Your activity: 4 p.v.

Infection prevention: General principles

Infection prevention: General principles
Authors:
Deverick J Anderson, MD, MPH
N Deborah Friedman, MPH, MBBS, FRACP, MD
Section Editor:
Daniel J Sexton, MD
Deputy Editor:
Keri K Hall, MD, MS
Literature review current through: Dec 2022. | This topic last updated: Aug 17, 2022.

INTRODUCTION — Infection prevention and control (hereafter "infection prevention") is grounded in quality improvement activities and is critical for patient safety [1,2]. Infection prevention programs use protocols and interventions to decrease the risk of health care-associated infection (HAI). HAIs are the most common complication seen in hospitalized patients and increase morbidity, mortality, costs, and length of stay, even after adjustment for underlying illness [3].

The field of infection prevention emerged from the results of the Study of the Efficacy of Nosocomial Infection Control (SENIC) [4]. The SENIC study demonstrated that four components were essential to an effective infection prevention and control program. These included (i) surveillance with feedback of infection rates to hospital staff, (ii) enforcement of preventative practices, (iii) a supervising infection preventionist to collect and analyze surveillance data, and (iv) the involvement of a physician or microbiologist with specialized training in infection prevention and control. Programs with these elements reduced rates of the four most common HAIs by 32 percent [4,5]. Subsequently, regulatory mandates led to the establishment of formal infection prevention programs, typically supervised by physicians and/or trained nurses and overseen by hospital committees. Increasing hospital regulations, scrutiny from accreditation groups, public reporting of infection-related outcomes, and impact on hospital reimbursement have solidified infection prevention programs as a key component of health care in all settings.

The terminology surrounding infection prevention has evolved over time. Initially, infection control teams sought to monitor "nosocomial" infections (ie, infections acquired in the hospital). More recently, the focus has shifted from monitoring to preventing HAIs (infections acquired in healthcare facilities). Similarly, as health care delivery has shifted from the hospital to various inpatient and outpatient venues, the term "health care epidemiology" has emerged to encompass infection prevention activities in the multiple areas where health care is delivered [3]. Additionally, the focus for infection prevention programs has evolved due to rising rates of antimicrobial resistance, aging populations, and increased use of immunosuppressive therapies.

In general, infection prevention programs focus on two broad goals to increase patient safety: reducing the risk of acquisition or transmission of infection following exposure to health care settings (particularly from multidrug-resistant organisms) and reducing the risk of device- and procedure-related infections. In addition, these programs are increasingly charged with protecting healthcare personnel, visitors, and others and meeting accreditation and regulatory standards [6].

This topic will review the general principles of infection control. Isolation precautions for preventing transmission of infection and issues related to infection control for COVID-19 are reviewed separately. (See "Infection prevention: Precautions for preventing transmission of infection" and "COVID-19: Infection prevention for persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection".)

GENERAL PRINCIPLES — The scope of a health care institution's infection prevention and control/health care epidemiology program should be driven by the size and complexity of the institution's patient population; the population's risk for health care-associated infection (HAI); and local, state, and national regulatory and accreditation requirements [7]. In most hospitals, members of the infection prevention team participate in regulatory, patient safety, and quality improvement initiatives, led by a health care epidemiologist who must have formal support from hospital administration [8]. The typical infection prevention team has numerous oversight functions and responsibilities:

Surveillance and feedback of data on health care-associated infections, including:

Device and procedure-related infections

Infections caused by multidrug-resistant organisms

Epidemiologically important infections (eg, Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, Clostridioides [formerly Clostridium] difficile infection)

Outbreak investigation – Infection prevention teams need to be familiar with the likely sources of outbreaks, how they are affected by hospital design and construction, and how they may best be investigated and remediated [9]. Outbreak sources in hospitals commonly consist of inanimate surface and device contamination, health care workers, other patients and hospital water sources.

For example, waterborne outbreaks have occurred in health care settings with new reservoirs, including electronic faucets (Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Legionella spp), decorative water wall fountains (Legionella spp), and heater-cooler devices used in cardiac surgery (Mycobacterium chimaera) [10,11].

Hospital sinks, drains, showers, wash basins, and tap water have been the reservoir of infections caused by nontuberculous mycobacterial species, fungi, and multidrug-resistant gram-negative pathogens [10,11]. Molecular typing has been increasingly applied to hospital outbreak investigation, including the use of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis followed by random amplification of polymorphic DNA and whole-genome and shotgun metagenomic sequencing [10,12,13].

Education of health care providers and patients

Performance improvement to prevent or reduce HAIs

Reporting of HAIs

Occupational infection prevention for health care providers

The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America recommends the following core competencies for a successful health care epidemiologist [14]:

Training in:

Clinical infectious disease/pathogen transmission

Microbiologic and laboratory diagnostic techniques

Knowledge of quality improvement science

Public health and emergency preparedness

Skills in:

Leadership

Data management

Program implementation, assessment, and advocacy

Outcomes assessment

The infection prevention team develops, implements, and monitors the success of the following infection prevention protocols and interventions to achieve the goals of the program and of the hospital:

Surveillance data analysis and feedback.

Hand hygiene.

Health care provider education.

Cleaning/disinfecting medical equipment.

Cleaning/disinfecting the health care environment.

Environmental infection control (including air handling, water supply, and construction-related issues).

Isolation precautions and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Educating staff on the use of appropriate PPE is an integral part of infection prevention within hospitals. (See "Infection prevention: Precautions for preventing transmission of infection".)

These interventions may be described as "horizontal", in which an intervention may prevent infection from many organisms (eg, surveillance, hand hygiene, and cleaning/disinfection), or "vertical", in which an intervention may prevent infection from a specific organism (eg, isolation precautions) [15].

