Showing posts with label Infection Control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Infection Control. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 04, 2014

Saudi MOH Announces New MERS Infection Control Procedures

image

 


# 9286

 

The recent surge in MERS cases (48+ cases over 60 days), after a very quiet July and August, serves as a reminder that not only does the MERS coronavirus continues to circulate on the Arabian Peninsula, but that hospitals have frequently been the locus of transmission. 

 

Today the Saudi MOH has announced new Infection Control Procedures to aid in the controlling of the MERS coronavirus, including the designation of 17 MERS receiving hospitals and 3 Centers for Excellence.

 

The specific infection control advice (the link provided is to an Arabic-only page) appears to concentrate on the basics;

  • Identifying potential cases
  • Use of PPEs and Hand Hygiene
  • Patient Transfer Protocols
  • Notifying the Infectious Disease Hotline

 

The experience of the past two years has been to see a substantial jump in community, and hospital transmission of the virus during the spring.  The number of cases announced over the past 60 days are comparable to what was reported during this same time period in 2013.

image

Credit ECDC Epidemiological Update 

 

 

MOH UPDATES MERS-CoV INFECTION CONTROL PROCEDURES

04 November 2014

A review of recent MERS-CoV cases by the Ministry of Health’s Command & Control Center (CCC) identified the need to update its clinical operations protocols for handling patients who are suspected to, or have the disease. The document has been posted on the CCC website: http://www.moh.gov.sa/ccc

“It is critical that all healthcare workers and facilities, public and private, follow these updated protocols,” said Dr. Anees Sindi, Deputy Commander of the CCC. “With more than 70 percent of recent MERS-CoV cases resulting from secondary infections, mainly acquired in the hospital, we have recognized the need to implement stricter infection-control measures across the health system.

“Sporadic cases of the disease, which are thought to be caused by unprotected contact with camels, are likely to happen,” added Dr. Anees. “Secondary infections, however, should be preventable. One goal of the CCC is to reduce the potential for MERS-CoV to spread, thus protecting the health of patients and healthcare workers. These updated protocols are designed to do just that.”

The guiding principles of the protocols include:

  • All hospital staff must be familiar with the latest MERS-CoV case definition
  • Suspect patients are to be handled with appropriate protection equipment, following all recommended IPC guidelines
  • Patient transfer protocols must be followed
  • Hospital staff are to call the (937) infectious disease hotline to report the case and receive up-to-date guidance

Also, as part of the CCC’s comprehensive preparedness program, the Ministry reiterated that it has created 17 MERS-CoV specialist hospitals across the Kingdom, and has named three centers of excellence for handling complex or difficult cases:

  • Western Province – King Fahad Hospital, Jeddah
  • Central Province - Prince Mohammad Bin Abdulaziz Hospital, Riyadh
  • Eastern Province – Dammam Medical Complex

The full set of updated protocols has been distributed to healthcare workers across the regions, who are expected to be familiar and comply with them effective immediately.

The move comes as part of the Ministry’s commitment to building a comprehensive preparedness program based on international best practices and knowledge-based solutions to best serve and protect the people of the Kingdom.

For more information about ways to prevent MERS-CoV, contact the (937) infectious disease hotline or visit the Ministry’s website: http://www.moh.gov.sa/ccc.

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

CDC Interim Ebola Guidance: Environmental Infection Control In Hospitals

image
Credit CDC PHIL

 

 

# 8974

 

 

The CDC continues to roll out new interim guidance documents for health care professionals and facilities that at some point may be called upon to deal with an imported Ebola case in the United States.  As always, these are `works in progress’, and are subject to revision over time as more is learned about dealing with this virus.

 

Although laboratory experiments have shown that the Ebola virus can remain viable on solid surfaces for up to 6 daysat least under ideal environmental conditions -  very limited `real world’  field testing has suggested a far less hardy organism; one that is susceptible to degradation by sunlight, desiccation, and time. 


That said, the precise role of environmental transmission of Ebola is far from settled - and given its lethality and low infectious dose - guidance in these matters tends to err on the side of caution. Also included is a Frequently Asked Questions section (FAQ), which poses (and answers) several interesting questions, including:

 

  • How should disposable materials (e.g., any single-use PPE, cleaning cloths, wipes, single-use microfiber cloths, linens, food service) and linens, privacy curtains, and other textiles be managed after their use in the patient room?

  • Are wastes generated during delivery of care to Ebola virus-infected patients subject to select agent regulations?

I’ve only reproduced the main body of the guidance, so follow the link to read it, and the accompanying FAQ in its entirety.

 

Interim Guidance for Environmental Infection Control in Hospitals for Ebola Virus

 

On August 1, 2014, CDC released guidance titled, Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Hospitalized Patients with Known or Suspected Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever in U.S. Hospitals. Ebola viruses are transmitted through direct contact with blood or body fluids/substances (e.g., urine, feces, vomit) of an infected person with symptoms or through exposure to objects (such as needles) that have been contaminated with infected blood or body fluids. The role of the environment in transmission has not been established. Limited laboratory studies under favorable conditions indicate that Ebola virus can remain viable on solid surfaces, with concentrations falling slowly over several days.1, 2 In the only study to assess contamination of the patient care environment during an outbreak, virus was not detected in any of 33 samples collected from sites that were not visibly bloody. However, virus was detected on a blood-stained glove and bloody intravenous insertion site.3 There is no epidemiologic evidence of Ebola virus transmission via either the environment or fomites that could become contaminated during patient care (e.g., bed rails, door knobs, laundry). However, given the apparent low infectious dose, potential of high virus titers in the blood of ill patients, and disease severity, higher levels of precaution are warranted to reduce the potential risk posed by contaminated surfaces in the patient care environment.

