abbreviations: HAI, healthcare-associated infection; CI, confidence interval; IQR, interquartile range; NICU, neonatal intensive care unit; GCU, growing care unit; MFICU, maternal and fetal intensive care unit; CVC, central venous catheter; PICC, peripherally inserted central venous catheter; CV; central venous.

a, bOne missing data in patients without HAI.

Of the 10,199 patients, 53.5% (5,460) were male. The median age of the patients was 73 (IQR: 56–82) years, and the median duration of hospital stay was 10 (IQR: 4–22) days. Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) constituted 3.6% (365/10,199) of all patients. The prevalence of solid-organ malignant tumor, hematological diseases, and post bone marrow transplantation was 27.8%, 4.0%, and 0.6%, respectively. The prevalence of devices in place was as follows: peripheral venous catheters (PVC), 39.6%; central venous lines (including peripherally inserted central venous catheters and central venous ports), 7.6%; urinary catheters (UC), 13.3%; and tracheostomy tubes, 1.6%.

Overall, 6.6% (677/10,199; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.2–7.1) of the patients had at least one HAI. Of these, 26 (3.8%) patients had two HAIs. Patients with HAIs were significantly older (75 [IQR: 63–85] vs 72 [IQR: 55–82], P < .01) and had longer hospital stays (9 [IQR: 4–21] vs 23 [IQR: 13–40], P < .01) than those without HAIs. Patients with hematological diseases (13.9% [94/677] vs 3.3% [313/9,523], P < .01) and bone marrow transplantation (3.8% [94/677] vs 3.3% [313/9,523], P < .01) had a significantly higher rate of HAIs than those without HAIs.

Table 2 lists the HAIs and their causative organisms. A total of 703 active HAIs were identified in 677 patients. Pneumonia (1.87%, 95% CI: 1.59–2.11), urinary tract infection (UTI, 1.09%, 95% CI: 0.90–1.30), systemic infection (1.08%, 95% CI: 0.90–1.30), SSI (0.87%, 95% CI: 0.71–1.07), and gastrointestinal system infection (GI, 0.70%, 95% CI: 0.54–0.88) were the top five HAIs. The prevalence of the total device-associated HAIs was 0.91% (93/10,199; 95% CI: 0.74–1.12). Figure 1 shows the prevalence of HAIs according to hospital size. Pneumonia was the most common HAI in small (2.34%, 95% CI: 1.65–3.21), medium (1.69%, 95% CI: 1.26–2.20), and large (2.20%, 95% CI: 1.73–2.75) hospitals. SSI was the top HAI in extra-large hospitals (1.37%, 95% CI: 0.92–1.96). Pneumonia and UTI accounted for 60.2% (56/93) of HAI in small hospitals, while 38.2% (83/217) in medium, 48.7% (116/238) in large, and 31.6% (49/155) in extra-large hospitals.

Table 2. Number and prevalence of healthcare-associated infections

Note. Data were presented unweighted number of healthcare-associated infections or causative pathogens. Prevalence was calculated as follows: (number of infection)*100/total patients (10,199). Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; VAP, Ventilator-associated pneumonia; CAUTI, Catheter-associated urinary tract infections; R, resistant; 3GC, third-generation cepharosporin.

Figure 1. PN, pneumonia; UTI, urinary tract infection; SYS, systemic infection; SSI, surgical site infection; GI, gastrointestinal system infection; CRI, catheter-related infection; LCBI, laboratory-confirmed bloodstream infection; SSTI, skin and soft tissue infection; BJ, bone and joint infection; EENT, eye, ear, nose, throat, or mouth infection; LRI, lower respiratory system infection other than pneumonia.