General principles related to surveillance and feedback, regulations that impact infection prevention programs, and environmental cleaning/disinfection will be discussed below. Issues related to use of surveillance for control of specific pathogens such as methicillin-resistant S. aureus and vancomycin-resistance enterococci are discussed separately. (See "Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in adults: Prevention and control", section on 'Role of active surveillance' and "Vancomycin-resistant enterococci: Epidemiology, prevention, and control", section on 'Surveillance cultures'.)

SURVEILLANCE AND FEEDBACK — Surveillance for health care-associated infections is an essential component of infection prevention [16]. Effective surveillance involves counting cases and calculating rates of infections [17-19]. Surveillance data are useful for identifying necessary interventions and also for assessing the efficacy of interventions to improve infection rates [20-22]. Surveillance data should be reported to hospital leadership, personnel involved in patient care, and to monitoring agencies such as state health departments or statewide or national surveillance programs according to local requirements [16,23-26].

In the United States, most programs perform surveillance using standardized definitions and methods developed by the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control's (CDC's) National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) [27-29]. In Europe, some countries use NHSN's definitions, while others use European definitions from the European CDC (ECDC) and Hospitals in Europe Link for Infection Control through surveillance (HELICS/IPSE) project. In general, there is excellent concordance between United States and European definitions of pneumonia and primary bloodstream infection, and rates of infection between countries can be compared at least for some health care-associated infections (HAIs) [30,31].

Surveillance data may be used for both intrahospital comparison (ie, comparing the rate of infection in a particular hospital to a benchmark for similar hospitals) as well as interhospital comparison (ie, comparing infection rates between hospitals). In addition, comparing surveillance data between hospitals is subject to bias; risk adjustment for clinical factors is required but may not be sufficient [32-39]. (See 'Regulatory organization and public reporting' below.)

Risk assessment is the cornerstone of designing an organization-specific surveillance program and involves identifying the most important populations and infections to follow so that resources can be focused on the most worthwhile prevention activities [7].

Many hospitals perform surveillance for the following infections:

Surgical site infections

Catheter-associated urinary tract infections

Central line–associated bloodstream infections

Pneumonia, particularly ventilator-associated pneumonia

C. difficile infections

Infections caused by multidrug-resistant organisms

Surveillance for all types of infection may not be possible in all settings; at a minimum, surveillance should be targeted to the following categories:

Patients or care units at high risk for infection (for example, patients in intensive care units)

Particular infections that are highly preventable and/or associated with substantial morbidity

Emerging infections

Components of surveillance — Components of effective surveillance include the following [40,41]:

Standardized definitions

Routine review of microbiologic and clinical records

Review of discharge diagnoses

Review of records of patients who are readmitted after surgical procedures or patients who undergo reoperation

Review of autopsy, radiologic, and pathologic reports

Review of known or suspected infections among clinical personnel

Data collection and automation — Traditional manual surveillance methods are labor intensive, lack standardization, and are limited by inter-observer variability [42,43]. Electronic surveillance systems are becoming integral to routine infection control activities and have the potential to improve infection control outcomes in surveillance, prevention, and connections with public health [44].

Semi-automated and fully automated electronic surveillance systems are now widely used:

Semi-automated electronic surveillance systems are used by many infection prevention programs. These systems filter data from laboratory, pharmacy, and admission/discharge/transfer records and have been found to successfully perform surveillance for various types of HAIs, including surgical site infections (SSIs) and CLABSIs [45]. Such systems also have the potential to identify outbreaks that may be missed by routine detection methods [46]. They do, however, require substantial user input, have limitations with regard to interfacility comparison, and do not replace the need for chart review [41,43,46].

Fully automated electronic surveillance systems function autonomously via a complex series of algorithms to identify cases of nosocomial infection; such systems generally do not require user input or chart review but may still include some manual steps [47-49]. The systems mine the electronic health record to collect data on clinical signs and symptoms, medical procedure details (eg, duration of surgery), and medical device exposure data (eg, duration of catheterization) [47]. Some systems require adjustment of algorithms for specific populations (such as those in an intensive care unit) [50]. Implementation of automated surveillance systems in practice is complicated by practical challenges regarding the availability of high-quality data, electronic health record standardization, specialized information technology (IT) and infection control personnel, and costs [43]. As hospitals adopt medical record systems that meet uniform standards and regulatory requirements, the costs associated with building interfaces to collect and analyze clinical data, and the ability to compare rates between facilities and regions, are likely to improve [43,47].

Validation of surveillance data is necessary to ensure scientific credibility and identify methodological problems [51]. Automated surveillance data should also undergo clinical and technical validation in all contexts, including validation of the source data, algorithms, denominator data, and an assessment of the ability to provide reliable benchmark data [43]. The results of validation studies are important for informing interventions to improve surveillance data quality, especially if validation studies reveal that the quality of surveillance data is suboptimal [52,53].

Education and training — Education and training of health care personnel are critical functions to prevent HAIs and core functions of infection prevention and control programs. Focused training for various disciplines has been effective in durably reducing HAIs [54]. Routine in-service training should be directed toward health care personnel of all disciplines, including physicians, nurses, medical and nursing students, as well as other staff with direct or indirect contact with patients or equipment. Training should be tailored to the appropriate educational level, learning styles, and work duties of the employees [7]. The training should incorporate hand hygiene and all tasks for which personnel are responsible and incorporate assessment of well-defined competencies for each task [55].