As part of the care of patients who are persons under investigation, or with probable or confirmed Ebola virus infections, hospitals are recommended to:

  • Be sure environmental services staff wear recommended personal protective equipment including, at a minimum, disposable gloves, gown (fluid resistant/ impermeable), eye protection (goggles or face shield), and facemask to protect against direct skin and mucous membrane exposure of cleaning chemicals, contamination, and splashes or spatters during environmental cleaning and disinfection activities. Additional barriers (e.g., leg covers, shoe covers) should be used as needed. If reusable heavy-duty gloves are used for cleaning and disinfecting, they should be disinfected and kept in the room or anteroom. Be sure staff are instructed in the proper use of personal protective equipment including safe removal to prevent contaminating themselves or others in the process, and that contaminated equipment is disposed of as regulated medical waste.
  • Use a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-registered hospital disinfectant with a label claim for a non-enveloped virus (e.g., norovirus, rotavirus, adenovirus, poliovirus) to disinfect environmental surfaces in rooms of patients with suspected or confirmed Ebola virus infection. Although there are no products with specific label claims against the Ebola virus, enveloped viruses such as Ebola are susceptible to a broad range of hospital disinfectants used to disinfect hard, non-porous surfaces. In contrast, non-enveloped viruses are more resistant to disinfectants. As a precaution, selection of a disinfectant product with a higher potency than what is normally required for an enveloped virus is being recommended at this time. EPA-registered hospital disinfectants with label claims against non-enveloped viruses (e.g., norovirus, rotavirus, adenovirus, poliovirus) are broadly antiviral and capable of inactivating both enveloped and non-enveloped viruses.
  • Avoid contamination of reusable porous surfaces that cannot be made single use. Use only a mattress and pillow with plastic or other covering that fluids cannot get through. Do not place patients with suspected or confirmed Ebola virus infection in carpeted rooms and remove all upholstered furniture and decorative curtains from patient rooms before use.
  • To reduce exposure among staff to potentially contaminated textiles (cloth products) while laundering, discard all linens, non-fluid-impermeable pillows or mattresses, and textile privacy curtains as a regulated medical waste.

(Continue . . . )

Monday, August 18, 2014

CDC Guidance: Donning & Removing PPEs

image image

Surgical Facemask N-95 Respirator 

 

 

# 8968

 

Although this information has been published as an update to the CDC’s Ebola Page, the techniques showing how to properly don and to remove PPEs illustrate critical infection control skills, and are valid regardless of the pathogen you are trying to avoid contact with. 

 

Both graphics are part of a PDF File.

 

I’ll have a bit more after the the break.

 

image

 

image

 

 

 

And passing on a reminder from NIOSH -The National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health - that 9/5 (September 5th) Is N95 Day and that they are the go to agency for information on safety equipment and how to prevent workplace illnesses and injuries.

For more on the use of PPEs in a variety of infectious environments, you may wish to revisit:

MERS: A Close Shave For PPEs

NIOSH Webinar: Debunking N95 Myths

The Great Mask Debate Revisited

Survival Of The Fit-tested

 

Friday, August 01, 2014

State Dept. On Ebola Medical Evacuation & CDC Infection Control Guidance

image

 

# 8904

 


With two American Missionaries infected with Ebola expected to arrive in the United States as soon as this weekend (see State Department statement below) – and the possibility that infected international travelers might find their way to our shores – it is not altogether surprising that the CDC today has issued Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for health care facilities treating suspected or confirmed Ebola cases.

 

First, the statement from the U.S. Department of State.

 

Citizens From West Africa

Medical Evacuations of Two U.S. Citizens From West Africa

Press Statement

Marie Harf
Deputy Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

August 1, 2014


The State Department, together with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), is facilitating a medical evacuation for two U.S. citizens who have been infected by Ebola in West Africa. The safety and security of U.S. citizens is our paramount concern. Every precaution is being taken to move the patients safely and securely, to provide critical care en route on a non-commercial aircraft, and to maintain strict isolation upon arrival in the United States.

These evacuations will take place over the coming days. CDC protocols and equipment are used for these kinds of medical evacuations so that they are carried out safely, thereby protecting the patient and the American public, as has been done with similar medical evacuations in the past.

Upon arriving in the United States, the patients will be taken to medical facilities with appropriate isolation and treatment capabilities.

Because of privacy considerations, we will not be able to confirm the names or other specific details of these particular cases.

For matters relating to public health precautions in the United States, we would refer to the CDC, which has the overall lead role on those issues within the U.S. Government.

 

 

The CDC’s Infection control guidance (h/t @Influenza_bio for tweeting the link) is too lengthy to try to post in it’s entirety, so I’ll just show an excerpt, and ask those with need for the details to follow the link to the CDC website.

 

Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Hospitalized Patients with Known or Suspected Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever in U.S. Hospitals

Standard, contact, and droplet precautions are recommended for management of hospitalized patients with known or suspected Ebola hemorrhagic fever (Ebola HF), also referred to as Ebola Viral Disease (EVD) (See Table below). Note that this guidance outlines only those measures that are specific for Ebola HF; additional infection control measures might be warranted if an Ebola HF patient has other conditions or illnesses for which other measures are indicated (e.g., tuberculosis, multi-drug resistant organisms, etc.).

Though these recommendations focus on the hospital setting, the recommendations for personal protective equipment (PPE) and environmental infection control measures are applicable to any healthcare setting. In this guidance healthcare personnel (HCP) refers all persons, paid and unpaid, working in healthcare settings who have the potential for exposure to patients and/or to infectious materials, including body substances, contaminated medical supplies and equipment, contaminated environmental surfaces, or contaminated air. HCP include, but are not limited to, physicians, nurses, nursing assistants, therapists, technicians, emergency medical service personnel, dental personnel, pharmacists, laboratory personnel, autopsy personnel, students and trainees, contractual personnel, home healthcare personnel, and persons not directly involved in patient care (e.g., clerical, dietary, house-keeping, laundry, security, maintenance, billing, chaplains, and volunteers) but potentially exposed to infectious agents that can be transmitted to and from HCP and patients. This guidance is not intended to apply to persons outside of healthcare settings.

As information becomes available, these recommendations will be re-evaluated and updated as needed. These recommendations are based upon available information (as of July 30, 2014) and the following considerations:

  • High rate of morbidity and mortality among infected patients
  • Risk of human-to-human transmission
  • Lack of FDA-approved vaccine and therapeutics

(Continue . . . )

Follow the above link for specific information on Patient Isolation, PPEs, Aerosol Generating Procedures, Environmental Infection control, monitoring potentially exposed personnel . . . and more.

 

Monday, May 26, 2014

MERS: A Close Shave For PPEs

image

A plethora of options – Credit NIOSH


# 8665

 

An infection control topic was raised on twitter last night by Dr. Ian Mackay that has ramifications for a lot of bearded men, myself included; how to get a good N95 respirator fit?  As we’ve discussed previously (see Survival Of The Fit-tested), while N95 respirators can provide excellent protection, that falls apart if a proper seal isn’t maintained.