A total of 433 causative pathogens were identified for the HAIs. Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, and Klebsiella pneumoniae were the most common organisms. Only 10 Clostridioides difficile cases were identified. A total of 135 Enterobacterales were identified, of which 29.6% (40/135), 33.3% (45/135), and 2.2% (3/135) were resistant to third-generation cephalosporins (3GCs), fluoroquinolones (FQs), and carbapenems (CARs), respectively. Forty-five Enterococci were identified, but no vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) were detected. Three Acinetobacter baumannii strains were identified in this study, all of which were drug-susceptible to CARs, FQs, and aminoglycosides. Table 3 shows the causative organisms of the HAIs. UTIs had the most causative organisms, followed by pneumonia. E. coli was the most common causative organism of UTIs; 34.1% and 43.2% of the E. coli strains detected in UTIs were resistant to 3GCs and FQs, respectively. Streptococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were the top two most frequent pathogens in pneumonia, and 50.0% of the S. aureus strains isolated from pneumonia were methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Supplementary Table S4 displays the relationship between the pathogens of HAIs and hospital size.

Table 3. Reported causative pathogens by HAI categories

Note. Data were presented unweighted number (percentage) of causative pathogens. Percentage was calculated as follows: (number of pathogens)*100/total number of pathogens in each column. Abbreviations: HAI, healthcare-associated infection; 3GC, 3rd generation cephalosporin; UTI, urinary tract infection; PN, pneumonia; SSI, surgical site infection; GI, gastrointestinal system infection; LCBI, laboratory-confirmed bloodstream infection; CRI, catheter-related infection; SST, skin and soft tissue infection; BJ, bone and joint infection

Discussion

This study reports the epidemiology in Japanese hospitals in Aichi Prefecture from February 2020 to July 2020. To our knowledge, this is the largest multicenter PPS conducted in Japanese hospitals. This PPS also revealed the epidemiology of hospitalized patients. The prevalence of HAIs (6.7%), details of HAI according to hospital size, and causative organisms with or without resistance are reported in this survey.

Although a PPS is valuable to comprehend the information of hospitalized patients, it is infrequently conducted in Japan due to the significant labor demands placed on healthcare professionals. Reference Morioka, Nagao and Yoshihara5,Reference Komagamine, Yabuki, Kobayashi and Okabe12,Reference Morioka, Iguchi and Tetsuka13,Reference Hagiya19 In the present PPS, the prevalence of HAIs in the 27 hospitals was 6.7%, similar to that of the ECDC-PPS (5.9%) and a WHO report (7%), and higher than that of a USA-PPS (3.2%–4.0%). Reference Drysdale3,Reference Magill, Edwards and Bamberg8,11 This PPS could demonstrate higher median age of patients (73 years), a longer median length of stay (10 days) and less devices in place (PVC: 39.6%, UC: 13.3%) than those in EU/EEA (median age: 66 years, median length of stay: 5.9 days, PVC: 48.7%, UC: 17.7%). 11 The prevalence of HAIs in four university hospitals and two community hospitals was previously reported as 7.7% (246/3,199) and 7.4% (61/820), respectively. Reference Morioka, Nagao and Yoshihara5,Reference Komagamine, Yabuki, Kobayashi and Okabe12 The picture of fewer devices and longer hospital stays in Japanese hospitals suggests that the number of patients who require aggressive medical treatment is lower than in other countries.

This PPS included several hospital categories across several regions; therefore, this report depicts the hospital epidemiology more precisely than did previous studies. Reference Morioka, Nagao and Yoshihara5,Reference Komagamine, Yabuki, Kobayashi and Okabe12,Reference Morioka, Iguchi and Tetsuka13 The top three HAIs were pneumonia, UTIs, and SSIs; these results are similar to those of the ECDC-PPS and an Australian PPS. 11,Reference Russo, Stewardson, Cheng, Bucknall and Mitchell20 In this study, the prevalence of HAIs differed between the small and extra-large hospitals. Our study also showed that small hospitals often admit long-term and chronic care inpatients besides acute care patients, and invasive surgeries are performed less frequently in small hospitals than in other hospitals. Reference Morioka, Koizumi and Watariguchi21 Small hospitals are characterized by lower HAI rates, especially due to fewer malignant and hematologic disease complications and fewer devices in place. In contrast, medium-sized or large community hospitals admit more acute care patients or patients with malignant tumors or hematological diseases than do small hospitals. In university hospitals and specialized hospitals, most patients have malignant or other underlying diseases. Highly invasive surgeries and chemotherapies are performed at these hospitals. The highest rates of pneumonia in small hospitals and SSIs in extra-large hospitals reflect the patients’ characteristics. These data suggest that different approaches are necessary to reduce HAIs according to hospital category.