Basic infection prevention education and training should include numerous topics including but not limited to:

Hand hygiene

Aseptic technique

Injection safety practices

Equipment reprocessing

Single-use devices

Single- and multi-dose medication vials

Personal protective equipment

Standard- and transmission-based precautions

Cleaning and disinfection

Regulatory organization and public reporting — Regulatory burden has increased significantly for infection prevention programs over the past decade. Governments may directly regulate patient safety with mandatory reporting legislation. Alternatively, governments may require healthcare facilities to report to professional regulatory bodies or to create and enforce their own policies [56].

Regulatory entities in the United States – The main regulatory organizations for infection prevention programs in the United States include federal agencies and accreditation organizations. Additional regulations and reporting requirements vary by state. The provides information on infection prevention–related regulations [57].

The National Quality Forum (NQF) endorses 25 measures related to patient safety, several of which are related to infection prevention [58]. Measures endorsed by NQF often translate into reporting requirements for hospitals, which they are required to report as a condition of participation in Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Hospitals that perform well on these measures receive additional incentive payments. Data are posted for public reporting allowing the public to compare various quality metrics, including patient experiences, process measures, and infection data [59].

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) provides standards and directives to improve infection prevention for health care providers [60]. In general, these focus on prevention of infections from bloodborne pathogens following exposure to blood or body fluids and personal protective equipment for health care providers.

The Joint Commission places particular emphasis on infection prevention when providing accreditation to health care organizations [61]. Infection prevention programs in acute care hospitals must develop policies and procedures to meet specific goals related to:

Infection prevention team staffing and institutional support

Hand hygiene policies and practices

Prevention of infections caused by multidrug-resistant organisms, including regular assessment (via surveillance) and education for health care providers

Prevention of central line–associated bloodstream infection

Prevention of surgical site infections

Prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections

Regulatory entities outside the United States – Similar regulatory agencies oversee infection prevention regulations throughout the world. For example, the European Commission and other agencies, in particular the European Academies Science Advisory Council and the ECDC, play a role in integrated surveillance in Europe [62]. ECDC established HAI-Net, a network of national and regional networks collecting surveillance data across Europe [63].

In Canada, mandatory reporting of HAIs is a provincial, not a federal, responsibility [64]. Eight of 13 Canadian jurisdictions have instituted mandatory reporting legislation [56].

In Australia, The National Safety and Quality Health Service (NSQHS) Standards include the Preventing and Controlling Infections Standard, which aims to improve infection prevention and control measures to help prevent infections and the spread of antimicrobial resistance [65]. Australia does not, however, have a national HAI surveillance program [66].

CLEANING, DISINFECTION, AND STERILIZATION — Ensuring the cleanliness of medical equipment and patient care areas are important horizontal measures for prevention and reduction of health care-associated infection [1,2]. In general, the oversight and monitoring of these practices are the joint responsibilities of the infection prevention program and the environmental services department. Personnel from specialized areas (such as operating rooms) also share in these responsibilities at their locations.

Terms used in the following discussion include cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization (table 1):

Cleaning refers to removal of organic material on soiled surfaces; it is generally accomplished with water, mechanical action, and detergents or enzymatic products [2,67].

Disinfection refers to the elimination of many or most microorganisms. Chemical disinfectants can kill most vegetative bacteria, some fungi, and some viruses.

Sterilization refers to complete elimination of all forms of microbial life. Sterilization can be accomplished by either physical or chemical processes; techniques include steam under pressure, dry heat, low temperature sterilization processes (ethylene oxide gas, plasma sterilization), and liquid chemicals [68,69].

Health care environment: Cleaning and disinfection — Environmental cleaning and disinfection reduce organisms transmissible via contact with environmental surfaces; these include methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), and C. difficile [70-73].

Environmental cleaning refers to removal of organic material on soiled surfaces of patient care areas; it is generally accomplished with water, mechanical action, and detergents or enzymatic products [2,67].

Environmental cleaning is typically followed by disinfection, which eliminates microorganisms [74]. Disinfection in health care settings should be performed with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-registered chemicals such as those summarized in the table (table 1) [68,69,75,76]. Data comparing disinfection products are limited [77,78].

For certain situations, specific disinfection protocols are warranted. As an example, disinfection with standard quaternary ammonium-based chemicals does not eliminate bacterial spores (eg, C. difficile) or nonenveloped viruses (eg, norovirus). For disinfection of patient care areas with known or suspected of contamination with these pathogens, use of a sporicidal agent (such as bleach) is warranted [79-84]. (See "Clostridioides difficile infection: Prevention and control", section on 'Environmental cleaning and disinfection'.)

Additionally, hospital water is a source of infection transmission [10,12,85]. For example, specific disinfection strategies decrease the risk of transmission from water-containing heater-cooler units; however, full disinfection of faucets and plumbing in patient rooms is typically not feasible [11].

The efficacy of disinfection is affected by several factors [68,86]:

Physical cleaning prior to disinfection and level of residual organic contamination

Configuration of surfaces to be cleaned (eg, disinfection of crevices, hinges, and lumens may be more difficult than smooth surfaces)

Type and level of microbial contamination

Concentration, temperature and pH of disinfectant

Exposure time to disinfectant

Barriers to effective disinfection include [87,88]:

Confusion between nursing and environmental services staff over the allocation of cleaning responsibilities

Insufficient training

Inadequate time to complete cleaning

Inappropriate dilution of disinfectant solutions [89]

Difficulty ensuring disinfection of mobile equipment

Contamination of reusable cleaning supplies and disinfectant solutions with pathogenic bacteria [89]

Inability to fully disinfect highly contaminated areas (eg, sinks, plumbing, and water reservoirs) [10]

To overcome these difficulties, infection prevention programs should develop specific policies in collaboration with environmental services teams. In addition, hospitals should implement ongoing training of staff with responsibility for cleaning and disinfection. Consistent results may be achieved by formation of a dedicated cleaning team and implementation of a standardized cleaning process [90]. Visual inspection of cleaning and disinfection is not adequate; infection prevention programs must obtain objective data from cleaning and disinfection processes and provide feedback to environmental services with these data [87,91-93].