 

My personal attack plan involves a pair of scissors, a razor, and no small amount of regret. 

 

But in many societies beards are more than just a fashion choice, they have deep social and religious meaning, making their removal a far more difficult decision.  Despite the difficulty (some might say, impossibility) of maintaining a decent seal, we’ve seen more than a few bearded health care workers (HCWs) attempting to wear N95 respirators in Saudi Arabia.

 

One can’t help but wonder how much of a role ill-fitting N95 respirators (or worse, the use of surgical masks, and no eye protection) has played in the nosocomial spread of the MERS virus in the Middle East.  

 

In the United States OSHA regulates worker safety, and that agency’s respiratory protection standard, 1910.134, requires workers to be clean shaven when wearing an N95 respirator.  Facial hair, including some sideburns, can effectively destroy a respirator’s seal.

 


The experts in protective equipment for HCWs are the folks at the National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory (NPPTL) which is part of The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH),  have put together a FAQ on respirator use, which addresses the issue of beards.

 

What do you do with employees who have facial hair? (What if the beard or mustache is small enough that it is contained inside the respirator?)

Tight-fitting respirators require the wearer’s face to be clean shaven where the respirator’s seal comes in contact with the skin. If the facial hair does not extend far enough to interfere with the device’s seal in any way, or interfere with the function of the exhalation valve, the wearer may wear it with the approval of the respiratory protection administrator.

Loose-fitting respirators, such as Powered Air-Purifying Respirators (PAPRs) with loose-fitting hoods, do not form a tight seal with the face and, therefore, do not require the wearer to have a clean shaven face. Loose-fitting respirators (i.e. respirators with loose-fitting hoods or helmets) are the only type of respirators that may be worn with facial hair and do not require fit testing.

 

In response to a question posed on the NIOSH Science blog N95 Respirators and Surgical Masks by Lisa Brosseau, ScD, and Roland Berry Ann, we learn that the tolerance for beard stubble is pretty low:

 

For men working in healthcare or EMS with long shift length sometimes exceeding 12 hours how do you suggest ensuring adequate mask to face interface for an appropriate seal or do you suggest a PAPR.


Paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) in OSHA’s 29 CFR 1910.134 are intended to ensure that facial hair is prevented from interfering with the facepiece seal or valve function. We are unaware of any interpretive OSHA compliance or NIOSH policies defining a time duration between shaves or length of “stubble” or beard growth that would be prohibited. Although the growth and beard density varies among individuals, generally, a one-day’s growth of facial hair is deemed acceptable to avoid interfering with the facepiece’s ability to seal to the wearer’s face.

 


While far more expensive, the alternative to wearing a disposable N95 mask is to wear a battery powered PAPR (Powered Air Purifying Respirator).   These may be full face, or hooded designs.

 
Powered Air Purifying Respirator

 

 

 

 

 

Credit CDC – NIOSH

 

Being a powered respirator, they are easier to work in and breath with for long periods of time, and it are  preferred protection when performing AGPs (aerosol generating procedures) over the N95 respirator.

 

This from the Minnesota Department of Health:

 

Choosing a PAPR

A PAPR may be selected for use if:

The N95 respirator choice(s) does not fit.

Employee has facial hair or facial deformity that would interfere with mask-to-face seal.

The N95 respirator choice(s) are unavailable.

Desired for high-risk aerosol-generating procedures.

PAPRs can be used by persons who are medically certified, but who cannot wear
N95 -disposable respirators
(e.g. persons with facial hair). 

see also>> Respirator Selection: Public Health Respiratory Protection Program Template

What is a PAPR?

The equipment is battery operated, consists of a half or full facepiece, breathing tube, battery-operated blower, and particulate filters (HEPA only).

A PAPR uses a blower to pass contaminated air through a HEPA filter, which removes the contaminant and supplies purified air to a facepiece.

A PAPR is not a true positive-pressure device because it can be over-breathed when inhaling.

A face shield may also be used in conjunction with a half-mask PAPR respirator for protection against body fluids.

 

While generally considered superior protection over N95 respirators, PAPRs have a high initial cost which ranges from several hundred to several thousands of dollars.  PAPRs can also be hot , heavy, and for some users  – claustrophobic to wear. Their battery packs require recharging – usually after 8 hours of operation -  and PAPRs require replacement filters.  

 

Although PAPRs are a potential solution for the bearded HCWs, their cost and availability in most healthcare settings are likely to be major obstacles to everyday use.

 

The CDC’s Updated Guidance on MERS Infection Control.

 

Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Hospitalized Patients with Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV)

Standard, contact, and airborne precautions are recommended for management of hospitalized patients with known or suspected MERS-CoV infection, based on CDC's case definition for patient under investigation. Note that additional infection prevention precautions or considerations may be needed if a MERS-CoV patient has other conditions or illnesses that warrant specific measures (e.g., tuberculosis, Clostridium difficile, multi-drug resistant organisms).

Though these recommendations focus on the hospital setting, the recommendations for personal protective equipment (PPE), source control (i.e., placing a facemask on potentially infected patients when outside of an airborne infection isolation room), and environmental infection control measures are applicable to any healthcare setting.

(Continue . . . )

 

 

For more on appropriate respiratory protection for HCWs dealing with MERS patients, you may wish to revisit last weeks CIDRAP Commentary: Protecting HCWs From MERS-CoV

 

And a couple of more MERS infection control blogs that may be of interest:

 

MERS: Are Two Surgical Masks Better Than One?
Voting On MERS Transmission: Do The Eyes Have It?

 

UPDATED:  Added a short Youtube video from Kimberly-Clark on Fit testing N95 masks.

image

Saturday, May 17, 2014

MERS And The New Normal

image

Credit CDC

 

# 8633

 

While a substantial portion of the MERS cases we’ve seen reported during the past few weeks appear to be related to hospital or healthcare exposures, we continue to see symptomatic cases admitted to the hospital with no mention of known contact with infected cases, medical facilities, or farm animals.  

 

Admittedly, the information we get – particularly out of the Saudi MOH – is less than fully illuminating on these cases.

 

While better epidemiological investigations might yield other explanations, right now there would seem to be two likely sources of continued community infection.


The first being zoonotic; likely through direct contact with infected camels, or indirectly through contact with camel products (milk, meat, animal waste, etc.). 