Our data indicate that the top three causative organisms are similar to those in the ECDC-PPS report. However, the drug-resistant rates of these organisms in the ECDC-PPS report differ from those in our PPS. In the ECDC-PPS report, the following data were reported: 22.3% of 3GC-resistant E. coli, 1.2% of CAR-resistant E. coli, 55.3% of 3GC-resistant K. pneumoniae, 18.3% of CAR-resistant K. pneumoniae, 30.9% of MRSA, and 10.8% of VRE. Clostridioides difficile is the top causative organism of HAI in the United States Reference Magill, Edwards and Bamberg8 ; however, only 10 cases were identified in this study. Drug-resistant A. baumannii has been frequently identified as a causative organism of HAIs in Southeast Asia Reference Ling, Apisarnthanarak and Madriaga22,Reference Li, Cai and Song23 ; however, our study had different results. Our PPS data are similar to Japanese surveillance data on drug resistance. 24 Being an island country with successful infection control measures might explain the difference in the detection of drug-resistant bacteria in Japan compared with other countries. Highly drug-resistant organisms were relatively rare in this PPS; however, continuous surveillance is necessary to monitor changes in drug-resistant organisms.

This study was significantly influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic. Following the Japanese government’s declaration of a state of emergency on April 7, notable decreases were observed in community-acquired infections (eg, influenza, pneumonia), as well as in scheduled surgical procedures. Reference Yan, Tomooka, Naito and Tanigawa25Reference Kurokawa, Ozaki and Bhandari28 During the fiscal year of 2020, the daily number of outpatients and the average number of inpatients decreased by 9.9% and 5.6%, respectively. 29 Data from the National Clinical Database indicated a reduction of 2.5–5.0% in the total number of 20 surgical procedures compared to 2018 and 2019, with April 2020 experiencing particularly significant declines. Reference Ikeda, Yamamoto and Taketomi27 Consequently, this study may underestimate the prevalence of SSI compared to the pre-pandemic period. At the time of our survey, no effective antiviral agents were administered during the study. Therefore, COVID-19 could not be categorized as an active HAI because the definition of HAI requires “patients with antimicrobials”. To our knowledge, no COVID-19 outbreak occurred in the participating hospitals during the study period. However, in the ongoing “with COVID-19 era”, nosocomial outbreaks of COVID-19 are increasingly common in Japanese hospitals. Reference Nakagawa, Fujishiro, Doi, Yamakami and Honda30 Given that this PPS was conducted at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, further evaluation of HAIs by PPS in the ‘with COVID-19 era’ should be conducted.

This study had several limitations. First, the PPSs were conducted only in Aichi Prefecture. Although there were several participating hospitals, this study reflects regional epidemiology. Second, the PPSs were conducted only in IPF-1 fee-charged hospitals. Therefore, these data cannot be applied to non-IPF-1 charged hospitals. Third, a validation study is necessary to ensure the accuracy of the study. However, due to the lack of ICT staff in each hospital and the COVID-19 pandemic, validation study was abandoned. Fourth, the definitions of HAIs in this study were based on both the ECDC-PPS protocol and the NHSN definitions. Although these are nearly identical, the definitions of HAI are slightly different from those based on the original ECDC-PPS 17,18 . Therefore, readers should keep in mind that the definitions of HAIs in this study were not the same as the original ECDC-PPS and NHSN definitions. Fifth, the PPSs were conducted from winter to summer in 2020 due to COVID-19. Some HAIs may be affected by season (such as seasonal viral infection, SSI). Reference Ohya, Chikuda and Oichi31,Reference Kobayashi, Ando and Kato32 Therefore, it is preferable to conduct the survey multiple times throughout the year or in the same season to eliminate the difference between the seasons.

In conclusion, this study provides epidemiological information on patient backgrounds, HAI prevalence, and causative organisms in Japanese hospitals. This study also reports hospital epidemiology and HAIs according to hospital category. Repeated multicenter PPSs throughout Japan are necessary to confirm the accuracy of the PPSs and investigate changes after the COVID-19 outbreak.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2024.130.