Systematic execution of such comprehensive infection prevention interventions can reduce the incidence of infections in the health care environment. In a randomized, multicenter trial in 11 Australian hospitals, a multimodal intervention focused on optimization of routine cleaning techniques with staff training and feedback reduced the incidence of VRE infections from 0.35 to 0.22 per 10,000 occupied bed-days (relative risk 0.63, 95% CI 0.41-0.97) [94]. Changes in the incidences of S. aureus and C. difficile infections were not statistically significant. This is consistent with the understanding that the epidemiology of C. difficile infection is more complicated than simple acquisition from the environment. A separate randomized, multicenter trial in 16 United States acute care hospitals concluded that optimized disinfection strategies led to lower rates of C. difficile detection on environmental surfaces but did not impact the rate of hospital-acquired C. difficile infections [95].

No accepted standards exist to establish the cleanliness of a health care environment [88,96,97]. Tools to assess room cleanliness include direct observation, fluorescent markers, and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence. To train cleaning teams, invisible fluorescent markers are applied to surfaces before cleaning; after cleaning, a special light is used to illuminate the surfaces and identify any markers that were missed by the cleaning team [98]. ATP bioluminescence may be used to evaluate for the presence of residual organic material after cleaning, although benchmark standards have not been established [90,99,100]. Cultures are not typically used for routine monitoring of disinfection.

Adjunctive environmental cleaning methods — Technological advances have led to environmental cleaning methods that augment traditional manual cleaning. These new technologies do not replace the need for manual cleaning.

Examples include ultraviolet (UV) radiation and hydrogen peroxide vapor/aerosol. The major advantage of both UV radiation and hydrogen peroxide systems are their ability to consistently decontaminate hospital room surfaces. Both systems are residue-free. However, both UV radiation and HP may only be used for terminal disinfection and neither can physically clean a room [101].

UV radiation — Ultraviolet (UV) radiation may be a useful adjunctive tool for disinfection, particularly against multidrug-resistant organisms [90,102-109]. In one cluster-randomized crossover study including 21,395 patients (in the intention-to-treat analysis) admitted to rooms from which a patient on contact precautions was discharged, the addition of UV light to disinfection with quaternary ammonium reduced the cumulative incidence of infection or colonization with pathogenic organisms (MRSA, VRE, multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter, and C. difficile) by 30 percent (relative risk 0.70, 95% CI 0.50-0.98; p = 0.036) [102]. No substantial individual decrease in C. difficile infection was observed with the addition of UV light to bleach disinfection (versus bleach alone) for the next patient in the room. However, use of the UV radiation in these targeted rooms did lead to an 11 percent decrease in C. difficile incidence and a 44 percent decrease in VRE incidence for the hospital-wide population [110]. (See "Clostridioides difficile infection: Prevention and control", section on 'Environmental cleaning and disinfection'.)

Another systematic review and meta-analysis including 13 studies evaluating UV systems concluded that UV light no-touch disinfection technology was most effective at preventing C. difficile and VRE [111]. Other than the randomized controlled trial described above, all the studies included in the analysis were quasi-experimental, single-center studies.

Hydrogen Peroxide — Hydrogen peroxide (HP) disinfection methods include the use of both vaporized and aerosolized HP. Vaporized HP produces the best log reduction in colony-forming units, achieving essentially complete eradication of experimentally placed bacteria in a test space. Aerosolized HP can produce >5 log reductions in colony-forming units of bacteria, although a wide range (1 to >5) has been reported and there may be unequal dispersion of the aerosols through a space [112].

Medical equipment: Disinfection and sterilization — The type of cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization required depends on the type of medical equipment. Types of medical equipment include the following (table 1) [2]:

Noncritical equipment – Medical equipment that comes into contact with intact skin but not mucous membranes (eg, stethoscopes, blood pressure cuffs, patient care area surfaces)

Semi-critical equipment – Medical equipment that comes into contact with nonintact skin or mucous membranes (eg, thermometers, endoscopes)

Critical medical equipment – Medical equipment that comes into contact with sterile tissue or the vascular system (eg, implants, catheters, surgical instruments)

Noncritical medical equipment should be cleaned using a disinfectant that kills most bacteria and some viruses and fungi; cleaning these items with an alcohol wipe between uses is often sufficient [69,75,113,114]. Mobile communication devices such as pagers and cell phones may also become contaminated with bacteria, but effective decontamination of these devices is difficult; hand hygiene immediately prior to patient-contact can remediate the risk to a substantial extent [115,116].

Semi-critical medical equipment should be free from all vegetative microorganisms, but small numbers of bacterial spores are permissible since nonintact skin and mucous membranes are generally resistant to infection by spores [2]. Semi-critical medical equipment should be cleaned as summarized in the table (table 1).

Critical medical equipment must be sterile because any microbial contamination could transmit disease. These items should be purchased as sterile or be sterilized between uses [2]. Critical medical equipment should be cleaned as summarized in the table (table 1). Disinfection of endoscopes and bronchoscopes is discussed further separately. (See "Preventing infection transmitted by gastrointestinal endoscopy" and "Flexible bronchoscopy in adults: Overview", section on 'Cleaning the bronchoscope'.)

Critical medical equipment used for care of patients with known or suspected disease due to prions (infectious agents composed of protein) requires specific procedures for sterilization. Agents that do not inactivate prions include alcohol, ethylene oxide, formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, hydrogen peroxide, iodine, ionizing radiation, phenolics, quaternary ammonium compounds, steam sterilization (121ºC), or urea (concentration 6 to 8 mol/L) [117]. Issues related to sterilization of prion-contaminated medical equipment are discussed further separately. (See "Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease", section on 'Iatrogenic CJD'.)