 

Previously we’ve seen genetic evidence presented suggesting multiple zoonotic introductions of the virus into the human population  (see  The Lancet: Transmission And Evolution Of MERS-CoV In Saudi Arabia) that – while warning that `human-to-human transmission is more complicated than expected’ – also quoted senior author Professor Paul Kellam:

 

“ . . . our findings suggest that different lineages of the virus have originated from the virus jumping across to humans from an animal source a number of times."

 
Making the idea of a `slow rolling spillover event’ at least plausible.  But the author’s of this study also granted another possibility, `. . .  there may be undetected (and possibly asymptomatic) people who could be carrying and spreading the virus.’


At the time that study was released (September 2013), there were just over 100 known cases of MERS, and nearly all were described as seriously ill or fatal.  Mild or asymptomatic cases were beginning to be detected, but were still relatively rare. 

 

Since then, more diligent testing and contact tracing has shown a much larger percentage of mild and/or asymptomatic infections.  The chart below by Dr. Ian Mackay shows that among recent cases, about 20% are described as being `asymptomatic’ (see VDU blog Snapdate: MERS-CoV detected among asymptomatic people).

image


Since `asymptomatic’ is a subjective call, it is possible that some of these cases may have had some mild symptoms.  And since KSA only seems to describe cases as being `asymptomatic, `stable’, or `in intensive care’,  we really don’t know how many `stable’ cases are symptomatic, but only mildly ill.

 

The difference between completely asymptomatic and `mildly ill’ could be significant when it comes to spreading the virus.   While we know that influenza cases can be infectious 24 hours before becoming symptomatic, the jury is still out on whether asymptomatic (or pre-symptomatic) MERS cases can transmit the illness. 

 

While I’m not aware of any studies that have been done to gauge the relative infectiousness of `mildly ill’ vs. `asymptomatic’ cases, it seems likely that those showing some symptoms would be more capable of spreading the disease than those displaying no symptoms at all.   

 

And recent imported cases to the United States and the Netherlands confirm that `mildly ill’ cases can, and do, travel and mingle with people – often for days or longer.   The latest MERS DON from the World Health Organization showed that the second Dutch case might never have been detected were she not part of the contact list of the first case.

 

This second patient has co-morbidities and developed first symptoms, including some breathing difficulties, on 5 May 2014 in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Upon return to the Netherlands on 10 May, the patient presented with mild respiratory symptoms and fever, but these were not severe enough for her to seek medical help.

 

Presumably, there are some  number of `mildly ill’ MERS cases going undetected in the Middle East, and while many may never pass on the virus to someone else, some probably do.  Depending on such variables as viral load, the recipient’s genetic susceptibility to infection, co-morbidities, and other factors – the chain of infection may end there or continue on.

 

We’ve not seen the kind of exponential growth in MERS cases that would suggest highly efficient community transmission, but we are certainly seeing enough cases to conclude that some community human-to-human transmission is occurring.  

 

And mildly ill (or possibly asymptomatic) cases may very well be behind this spread.

 

While obviously a concern for the community, these mildly ill cases are a greater threat to healthcare facilities, because when they do show up at a health clinic or doctor’s office, their symptoms are often not severe enough to set off alarm bells.  They are viewed initially as having a common URI, or other viral infection, and can end up infecting healthcare workers, or other patients.


Hence the now standard warning to Healthcare providers from the WHO:

 

Infection prevention and control measures are critical to prevent the possible spread of MERS-CoV in health care facilities. Health-care facilities that provide for patients suspected or confirmed to be infected with MERS-CoV infection should take appropriate measures to decrease the risk of transmission of the virus from an infected patient to other patients, health-care workers and visitors. Health care workers should be educated, trained and refreshed with skills on infection prevention and control.


It is not always possible to identify patients with MERS-CoV early because some have mild or unusual symptoms. For this reason, it is important that health-care workers apply standard precautions consistently with all patients – regardless of their diagnosis – in all work practices all the time.


Droplet precautions should be added to the standard precautions when providing care to all patients with symptoms of acute respiratory infection. Contact precautions and eye protection should be added when caring for probable or confirmed cases of MERS-CoV infection. Airborne precautions should be applied when performing aerosol generating procedures.


Patients should be managed as potentially infected when the clinical and epidemiological clues strongly suggest MERS-CoV, even if an initial test on a nasopharyngeal swab is negative. Repeat testing should be done when the initial testing is negative, preferably on specimens from the lower respiratory tract.

 

 

While still a relatively minor threat outside of the Middle East, today HCWs are facing a new infection control challenge. One that may very well expand over the coming months and years, even if the MERS virus never gains greater transmissibility.   


Over the past week we’ve learned more about the two imported US cases, and in both instances, they ended up waiting for hours in a hospital ER before being identified as potential MERS cases, and isolated.  Apparently neither called ahead, or donned a surgical mask before entering the hospital. 

 

Hospital workers, and other patients, were potentially exposed. 

 

While none appear to have caught the virus, many HCWs were furloughed into home quarantine for the duration of the incubation period, and contact tracing and surveillance was instituted for other potential contacts.  An expensive, but necessary, precaution.

 

Should MERS cases begin to turn up more frequently outside of the Middle East, we may very well have to re-examine our blasé attitudes regarding `mild’ respiratory viruses.

 

A good place to start would be posting notices on the door of every ER, doctor’s office, and clinic asking everyone who has any respiratory symptoms to don a surgical mask.  Dispensers could be positioned at the entrance, along with the already ubiquitous alcohol hand sanitizer dispensers.  

 

Frankly, why this isn’t standard operating procedure during every cold and flu season mystifies me.  Seems like common decency to don a mask if there’s any chance you might be contagious to others . . .

 

Thirty years ago the sudden appearance of HIV and an increase in Hepatitis C ushered in new levels of infection control in hospitals and medical facilities.  Exam gloves became de rigueur, and needle sticks became a constant fear.  Gradually, HCWs became accustomed to these precautions, and they became the `new normal’.

 

The saving grace was neither of these viruses was airborne. 

 

Today the emergence of MERS, and novel flu strains like H7N9 and H5N1, ups the ante.  Which means that droplet and/or airborne precautions need to be added to standard precautions to prevent their transmission (see MERS, HCWs, And Infection Control).   The trick is  identifying which patients require these enhanced precautions.

 

Yes, we may get lucky, and MERS may eventually disappear.