Acknowledgments

None.

Financial support

This study was supported by a JSPS KAKENHI Grant number 20K18880.

Competing interests

All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

Authorship and manuscript preparation

Manuscript preparation. Atsuya Kondo (Kariya Toyota General Hospital), Takako Ono, and Tsubasa Kasai (Japanese Red Cross Aichi Medical Center, Nagoya Daini Hospital, Japan) contributed to data collection.

References

European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Healthcare-associated infections [Internet]. ∼https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/healthcare-associated-infections#:∼:text=The%20most%20frequently%20reported%20types,intestinal%20infections. Accessed May 30, 2024.Google Scholar
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and World Health Organization. Addressing the burden of infections and antimicrobial resistance associated with health care. Focus on G7 countries [Internet], 2022. https://www.oecd.org/health/Addressing-burden-of-infections-and-AMR-associated-with-health-care.pdf. Published 2022. Accessed May 30, 2024.Google Scholar
Drysdale, C. WHO launches first ever global report on infection prevention and control [Internet], 2022. https://www.who.int/news/item/06-05-2022-who-launches-first-ever-global-report-on-infection-prevention-and-control. Published 2022. Accessed May 30, 2024.Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Healthcare-associated Infections (HAI). https://www.cdc.gov/policy/polaris/healthtopics/hai/index.html. Published 2021. Accessed May 30, 2024.Google Scholar
Morioka, H, Nagao, M, Yoshihara, S, et al. The first multi-centre point-prevalence survey in four Japanese university hospitals. J Hosp Infect 2018;99:325331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cai, Y, Venkatachalam, I, Tee, NW, et al. Prevalence of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial use among adult inpatients in Singapore acute-care hospitals: Results from the first national point prevalence survey. Clin Infect Dis 2017;64:S61S67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phu, VD, Wertheim, HF, Larsson, M, et al. Burden of Hospital Acquired Infections and Antimicrobial Use in Vietnamese Adult Intensive Care Units. PLoS One 2016;11:e0147544.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magill, SS, Edwards, JR, Bamberg, W, et al. Multistate point-prevalence survey of health care-associated infections. N Engl J Med 2014;370:11981208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magill, SS, O’Leary, E, Janelle, SJ, et al. Changes in prevalence of health care-associated infections in U.S. hospitals. N Engl J Med 2018;379:17321744.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Versporten, A, Zarb, P, Caniaux, I, et al. Antimicrobial consumption and resistance in adult hospital inpatients in 53 countries: results of an internet-based global point prevalence survey. Lancet Glob Health. 2018;6:e619e629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Point prevalence survey of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial use in European acute care hospitals 2016–2017 [Internet]. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/point-prevalence-survey-healthcare-associated-infections-and-antimicrobial-use-5. Published 2023. Accessed May 30, 2024.Google Scholar
Komagamine, J, Yabuki, T, Kobayashi, M, Okabe, T. Prevalence of antimicrobial use and active healthcare-associated infections in acute care hospitals: a multicentre prevalence survey in Japan. BMJ Open 2019;9:e027604.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morioka, H, Iguchi, M, Tetsuka, N, et al. Five-year point prevalence survey of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial use in a Japanese university hospital. Infect Prev Pract 2021;3:100151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
e-Stat: Portal Site of Official Statistics of Japan. Ranking (prefectural data). https://www.e-stat.go.jp/en/regional-statistics/ssdsview/prefectures/rank. Accessed May 30, 2024.Google Scholar
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Kobetsujikou (16). https://www.mhlw.go.jp/bunya/iryouhoken/iryouhoken15/dl/gaiyou_2.pdf. Published 2012. Accessed May 30, 2024.Google Scholar
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Point Prevalence Survey of Healthcare-associated Infections and Antimicrobial Use in European Acute Care Hospitals – Protocol Version 5.3 [Internet]. Stockholm: ECDC; 2016. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/point-prevalence-survey-healthcare-associated-infections-and-antimicrobial-use-3. Accessed May 30, 2024.Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) patient safety component manual [Internet], 2019 https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/61568. Published 2019. Accessed May 30, 2024.Google Scholar