SOCIETY GUIDELINE LINKS — Links to society and government-sponsored guidelines from selected countries and regions around the world are provided separately. (See "Society guideline links: Infection control".)

SUMMARY

Infection prevention programs use protocols and interventions to decrease the risk of infection associated with exposure to health care settings. (See 'Introduction' above.)

The cornerstone of successful infection control is effective surveillance, which involves counting cases and calculating rates of infections, with subsequent data reporting to hospital leadership and personnel involved in patient care. (See 'General principles' above and 'Surveillance and feedback' above.)

Cleaning and disinfection of medical equipment and patient care areas are important measures for prevention of transmission of pathogens that may cause infection. (See 'Cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization' above.)

The approach to medical equipment disinfection and sterilization required depends on the equipment type. Types of medical equipment and the approach to disinfection and sterilization are summarized in the table (table 1). (See 'Medical equipment: Disinfection and sterilization' above.)

Environmental cleaning refers to removal of organic material on soiled surfaces of patient care areas; it is typically followed by disinfection, which eliminates microorganisms. Disinfection in health care settings is usually performed with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-registered chemicals such as those summarized in the table (table 1). Special disinfectants are required to eliminate Clostridioides difficile and nonenveloped viruses such as norovirus. (See 'Health care environment: Cleaning and disinfection' above.)

Hospitals should implement ongoing training and retraining of staff with responsibility for cleaning and disinfection, together with monitoring and feedback. Consistent results may be achieved by formation of a dedicated cleaning team and implementation of a standardized cleaning process. (See 'Health care environment: Cleaning and disinfection' above.)