 

But the reality is, eventually there will be viral threat to take its place; another pandemic influenza, a different coronavirus, or perhaps something completely out of left field.  And in the meantime, common everyday respiratory viruses (Flu, RSV, adenoviruses, etc) already exact a heavy toll on the public’s health and the economy each year.

 

Which means that now is the right time to begin promoting better respiratory infection control and hygiene – both by the public - and by healthcare professionals.   

 

It will pay big dividends both now, and in the future.

 

Besides, It really shouldn’t take a pandemic to get us to do the responsible thing.

Thursday, May 08, 2014

CIDRAP: Details On 1st US MERS Case

 

image

Recommended PPEs

 

# 8586

 

Robert Roos, writing for CIDRAP NEWS, does a terrific job teasing out some of the details of America’s 1st imported case of MERS, including some discrepancies in the original reports.  As has been mentioned here in the past, early reports – even from official sources - are often `subject to revision’.

 

We were told, originally, that the patient only become symptomatic after arriving in this country, but in a WHO statement on Monday, were informed the patient began feeling unwell 10 days before he left Saudi Arabia. 

 

And herein lies a major problem with many viral illnesses, even exotic ones like avian flu and MERS; they can present in mild, almost benign fashion during the first few days (or, as in the case of this US case, more than a week) of infection.

 

Symptoms may resemble a `cold’ or allergies, be primarily gastrointestinal in nature, or fall into the `general malaise’ family of complaints – none of which is likely to prompt red flags in the patient, or in healthcare workers who might see them during the prodromal stage of their infection.

 

First the report from Robert, after which I’ll return with a few more comments.

 

Official: US MERS patient's first symptoms preceded travel

Robert Roos | News Editor | CIDRAP News

|

May 07, 2014

An official with the hospital caring for the first US MERS-CoV (Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus ) patient confirmed today that the man had some illness symptoms before he flew from Saudi Arabia to the United States, though they were not respiratory.

The patient, a US citizen who works in a healthcare job in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, flew from Riyadh to Chicago on Apr 24. After experiencing respiratory symptoms, he was admitted to Community Hospital in Munster, Ind., on Apr 28 and tested positive for MERS-CoV on May 2.

The patient was reported to be in good condition and improving yesterday.

(Continue . . . )

 

 

Of note, while the hospital spokesperson stated that the patient has been in negative-pressure rooms for his entire time in the hospital, he also said that MERS wasn’t suspected until the afternoon of the 29th, the day after admission, and that then infection control and enhanced respiratory precautions were put in place. 

 

The WHO report stated: Negative pressure room and airborne precautions were reportedly implemented on 29 April 2014; full isolation (standard, contact, and airborne) precautions were implemented on 30 April 2014.

 

As I have no inside knowledge of exactly when specific infection control steps were taken in this case, all I can do is point out these statements aren’t exactly in complete alignment. 

 

They do illustrate just how difficult it is to detect, isolate, and contain a virus like MERS, that may be slow to fulminate in some patients, and may present with a variety of non-specific symptoms.    

 

In the short run, recent travel history (or contact with travelers) to the Middle East remains the best cause for suspecting MERS. An advantage that could be negated should the virus ever spread substantially beyond the Arabian peninsula.

 

Reassuringly, so far we’ve seen no signs of secondary transmission of the virus here in the United States, and that has been rarely reported outside of the Arabian peninsula.

 

Suggesting – that at least for the time being – the MERS virus isn’t ready for prime time.

 

But as you might expect, today’s threat assessment is `subject to revision’  as well.

Monday, April 21, 2014

MERS, HCWs, And Infection Control

image

Credit CDC

 


# 8505

 

 

Although there is a good deal we don’t know about the current outbreaks of MERS-CoV in healthcare settings in both Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and in the UAE, one thing is glaringly obvious: 

 

Healthcare workers are being infected at a disturbing rate.   Somewhere between 20%-25% of all known cases have reportedly been HCWS.

 

A fact that has apparently unnerved some medical staff, as over the past week we’ve seen stories indicating that some doctors, nurses, paramedics and healthcare facilities have refused to treat suspected MERS cases (see  KSA: Red Crescent Orders Ambulances & ERs To Accept MERS Cases). 

 

The CDC’s interim guidance for MERS-CoV infection control is very stringent, and it is based on a number of considerations:

  • Suspected high rate of morbidity and mortality among infected patients
  • Evidence of limited human-to-human transmission
  • Poorly characterized clinical signs and symptoms
  • Unknown modes of transmission of MERS-CoV
  • Lack of a vaccine and chemoprophylaxis

 

The World Health Organization’s recommended infection control guidelines are not quite as exacting (no doubt due to the wide disparity of resources available among nations), but nonetheless – if consistently observedought to provide reasonable protection to HCWs. 

 

For the past couple of months the WHO has included this reminder in every MERS update (bolding mine):

 

Infection prevention and control measures are critical to prevent the possible spread of MERS-CoV in health care facilities. Health-care facilities that provide for patients suspected or confirmed to be infected with MERS-CoV infection should take appropriate measures to decrease the risk of transmission of the virus from an infected patient to other patients, health-care workers and visitors. Health care workers should be educated, trained and refreshed with skills on infection prevention and control.

It is not always possible to identify patients with MERS-CoV early because some have mild or unusual symptoms. For this reason, it is important that health-care workers apply standard precautions consistently with all patients – regardless of their diagnosis – in all work practices all the time.

Droplet precautions should be added to the standard precautions when providing care to all patients with symptoms of acute respiratory infection. Contact precautions and eye protection should be added when caring for probable or confirmed cases of MERS-CoV infection. Airborne precautions should be applied when performing aerosol generating procedures.

 

Last year, when the first MERS HCW infections began to show up, we looked at the history of `sub-optimal’ compliance with infection control protocols, including during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic (see nCoV: PPE Adherence & Infection Control)

 

Admittedly, PPEs can be hot, uncomfortable, and a considerable bother to put on and take off properly, so lapses in infection control are not uncommon, at least during normal times..

 

The $64 question is why we are seeing so many HCWs infected with the MERS virus when they’ve been repeatedly warned to observe stricter infection control protocols?


