Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T14:41:24.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hospital Staff Perceptions of a Legislative Mandate for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Screening

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Matthew E. Wise ,
Stephen G. Weber ,
Amy Schneider ,
Meg Stojcevski ,
Anne Marie France ,
Melissa K. Schaefer ,
Michael Y. Lin ,
Alexander J. Kallen  and
Ronda L. Cochran
Matthew E. Wise*
Affiliation:
Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
Stephen G. Weber
Affiliation:
University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
Amy Schneider
Affiliation:
Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
Meg Stojcevski
Affiliation:
University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
Anne Marie France
Affiliation:
New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York, New York
Melissa K. Schaefer
Affiliation:
Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
Michael Y. Lin
Affiliation:
Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
Alexander J. Kallen
Affiliation:
Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
Ronda L. Cochran
Affiliation:
Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
*
Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, MS A-35, Atlanta, GA 30333 (cxx4@cdc.gov)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

In August 2007, Illinois passed legislation mandating methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) admission screening for intensive care unit patients. We assessed hospital staff perceptions of the implementation of this law.

Design.

Mixed-methods evaluation using structured focus groups and questionnaires.

Setting.

Eight Chicago-area hospitals.

Participants.

Three strata of staff (leadership, midlevel, and frontline) at each hospital.

Methods.

All participants completed a questionnaire and participated in a focus group. Focus group transcripts were thematically coded and analyzed. The proportion of staff agreeing with statements about MRSA and the legislation was compared across staff types.

Results.

Overall, 126 hospital staff participated in 23 focus groups. Fifty-six percent of participants agreed that the legislation had a positive effect at their facility; frontline staff were more likely to agree than midlevel and leadership staff (P < .01). Perceived benefits of the legislation included increased awareness of MRSA among staff and better knowledge of the epidemiology of MRSA colonization. Perceived negative consequences included the psychosocial effect of screening and contact precautions on patients and increased use of resources. Most participants (59%) would choose to continue the activities associated with the legislation but advised facilities in states considering similar legislation to educate staff and patients about MRSA screening and to draft clear implementation plans.

Conclusion.

Staff from Chicago-area hospitals perceived that mandatory MRSA screening legislation resulted in some benefits but highlighted implementation challenges. States considering similar initiatives might minimize these challenges by optimizing messaging to patients and healthcare staff, drafting implementation plans, and developing program evaluation strategies.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 32 , Issue 6 , June 2011 , pp. 573 - 578
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Klevens, RM, Morrison, MA, Nadle, J, et al.Invasive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in the United States. JAMA 2007;298(15):1763–1771.Google Scholar
2.Weber, SG, Huang, SS, Oriola, S, et al.Legislative mandates for use of active surveillance cultures to screen for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant enter-ococci: position statement from the Joint SHEA and APIC Task Force. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28(3):249–260.Google Scholar
3.Illinois General Assembly. Public Act 095-0312: MRSA Screening and Reporting Act. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/95/095-0312.htm. Accessed June 3, 2010.Google Scholar
4.Cimolai, N. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, public concern, and legislative mandates. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28(7):896.Google Scholar
5.Farr, BM. Political versus epidemiological correctness. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28(5):589–593.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Harbarth, S, Fankhauser, C, Schrenzel, J, et al.Universal screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus at hospital admission and nosocomial infection in surgical patients. JAMA 2008;299(10):1149–1157.Google Scholar
7.Huang, SS, Yokoe, DS, Hinrichsen, VL, et al.Impact of routine intensive care unit surveillance cultures and resultant barrier precautions on hospital-wide methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis 2006;43(8):971–978.Google Scholar
8.McGinigle, KL, Gourlay, ML, Buchanan, IB. The use of active surveillance cultures in adult intensive care units to reduce methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus-rehted morbidity, mortality, and costs: a systematic review. Clin Infect Dis 2008;46(11):1717–1725.Google Scholar
9.Robicsek, A, Beaumont, JL, Paule, SM, et al.Universal surveillance for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in 3 affiliated hospitals. Ann Intern Med 2008;148(6):409–418.Google Scholar
10.Peterson, A, Marquez, P, Terashita, D, Burwell, L, Mascola, L. Hospital methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus active surveillance practices in Los Angeles County: implications of legislation-based infection control, 2008. Am J Infect Control 2010;38(8):653–656.Google Scholar
11.Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology. MRSA laws and pending legislation—2010. http://www.apic.org/downloads/legislation/MRSA_map.gif. Accessed June 3, 2010.Google Scholar
12.Sinkowitz-Cochran, RL, Garcia-Williams, A, Hackbarth, A, et al. Factors associated with successful implementation of quality improvement efforts: the IHI 100,000 Lives campaign. Paper presented at: Fifth Decennial International Conference on Healthcare-Associated Infections, March 20, 2010; Atlanta.Google Scholar
13.Morgan, DJ, Diekema, DJ, Sepkowitz, K, Perencevich, EN. Adverse outcomes associated with contact precautions: a review of the literature. Am J Infect Control 2009;37(2):85–93.Google Scholar
14.Cohen, E, Austin, J, Weinstein, M, Madow, A, Redelmeier, DA. Care of children isolated for infection control: a prospective observational cohort study. Pediatrics 2008;122(2):e411–e415.Google Scholar
15.Lewis, AM, Gammon, J, Hosein, I. The pros and cons of isolation and containment. J Hosp Infect 1999;43(1): 19–23.Google Scholar
16.Ward, D. Infection control: reducing the psychological effects of isolation. Br J Nurs 2000;9(3):162–170.Google Scholar