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control in Health-Care Facilities: Recommendations of CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/pdf/guidelines/eic_in_hcf_03.pdf (Accessed on February 04, 2016).
  2. Rutala WA, Weber DJ, the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities, 2008. http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/pdf/guidelines/disinfection_nov_2008.pdf (Accessed on February 04, 2016).
  3. Sydnor ER, Perl TM. Hospital epidemiology and infection control in acute-care settings. Clin Microbiol Rev 2011; 24:141.
  4. Haley RW, Quade D, Freeman HE, Bennett JV. The SENIC Project. Study on the efficacy of nosocomial infection control (SENIC Project). Summary of study design. Am J Epidemiol 1980; 111:472.
  5. Hughes JM. Study on the efficacy of nosocomial infection control (SENIC Project): results and implications for the future. Chemotherapy 1988; 34:553.
  6. Scheckler WE, Brimhall D, Buck AS, et al. Requirements for infrastructure and essential activities of infection control and epidemiology in hospitals: a consensus panel report. Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1998; 19:114.
  7. Bryant KA, Harris AD, Gould CV, et al. Necessary Infrastructure of Infection Prevention and Healthcare Epidemiology Programs: A Review. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016; 37:371.
  8. Siegel JD, Rhinehart E, Jackson M, et al. Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee 2007 Guideline for Isolation Precautions: Preventing Transmission of Infectious Agents in Healthcare Settings, June 2007 https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/isolation/index.html (Accessed on December 06, 2011).
  9. The Facility Guidelines Institute. Guidelines for Design and Construction of Health Care Facilities. https://www.fgiguidelines.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/2006guidelines.pdf (Accessed on January 07, 2019).
  10. Kanamori H, Weber DJ, Rutala WA. Healthcare Outbreaks Associated With a Water Reservoir and Infection Prevention Strategies. Clin Infect Dis 2016; 62:1423.
  11. Lewis SS, Smith BA, Sickbert-Bennett EE, Weber DJ. Water as a source for colonization and infection with multidrug-resistant pathogens: Focus on sinks. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018; 39:1463.
  12. Johnson RC, Deming C, Conlan S, et al. Investigation of a Cluster of Sphingomonas koreensis Infections. N Engl J Med 2018; 379:2529.
  13. Schürch AC, Arredondo-Alonso S, Willems RJL, Goering RV. Whole genome sequencing options for bacterial strain typing and epidemiologic analysis based on single nucleotide polymorphism versus gene-by-gene-based approaches. Clin Microbiol Infect 2018; 24:350.
  14. Kaye KS, Anderson DJ, Cook E, et al. Guidance for infection prevention and healthcare epidemiology programs: healthcare epidemiologist skills and competencies. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015; 36:369.
  15. Wenzel RP, Edmond MB. Infection control: the case for horizontal rather than vertical interventional programs. Int J Infect Dis 2010; 14 Suppl 4:S3.
  16. Haley RW, Culver DH, White JW, et al. The efficacy of infection surveillance and control programs in preventing nosocomial infections in US hospitals. Am J Epidemiol 1985; 121:182.
  17. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Multidrug-Resistant Organism & Clostridium difficile Infection (MDRO/CDI) Module. http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/PDFs/pscManual/12pscMDRO_CDADcurrent.pdf (Accessed on November 23, 2016).
  18. Durkin MJ, Baker AW, Dicks KV, et al. A comparison between National Healthcare Safety Network laboratory-identified event reporting versus traditional surveillance for Clostridium difficile infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015; 36:125.
  19. Baker AW, Durkin MJ, Dicks KV, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection surveillance: National Healthcare Safety Network's laboratory-identified event reporting versus traditional laboratory-confirmed bloodstream infection surveillance. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014; 35:1286.
  20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Unexplained deaths following knee surgery--Minnesota, November 2001. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2001; 50:1035.
  21. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Update: allograft-associated bacterial infections--United States, 2002. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2002; 51:207.
  22. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Update: Unexplained deaths following knee surgery--Minnesota, 2001. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2001; 50:1080.
  23. Whitehouse JD, Sexton DJ, Kirkland KB. Infection control: past, present, and future issues. Compr Ther 1998; 24:71.
  24. Kirkland KB, Briggs JP, Trivette SL, et al. The impact of surgical-site infections in the 1990s: attributable mortality, excess length of hospitalization, and extra costs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999; 20:725.
  25. Kaye KS, Engemann JJ, Fulmer EM, et al. Favorable impact of an infection control network on nosocomial infection rates in community hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006; 27:228.
  26. Gaynes R, Richards C, Edwards J, et al. Feeding back surveillance data to prevent hospital-acquired infections. Emerg Infect Dis 2001; 7:295.
  27. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Surgical Site Infection (SSI) Event. http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/PDFs/pscmanual/9pscssicurrent.pdf (Accessed on November 23, 2016).
  28. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC/NHSN Surveillance Definitions for Specific Types of Infections. http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/pscmanual/17pscnosinfdef_current.pdf (Accessed on November 23, 2016).
  29. National Healthcare Safety Network. National and State Healthcare-Associated Infections Progress Report: Technical Appendix. https://www.cdc.gov/HAI/pdfs/progress-report/hai-progress-report.pdf (Accessed on August 15, 2022).
  30. Hansen S, Sohr D, Geffers C, et al. Concordance between European and US case definitions of healthcare-associated infections. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2012; 1:28.
  31. Djuric O, Markovic-Denic L, Jovanovic B, Bumbasirevic V. Agreement between CDC/NHSN surveillance definitions and ECDC criteria in diagnosis of healthcare-associated infections in Serbian trauma patients. PLoS One 2018; 13:e0204893.
  32. Haut ER, Pronovost PJ. Surveillance bias in outcomes reporting. JAMA 2011; 305:2462.
  33. Sax H, Pittet D, Swiss-NOSO Network. Interhospital differences in nosocomial infection rates: importance of case-mix adjustment. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162:2437.
  34. Anderson DJ, Hartwig MG, Pappas T, et al. Surgical volume and the risk of surgical site infection in community hospitals: size matters. Ann Surg 2008; 247:343.
  35. Anderson DJ, Sexton DJ, Kanafani ZA, et al. Severe surgical site infection in community hospitals: epidemiology, key procedures, and the changing prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007; 28:1047.
  36. Moehring RW, Anderson DJ. "But my patients are different!": risk adjustment in 2012 and beyond. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011; 32:987.
  37. Harris AD, McGregor JC. The importance of case-mix adjustment for infection rates and the need for more research. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008; 29:693.
  38. Jackson SS, Leekha S, Magder LS, et al. Electronically Available Comorbidities Should Be Used in Surgical Site Infection Risk Adjustment. Clin Infect Dis 2017; 65:803.