While we don’t know, a few possibilities include:

  • Recommended infection control practices are not being applied fully and consistently.  (I’ve seen media reports complaining of lack of PPEs in hospitals and ambulances, including this one  h/t Sharon Sanders on FluTrackers)
  • Asymptomatic patients or staff are able to transmit the virus (known to happen with influenza, but unproven with MERS and not seen with SARS).
  • The virus has become more easily transmittable between humans in recent weeks (always a possibility, but unproven)
  • As we’ve seen with some influenza viruses (see PPEs & Transocular Influenza Transmission), the virus can be contracted via the ocular route (possible, but again, unproven). (Note: I’ve seen a lot of pictures of Saudi medical staff wearing surgical masks, but less commonly any eye protection)
  • Or, a combination of factors, not necessarily limited to this list.

 

Answers to these, and other pressing questions, can only come from detailed epidemiological investigations into these outbreaks.  Something that, presumably, is being done but whose details have not been publicly released. 

 

SARS – another novel coronavirus that thrived (albeit, briefly) in health care environments  – was brought under control only after hospitals figured out how to prevent its transmission in the workplace. 

 

Which makes figuring out how, and why, this virus seems to be transmitting so well in hospitals a major priority.

 

For those not intimately familiar with the different levels of infection control, the CDC defines `Standard Precautions’ as:

 

 Standard precautions” are a set of basic steps care providers use to protect their patients and themselves
from infection.  These basic steps include: 

  1. Practicing appropriate hand hygiene before and after contact with a patient, after contact with the
    surfaces or objects around the patient, and after removing gloves (if used). 
  2. Wearing disposable gloves when the care provider may have contact with blood, feces, urine, or
    any other body fluids.
  3. Wearing a gown to prevent contamination of the provider’s clothing with blood or body fluids.
  4. Using a face mask, face shield, and/or goggles if splashing of blood or body fluids might occur. 
  5. Cleaning of care equipment between patients.  

 

The next layer of infection control is `Droplet Precautions’, which add the requirement of wearing a face mask (surgical mask) anytime when in a room with a person who has a respiratory infection.

These precautions are used in addition to standard precautions listed above.


`Airborne Precautions’ are the most stringent, and add placing the patient in an airborne infection isolation room (AIIR) if available, and the following PPEs:

    • Wear a fit-tested N-95 or higher level disposable respirator, if available, when caring for the patient; the respirator should be donned prior to room entry and removed after exiting room
    • If substantial spraying of respiratory fluids is anticipated, gloves and gown as well as goggles or face shield should be worn

 

And lastly, the World Health Organization provides these guidance documents on dealing with MERS in the healthcare, and home environment.

 

Technical guidance - infection prevention and control

Monday, March 31, 2014

WHO Update & Messaging On Ebola Outbreak

image

Photo Credit - CDC

 

NOTE: For far more complete coverage of the Ebola outbreak in Western Africa you’ll most certainly want to check in with Crofsblog several times a day, as he is doing a phenomenal job covering breaking events there.

 

# 8417

 

Not unexpectedly, the World Health Organization confirmed yesterday that at least two cases of Ebola infection have been confirmed in Liberia.

 

While obviously a concerning geographic expansion of the outbreak beyond the borders of Guinea, WHO spokesperson Gregory Hartl noted this morning on Twitter that the Liberian cases were all exposed in Guinea, before traveling to that country.

 

image

 

Excerpts from the WHO announcement follow:

 

Ebola Haemorrhagic Fever, Liberia (Situation as of 30 March 2014)

30 March 2014 – The Ministry of Health (MoH) of Liberia has provided updated details on the suspected and confirmed cases of Ebola Haemorrhagic Fever (EHF) in Liberia.  As of 29 March, seven clinical samples, all from adult patients from Foya district, Lofa County, have been tested by PCR using Ebola Zaire virus primers by the mobile laboratory of the Institut Pasteur (IP) Dakar in Conakry.  Two of those samples have tested positive for the ebolavirus. There have been 2 deaths among the suspected cases; a 35 year old woman who died on 21 March tested positive for ebolavirus while a male patient who died on 27 March tested negative.  Foya remains the only district in Liberia that has reported confirmed or suspected cases of EHF.  As of 26 March, Liberia had 27 contacts under medical follow-up.

In accordance with the International Health Regulations (IHR, 2005), the MoH of Liberia is communicating regularly with WHO and neighbouring countries to help coordinate and harmonise surveillance, prevention and control activities.

Response activities within health care facilities include strengthening infection prevention and control (IPC) at the Foya Hospital, the provision of additional personal preventive equipment (PPE) and medical supplies to support case isolation and clinical management and training for health care workers in IPC. Health care workers are receiving training on EHF; 50 clinicians from 5 hospitals in Montserrado County received training on 27 March. PPE and medical supplies have also been sent to Bong and Nimba Counties which border Guinea.

As this is a rapidly changing situation, the number of reported cases and deaths, contacts under medical observation and the number of laboratory results are subject to change due to enhanced surveillance and contact tracing activities, ongoing laboratory investigations and consolidation of case, contact and laboratory data.

(Continue . . . )

As @WHO notes in their twitter messaging overnight, two of the most recently diagnosed cases in Guinea are healthcare workers, highlighting the need for vigilance in infection control procedures during this outbreak.

 

image

 

Reports of nosocomial transmission of VHF (Viral Hemorrhagic Fevers) are a reminder that many healthcare facilities – particularly in developing countries – often work with a limited supply of basic disposable infection control supplies like masks, gloves, and gowns.

 

More sophisticated isolation procedures - such as Airborne Infection Isolation Rooms (AIIR) as might be found in the United States and Europe - are a luxury few hospitals in the developing world can afford.

 

Out of necessity, Infection control advice tends to be more basic and mindful of limited resources, such as is provided in the following WHO interim guidance document.

 

Interim Infection Control Recommendations for Care of Patients with Suspected or Confirmed Filovirus (Ebola, Marburg) Haemorrhagic Fever

March 2008

This document provides a summary of infection control recommendations when providing direct and non-direct care to patients with suspected or confirmed Filovirus haemorrhagic fever (HF), including Ebola or Marburg haemorrhagic fevers. These recommendations are interim and will be updated when additional information becomes available.

Download document

Monday, January 27, 2014

SHEA Infection Control Recommendations On HCW Attire

image

MRSA - Photo Credit CDC PHIL


# 8227

While exotic infectious diseases like bird flu make for fascinating study, in reality you are far more likely to be adversely impacted by an HAI (Hospital Acquired Infection) than you are by  H5N1 or H7N9 right now.  MRSA, Pseudomonas, CRE, NDM-Producing CRKP are just a few of the invasive, and often deadly, bacteria that can spread easily in a healthcare setting.