Hagiya, H. Shortage and unequal distribution of infectious disease specialists in Japan: How can we refine the current situation? PLoS One 2023;18:e0291677.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russo, PL, Stewardson, AJ, Cheng, AC, Bucknall, T, Mitchell, BG. The prevalence of healthcare associated infections among adult inpatients at nineteen large Australian acute-care public hospitals: a point prevalence survey. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2019;8:114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morioka, H, Koizumi, Y, Watariguchi, T, et al. Surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis in Japanese hospitals: Real status and challenges. J Infect Chemother 2024;30:626632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ling, ML, Apisarnthanarak, A, Madriaga, G. The burden of healthcare-associated infections in Southeast Asia: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2015;60:16901699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, X, Cai, W, Song, Y, et al. Prevalence of antimicrobial use and healthcare-associated infections in China: Results from the first point prevalence survey in 18 hospitals in Shanxi Province. J Glob Antimicrob Resist 2023;33:283290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Clinical Laboratory Division, Japan Nosocomial Infections Surveillance, 2020. https://janis.mhlw.go.jp/english/report/open_report/2020/3/1/ken_Open_Report_Eng_202000_clsi2012.pdf. Published 2021. Accessed May 30, 2024.Google Scholar
Yan, Y, Tomooka, K, Naito, T, Tanigawa, T. Decreased number of inpatients with community-acquired pneumonia during the COVID-19 pandemic: A large multicenter study in Japan. J Infect Chemother 2022;28:709713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sawakami, T, Karako, K, Song, P. Behavioral changes adopted to constrain COVID-19 in Japan: What are the implications for seasonal influenza prevention and control? Glob Health Med 2021;3:125128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ikeda, N, Yamamoto, H, Taketomi, A, et al. The impact of COVID-19 on surgical procedures in Japan: analysis of data from the National Clinical Database. Surg Today 2022;52:2235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurokawa, T, Ozaki, A, Bhandari, D, et al. Association between COVID-19 incidence and postponement or cancellation of elective surgeries in Japan until September 2020: a cross-sectional, web-based survey. BMJ Open 2022;12:e059886.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. 2020 Summary of static/dynamic surveys of medical institutions and hospital report, 2022. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/database/db-hss/mih_report_2020.html. Published 2022. Accessed May 30, 2024.Google Scholar
Nakagawa, M, Fujishiro, Y, Doi, Y, Yamakami, J, Honda, H. Differences in the incidence of nosocomial-onset COVID-19 among hospitalized patients with exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2024:13.Google ScholarPubMed
Ohya, J, Chikuda, H, Oichi, T, et al. Seasonal variations in the risk of reoperation for surgical site infection following elective spinal fusion surgery: a retrospective study using the japanese diagnosis procedure combination database. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017;42:10681079.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kobayashi, K, Ando, K, Kato, F, et al. Seasonal variation in incidence and causal organism of surgical site infection after PLIF/TLIF surgery: A multicenter study. J Orthop Sci 2021;26:555–339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. Background data of patients

Figure 1

Table 2. Number and prevalence of healthcare-associated infections

Figure 2

Figure 1. PN, pneumonia; UTI, urinary tract infection; SYS, systemic infection; SSI, surgical site infection; GI, gastrointestinal system infection; CRI, catheter-related infection; LCBI, laboratory-confirmed bloodstream infection; SSTI, skin and soft tissue infection; BJ, bone and joint infection; EENT, eye, ear, nose, throat, or mouth infection; LRI, lower respiratory system infection other than pneumonia.

Figure 3

Table 3. Reported causative pathogens by HAI categories

Supplementary material: File

Morioka et al. supplementary material 1

Morioka et al. supplementary material
Download Morioka et al. supplementary material 1(File)
File 13.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Morioka et al. supplementary material 2

Morioka et al. supplementary material
Download Morioka et al. supplementary material 2(File)
File 11.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

Morioka et al. supplementary material 3

Morioka et al. supplementary material
Download Morioka et al. supplementary material 3(File)
File 69.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

Morioka et al. supplementary material 4

Morioka et al. supplementary material
Download Morioka et al. supplementary material 4(File)
File 11.4 KB