  39. Jackson SS, Leekha S, Magder LS, et al. The Effect of Adding Comorbidities to Current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Central-Line-Associated Bloodstream Infection Risk-Adjustment Methodology. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017; 38:1019.
  40. Garner JS, Jarvis WR, Emori TG, et al. CDC definitions for nosocomial infections, 1988. Am J Infect Control 1988; 16:128.
  41. Lee TB, Montgomery OG, Marx J, et al. Recommended practices for surveillance: Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), Inc. Am J Infect Control 2007; 35:427.
  42. Lin MY, Hota B, Khan YM, et al. Quality of traditional surveillance for public reporting of nosocomial bloodstream infection rates. JAMA 2010; 304:2035.
  43. van Mourik MSM, Perencevich EN, Gastmeier P, Bonten MJM. Designing Surveillance of Healthcare-Associated Infections in the Era of Automation and Reporting Mandates. Clin Infect Dis 2018; 66:970.
  44. Lin MY, Trick WE. Informatics in Infection Control. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2016; 30:759.
  45. Sips ME, Bonten MJM, van Mourik MSM. Automated surveillance of healthcare-associated infections: state of the art. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2017; 30:425.
  46. Huang SS, Yokoe DS, Stelling J, et al. Automated detection of infectious disease outbreaks in hospitals: a retrospective cohort study. PLoS Med 2010; 7:e1000238.
  47. Woeltje KF, Lin MY, Klompas M, et al. Data requirements for electronic surveillance of healthcare-associated infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014; 35:1083.
  48. Trick WE, Zagorski BM, Tokars JI, et al. Computer algorithms to detect bloodstream infections. Emerg Infect Dis 2004; 10:1612.
  49. Hota B, Lin M, Doherty JA, et al. Formulation of a model for automating infection surveillance: algorithmic detection of central-line associated bloodstream infection. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010; 17:42.
  50. Snyders RE, Goris AJ, Gase KA, et al. Increasing the Reliability of Fully Automated Surveillance for Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015; 36:1396.
  51. McCoubrey J, Reilly J, Mullings A, et al. Validation of surgical site infection surveillance data in Scotland. J Hosp Infect 2005; 61:194.
  52. McBryde ES, Brett J, Russo PL, et al. Validation of statewide surveillance system data on central line-associated bloodstream infection in intensive care units in Australia. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009; 30:1045.
  53. Friedman ND, Russo PL, Bull AL, et al. Validation of coronary artery bypass graft surgical site infection surveillance data from a statewide surveillance system in Australia. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007; 28:812.
  54. Warren DK, Zack JE, Mayfield JL, et al. The effect of an education program on the incidence of central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infection in a medical ICU. Chest 2004; 126:1612.
  55. Mulder H, Ten Cate O, Daalder R, Berkvens J. Building a competency-based workplace curriculum around entrustable professional activities: The case of physician assistant training. Med Teach 2010; 32:e453.
  56. Milligan C, Allin S, Farr M, et al. Mandatory reporting legislation in Canada: improving systems for patient safety? Health Econ Policy Law 2021; 16:355.
  57. Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC). APIC legislative tracker. https://cqrcengage.com/apic/state (Accessed on August 09, 2022).
  58. National Quality Forum. Patient Safety 2015. https://www.qualityforum.org/Patient_Safety_2015.aspx (Accessed on November 23, 2016).
  59. Medicare.gov. Hospital compare. www.medicare.gov/hospitalcompare (Accessed on November 23, 2016).
  60. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Infectious Diseases. https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthcarefacilities/infectious_diseases.html (Accessed on November 23, 2016).
  61. Joint Commission. National Patient Safety Goals Effective January 2017: Hospital Acceditation Program. https://www.jointcommission.org/standards/ (Accessed on November 23, 2016).
  62. Suetens C, Latour K, Kärki T, et al. Prevalence of healthcare-associated infections, estimated incidence and composite antimicrobial resistance index in acute care hospitals and long-term care facilities: results from two European point prevalence surveys, 2016 to 2017. Euro Surveill 2018; 23.
  63. Plachouras D, Lepape A, Suetens C. ECDC definitions and methods for the surveillance of healthcare-associated infections in intensive care units. Intensive Care Med 2018; 44:2216.
  64. Sheps S, Birnbaum D. Mandatory reporting of healthcare associated infections: Can US experience inform Canadian policy? Clinical Governance: An International Journal 2012.
  65. Boyd L, Sheen J. The national safety and quality health service standards requirements for orientation and induction within Australian Healthcare: A review of the literature. AP JHM 2014; 9:31.
  66. Russo PL, Cheng AC, Mitchell BG, Hall L. Healthcare-associated infections in Australia: tackling the 'known unknowns'. Aust Health Rev 2018; 42:178.
  67. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/disinfection/index.html (Accessed on September 19, 2016).
  68. Rutala WA. APIC guideline for selection and use of disinfectants. 1994, 1995, and 1996 APIC Guidelines Committee. Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Am J Infect Control 1996; 24:313.
  69. Rutala WA, Weber DJ. Disinfection and sterilization in health care facilities: what clinicians need to know. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39:702.
  70. Weber DJ, Anderson D, Rutala WA. The role of the surface environment in healthcare-associated infections. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2013; 26:338.
  71. Bhalla A, Pultz NJ, Gries DM, et al. Acquisition of nosocomial pathogens on hands after contact with environmental surfaces near hospitalized patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004; 25:164.
  72. Huang SS, Datta R, Platt R. Risk of acquiring antibiotic-resistant bacteria from prior room occupants. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166:1945.
  73. Jou J, Ebrahim J, Shofer FS, et al. Environmental transmission of Clostridium difficile: association between hospital room size and C. difficile Infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015; 36:564.
  74. Rutala WA, Weber DJ. Surface disinfection: should we do it? J Hosp Infect 2001; 48 Suppl A:S64.
  75. Bernard L, Kereveur A, Durand D, et al. Bacterial contamination of hospital physicians' stethoscopes. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999; 20:626.
  76. US Environmental Protection Agency. Selected EPA-registered Disinfectants. https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/selected-epa-registered-disinfectants (Accessed on September 19, 2016).
  77. Boyce JM, Havill NL. Evaluation of a new hydrogen peroxide wipe disinfectant. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013; 34:521.
  78. Friedman ND, Walton AL, Boyd S, et al. The effectiveness of a single-stage versus traditional three-staged protocol of hospital disinfection at eradicating vancomycin-resistant Enterococci from frequently touched surfaces. Am J Infect Control 2013; 41:227.
  79. Wilcox MH, Fawley WN, Wigglesworth N, et al. Comparison of the effect of detergent versus hypochlorite cleaning on environmental contamination and incidence of Clostridium difficile infection. J Hosp Infect 2003; 54:109.
  80. Hacek DM, Ogle AM, Fisher A, et al. Significant impact of terminal room cleaning with bleach on reducing nosocomial Clostridium difficile. Am J Infect Control 2010; 38:350.