This oft quoted assessment from the CDC on the burden of Hospital Acquired Infections in the United States is from 2010.

 

A new report from CDC updates previous estimates of healthcare-associated infections. In American hospitals alone, healthcare-associated infections account for an estimated 1.7 million infections and 99,000 associated deaths each year. Of these infections:

  • 32 percent of all healthcare-associated infection are urinary tract infections
  • 22 percent are surgical site infections
  • 15 percent are pneumonia (lung infections)
  • 14 percent are bloodstream infections

 

In recent years we’ve looked at a number of infection control programs and policies designed to reduce these infections, including:

Aye, There’s The Rub

Study: Exam Gloves, Dispensers & Bacterial Contamination

NEJM: Targeted vs Universal Decolonization For ICU Patients

 

While hand hygiene and environmental surface cleaning have been at the forefront of the battle against HAIs, a debate over the impact of HCW (health care worker) attire in the spread of infections has raged, largely unresolved for several years.

 

Contaminated lab coats, long sleeves, neckties, and jewelry have all come under scrutiny as potential vectors for bacteria, and we’ve seen attempts by both governmental regulation, and hospital policy, to address these concerns.

 

While `textile transfer’ of bacteria in the healthcare setting makes sense, the scientific evidence linking sleeve cuffs and neckties to actual HAIs is scant, mostly anecdotal, and sometimes even contradictory.

 

In 2011, a study (see The Long And The Short Of It) found no statistical difference between the amount of bacteria of freshly laundered short sleeve uniforms versus infrequently laundered white coats after only 8 hours wear.

 

The argument can still be made, however, that long sleeve cuffs (and neckties) are more likely to come in contact with a series of patients than the fabric of short sleeved shirts.

 

In 2007, Britain’s NHS decided to ban the wearing of long-sleeved white coats, wristwatches, and neckties by healthcare providers in hospital wards. In the United States, the AMA (American Medical Assoc.) considered a “bare below the elbows” dress code during their annual meeting in 2009, but decided the issue needed more study. 

 

Some healthcare facilities – like the Mayo Clinic – have pushed ahead with their own dress codes to address the issue.  

 

In 2011, in Lab Coat Legislation, I reported on attempts by the New York State legislature to enact a  `hygienic dress code for medical professionals’ – one that would  eventually prohibit the wearing of jewelry, wristwatches, neckties, long sleeves, and the iconic white lab coat.

 

Fast forward to 2014, and SHEA (the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America) – while acknowledging gaps in our understanding of the role that attire can play in the spread of HAIs -  has released updated recommendations for HCW attire in clinical settings.

 

For Immediate Release: January 20, 2014
Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America
Contact: Tamara Moore /
tmoore@gymr.com/ 202-745-5114
Study contact: Gonzalo Bearman MD, MPH/
gbearman@mcvh-vcu.edu

Infectious Diseases Experts Issue Guidance on Healthcare Personnel Attire

Recommendations to help prevent healthcare-associated infections transmitted through clothing

CHICAGO (January 20, 2014) – New guidance from the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) provides recommendations to prevent transmission of healthcare-associated infections through healthcare personnel (HCP) attire in non-operating room settings. The guidance was published online in the February issue of Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, the journal of the SHEA, along with a review of patient and healthcare provider perceptions of HCP attire and transmission risk, suggesting professionalism may not be contingent on the traditional white coat.

" studies have demonstrated the clothing of healthcare personnel may have a role in transmission of pathogens, the role of clothing in passing infectious pathogens to patients has not yet been well established," said Gonzalo Bearman, MD, MPH, a lead author of the study and member of SHEA's Guidelines Committee. "This document is an effort to analyze the available data, issue reasonable recommendations, define expert consensus, and describe the need for future studies to close the gaps in knowledge on infection prevention as it relates to HCP attire."

The authors outlined the following practices to be considered by individual facilities:

  1. "Bare below the elbows" (BBE): Facilities may consider adopting a BBE approach to inpatient care as a supplemental infection prevention policy; however, an optimal choice of alternate attire, such as scrub uniforms or other short sleeved personal attire, remains undefined. BBE is defined as wearing of short sleeves and no wristwatch, jewelry, or ties during clinical practice.
  2. White Coats: Facilities that mandate or strongly recommend use of a white coat for professional appearance should institute one or more of the following measures:
    1. HCP should have two or more white coats available and have access to a convenient and economical means to launder white coats (e.g. on site institution provided laundering at no cost or low cost).
    2. Institutions should provide coat hooks that would allow HCP to remove their white coat prior to contact with patients or a patient's immediate environment.
  3. Laundering:
    1. Frequency: Optimally, any apparel worn at the bedside that comes in contact with the patient or patient environment should be laundered after daily use.
    2. Home laundering: If HCPs launder apparel at home, a hot water wash cycle (ideally with bleach) followed by a cycle in the dryer or ironing has been shown to eliminate bacteria.
  4. HCP footwear: All footwear should have closed toes, low heels, and non-skid soles.
  5. Shared equipment including stethoscopes should be cleaned between patients.
  6. No general guidance can be made for prohibiting items like lanyards, identification tags and sleeves, cell phones, pagers, and jewelry, but those items that come into direct contact with the patient or environment should be disinfected, replaced, or eliminated.

If implemented, the authors recommend that all practices be voluntary and accompanied by a well-organized communication and education effort directed at both HCP and patients.

In their review of the medical literature, the authors noted that while patients usually prefer formal attire, including a white coat, these preferences had little impact on patient satisfaction and confidence in HCPs. Patients did not tend to perceive the potential infection risks of white coats or other clothing, however when made aware of these risks, patients seemed willing to change their preferences of HCP attire.

The authors developed the recommendations based on limited evidence, theoretical rationale, practical considerations, a survey of SHEA membership and SHEA Research Network, author expert opinion and consensus, and consideration of potential harm where applicable. The SHEA Research Network is a consortium of more than 200 hospitals collaborating on multi-center research projects.

(Continue . . .)

Friday, January 24, 2014

CDC: Updated Interim Infection Control Guidance For Novel Flu In Healthcare Settings

image

 


# 8216

 

Although no cases of H7N9 have been reported outside of Asia, the potential for this virus to migrate to other regions of the world – including into the United States – cannot be dismissed. And the recently announced imported case of H5N1 in Canada (see WHO GAR Update On Canadian H5N1 Fatality) reminds us how easily someone who is infected can board a plane and cross oceans before falling ill.  

 

In response to the Canadian case the CDC issued an advisory to clinicians last week (see CDC HAN Advisory On Canadian H5N1 Case).

 

Last year, the CDC also released the following interim guidance documents on the H7N9 virus.

 

H7N9: CDC Guidance On Antiviral Chemoprophylaxis – Oct 2013
H7N9: Updated CDC Guidance For Antiviral Treatment – Oct 2013
CDC Interim H7N9 Infection Control Guidelines – Apr 2013

 

Today’s document is designed to cover infection control guidelines for  Novel Influenza A Viruses, which currently include both H5N1 and H7N9,  but could be applied to other emerging novel flu viruses down the road.

 

This is a long document, and the details of which are of greatest interest to those working in the Healthcare field, so I’ll just post the link and some excerpts.  Follow the link below to read it in its entirety.

 

Interim Guidance for Infection Control Within Healthcare Settings When Caring for Confirmed Cases, Probable Cases, and Cases Under Investigation for Infection with Novel Influenza A Viruses Associated with Severe Disease

This guidance provides recommendations for initial infection control in healthcare settings for patients who may be infected with a novel influenza A virus (i.e., an influenza A virus that has not recently been circulating among humans) associated with severe disease.  Patients who may be infected with novel influenza A viruses, and are thus covered by this guidance, include confirmed cases, probable cases, cases under investigation for infection with a novel influenza A virus associated with severe disease, and other patients for whom available clinical and epidemiologic information strongly support a diagnosis of infection with a novel influenza A virus associated with severe disease.  Currently, novel influenza A viruses that have been associated with severe disease in humans include:  highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N1) virus and avian influenza A(H7N9) virus.

These recommendations will be updated as additional information on transmissibility, epidemiology, available treatment, or vaccine options on novel influenza viruses become available. These interim recommendations are based upon current available information and the following considerations:

  • Lack of a widely available safe and effective vaccine
  • A suspected high rate of morbidity and mortality among infected patients
  • Few or no confirmed cases in the United States

This interim guidance recommends a higher level of infection control measures than for seasonal influenza, as outlined in the Prevention Strategies for Seasonal Influenza in Healthcare Settings. Among important differences from this seasonal influenza guidance are recommendations for contact and airborne precautions , which includes a higher level of personal protective equipment for healthcare personnel, including eye protection (i.e., required) and the expanded use of respirators (i.e., for all patient-care activities). For seasonal influenza, eye protection is not required in all instances and respirator use is recommended only during aerosol-generating procedures conducted on influenza patients.

Note that this interim guidance adds to existing infection control precautions (i.e., Standard Precautions) used every day in healthcare settings during the care of any patient. Standard Precautions are the foundation for preventing transmission of infectious agents in all healthcare settings and assume that every person is potentially infected or colonized with a pathogen that could be transmitted in the healthcare setting. Elements of standard precautions that apply to patients with respiratory infections, including those caused by the influenza virus, are summarized below (e.g., hand hygiene, gloves, gowns, respiratory hygiene and cough etiquette). All aspects of standard precautions (e.g., injection safety) are not emphasized in this document but can be found in the guideline titled Guideline for Isolation Precautions: Preventing Transmission of Infectious Agents in Healthcare Settings and are summarized for non-hospital settings in the Guide to Infection Prevention for Outpatient Settings: Minimum Expectations for Safe Care.

This interim guidance was developed by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) subject matter experts, based on existing infection control guidelines, scientific evidence and expert opinion.

(Continue . . . )

 

Tuesday, December 03, 2013

HK: Hospitals Increase Infection Control Efforts Due To H7N9 Concerns

image

H7N9 Awareness Campaign Summer 2013 - Photo credit Hong Kong’s CHP

 

# 8036

 

Hong Kong packs a little more than 7 million people into just 426 sq. miles of territory, making it the fourth most densely packed area in the world (cite). Infectious diseases are better able to transmit among humans when population densities are high, and so Hong Kong’s public health sector takes prevention efforts quite seriously. 

 

While only one H7N9 case has been identified in Hong Kong thus far, it isn’t unreasonable to assume there might be others – perhaps only mildly ill – in the region.   For this reason hospitals in Hong Kong are ramping up their alert status, patient triage, and imposing new, strict infection control policies (including requiring masks for all visitors).

 

The following announcement comes from Hong Kong’s Hospital Authority.


 

Serious Response Level activated in public hospitals

 

The following is issued on behalf of the Hospital Authority:


The Hospital Authority (HA) spokesman today (December 3) announced the activation of the Serious Response Level in public hospitals to tie in with the Government's raising of the response level of the Preparedness Plan for Influenza Pandemic from "Alert" to "Serious". The HA Central Committee on Infectious Diseases & Emergency Response held a special meeting this morning to discuss and review thoroughly the contingency measures under the Serious Response Level in public hospitals.

The HA spokesman said front-line hospital staff at Accident and Emergency Departments and general outpatient clinics are reminded to stay vigilant to patients seeking consultation at public hospitals. Enhanced surveillance and patient triage guidelines are in place to ensure timely reporting and early arrangement of clinical tests.

"Under the Serious Response Level, more stringent infection control measures, which include visiting arrangements, are enforced in public hospitals. The visiting arrangements include not allowing visiting at isolation wards unless on compassionate grounds. For general acute wards, visiting hours would be no more than two hours per day with no more than two visitors per visit. For convalescent and infirmary wards, visiting hours would be no more than four hours per day with no more than two visitors per visit."

The spokesman also reminded the public that visitors to public hospitals and clinics are now required to put on surgical masks and perform hand hygiene before and after visiting patient areas.

Furthermore, volunteer services and clinical attachment in public hospitals have been suspended under the Serious Response Level. In regard to personal protection equipment, such as surgical masks and N95 masks, the current stockpile is adequate for three months' consumption. The HA will also maintain close liaison with the suppliers to ensure a sustainable supply. The isolation beds in the seven hospital clusters will be deployed when needed.

According to the spokesman, the HA will continue to closely collaborate with the Centre for Health Protection in monitoring the latest situation and keep the general public as well as health-care workers updated on developments on a regular basis.

Ends/Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Issued at HKT 19:46