  81. Mayfield JL, Leet T, Miller J, Mundy LM. Environmental control to reduce transmission of Clostridium difficile. Clin Infect Dis 2000; 31:995.
  82. McMullen KM, Zack J, Coopersmith CM, et al. Use of hypochlorite solution to decrease rates of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007; 28:205.
  83. Whitaker J, Brown BS, Vidal S, Calcaterra M. Designing a protocol that eliminates Clostridium difficile: a collaborative venture. Am J Infect Control 2007; 35:310.
  84. Grabsch EA, Mahony AA, Cameron DR, et al. Significant reduction in vancomycin-resistant enterococcus colonization and bacteraemia after introduction of a bleach-based cleaning-disinfection programme. J Hosp Infect 2012; 82:234.
  85. Sax H, Bloemberg G, Hasse B, et al. Prolonged Outbreak of Mycobacterium chimaera Infection After Open-Chest Heart Surgery. Clin Infect Dis 2015; 61:67.
  86. Rutala WA, Weber DJ, Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Guideline for disinfection and sterilization of prion-contaminated medical instruments. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010; 31:107.
  87. Carling PC, Huang SS. Improving healthcare environmental cleaning and disinfection: current and evolving issues. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013; 34:507.
  88. Dancer SJ. Hospital cleaning in the 21st century. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2011; 30:1473.
  89. Boyce JM, Sullivan L, Booker A, Baker J. Quaternary Ammonium Disinfectant Issues Encountered in an Environmental Services Department. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016; 37:340.
  90. Sitzlar B, Deshpande A, Fertelli D, et al. An environmental disinfection odyssey: evaluation of sequential interventions to improve disinfection of Clostridium difficile isolation rooms. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013; 34:459.
  91. Carling P. Methods for assessing the adequacy of practice and improving room disinfection. Am J Infect Control 2013; 41:S20.
  92. Hayden MK, Bonten MJ, Blom DW, et al. Reduction in acquisition of vancomycin-resistant enterococcus after enforcement of routine environmental cleaning measures. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 42:1552.
  93. Eckstein BC, Adams DA, Eckstein EC, et al. Reduction of Clostridium Difficile and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus contamination of environmental surfaces after an intervention to improve cleaning methods. BMC Infect Dis 2007; 7:61.
  94. Mitchell BG, Hall L, White N, et al. An environmental cleaning bundle and health-care-associated infections in hospitals (REACH): a multicentre, randomised trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2019; 19:410.
  95. Ray AJ, Deshpande A, Fertelli D, et al. A Multicenter Randomized Trial to Determine the Effect of an Environmental Disinfection Intervention on the Incidence of Healthcare-Associated Clostridium difficile Infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017; 38:777.
  96. Miller BA, Sexton DJ. Shedding light on new methods to improve hospital cleanliness: the use of ultraviolet monitors as surrogate markers for bacterial contamination. Crit Care Med 2010; 38:1212.
  97. Han JH, Sullivan N, Leas BF, et al. Cleaning Hospital Room Surfaces to Prevent Health Care-Associated Infections: A Technical Brief. Ann Intern Med 2015; 163:598.
  98. Carling PC, Parry MF, Bruno-Murtha LA, Dick B. Improving environmental hygiene in 27 intensive care units to decrease multidrug-resistant bacterial transmission. Crit Care Med 2010; 38:1054.
  99. Whiteley GS, Derry C, Glasbey T. The comparative performance of three brands of portable ATP bioluminometer intended for use in hospital infection control. Healthcare Infection 2012; 17:91.
  100. Boyce JM, Havill NL, Dumigan DG, et al. Monitoring the effectiveness of hospital cleaning practices by use of an adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence assay. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009; 30:678.
  101. Weber DJ, Rutala WA, Anderson DJ, et al. Effectiveness of ultraviolet devices and hydrogen peroxide systems for terminal room decontamination: Focus on clinical trials. Am J Infect Control 2016; 44:e77.
  102. Anderson DJ, Chen LF, Weber DJ, et al. Enhanced terminal room disinfection and acquisition and infection caused by multidrug-resistant organisms and Clostridium difficile (the Benefits of Enhanced Terminal Room Disinfection study): a cluster-randomised, multicentre, crossover study. Lancet 2017; 389:805.
  103. Nerandzic MM, Cadnum JL, Pultz MJ, Donskey CJ. Evaluation of an automated ultraviolet radiation device for decontamination of Clostridium difficile and other healthcare-associated pathogens in hospital rooms. BMC Infect Dis 2010; 10:197.
  104. Anderson DJ, Gergen MF, Smathers E, et al. Decontamination of targeted pathogens from patient rooms using an automated ultraviolet-C-emitting device. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013; 34:466.
  105. Rutala WA, Gergen MF, Weber DJ. Room decontamination with UV radiation. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010; 31:1025.
  106. Rutala WA, Gergen MF, Tande BM, Weber DJ. Room decontamination using an ultraviolet-C device with short ultraviolet exposure time. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014; 35:1070.
  107. Kanamori H, Rutala WA, Gergen MF, Weber DJ. Patient Room Decontamination against Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae and Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Using a Fixed Cycle-Time Ultraviolet-C Device and Two Different Radiation Designs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016; 37:994.
  108. Rock C, Curless MS, Nowakowski E, et al. UV-C Light Disinfection of Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae from High-Touch Surfaces in a Patient Room and Bathroom. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016; 37:996.
  109. Pegues DA, Han J, Gilmar C, et al. Impact of Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation for No-Touch Terminal Room Disinfection on Clostridium difficile Infection Incidence Among Hematology-Oncology Patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017; 38:39.
  110. Anderson DJ, Moehring RW, Weber DJ, et al. Effectiveness of targeted enhanced terminal room disinfection on hospital-wide acquisition and infection with multidrug-resistant organisms and Clostridium difficile: a secondary analysis of a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial with crossover design (BETR Disinfection). Lancet Infect Dis 2018; 18:845.
  111. Marra AR, Schweizer ML, Edmond MB. No-Touch Disinfection Methods to Decrease Multidrug-Resistant Organism Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018; 39:20.
  112. Doll M, Morgan DJ, Anderson D, Bearman G. Touchless Technologies for Decontamination in the Hospital: a Review of Hydrogen Peroxide and UV Devices. Curr Infect Dis Rep 2015; 17:498.
  113. Smith MA, Mathewson JJ, Ulert IA, et al. Contaminated stethoscopes revisited. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156:82.
  114. Zachary KC, Bayne PS, Morrison VJ, et al. Contamination of gowns, gloves, and stethoscopes with vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2001; 22:560.
  115. Brady RR, Verran J, Damani NN, Gibb AP. Review of mobile communication devices as potential reservoirs of nosocomial pathogens. J Hosp Infect 2009; 71:295.
  116. Borer A, Gilad J, Smolyakov R, et al. Cell phones and Acinetobacter transmission. Emerg Infect Dis 2005; 11:1160.
  117. Fishman M, Fort GG, Mikolich DJ. Prevention of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in health care workers: a case study. Am J Infect Control 1998; 26:74.
Topic 101613 Version 21.0

References