MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095513585 · doi:10.1017/ice.2020.1141

Chemical, Mechanical, and Heat Cleaning to Decontaminate Hospital Drains Harboring Carbapenemase-Producing Enterobacteriales

2020· article· en· W3095513585 on OpenAlex
Alainna Jamal, Rajni Pantelidis, Rachael Sawicki, Angel Li, Wayne Chiu, Deborah Morrison, John Marshman, Mahin Baqi, David Richardson, Allison McGeer, Sergio Borgia

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInfection Control and Hospital Epidemiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEnterobacteriaceae and Cronobacter Research
Canadian institutionsWilliam Osler Health SystemUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHuman decontaminationContaminationRandomizationRandomized controlled trialOutbreakSurgeryVirologyBiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriales (CPE) outbreaks have been linked to contaminated wastewater drainage systems in hospitals. The optimal strategy for CPE decontamination of drains is unknown. In this randomized controlled trial, we aimed to determine whether combining chemical, mechanical, and heat cleaning was superior to routine cleaning for drain decontamination. Methods: We enrolled CPE-contaminated hospital drains at 2 geographic locations. Eligible drains were those initially found to be culture positive in a 2017 study and that remained positive (by RT-PCR) when retested twice in August 2018. Drains were stratified by type (sink versus shower) and randomized with a 1:1 allocation ratio (as per computer-generated randomization) to standard-of-care cleaning (comparator) or combined chemical, mechanical, and heat cleaning (intervention) on day 0. Drain tail pieces were swabbed on days 0 (before administration of the intervention), 1, 2, 3, 7, and 14, and at months 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Swabs were placed into brain heart infusion with 10% Dey-Engley neutralizing broth and incubated overnight. Direct RT-PCR was performed to detect KPC, VIM, NDM, OXA-48–like, IMP, GES, and SME genes. The primary outcome was drain decontamination, defined as no detectable carbapenemase gene in the drain from day 1 to 7 (inclusive). Results: Overall, 33 CPE-contaminated drains were enrolled (7 sink and 26 shower); 17 and 16 drains were randomized to the intervention and comparator, respectively. Moreover, 12 (36%) drains met the primary outcome of decontamination, 18 (55%) remained contaminated, and 3 (9%) could not be assessed. Among drains that could be assessed, 11 of 15 (74%) in the intervention group met the primary outcome of decontamination compared to 1 of 15 (7%) in the comparator group ( P = .0005). Of the 11 drains in the intervention group that were decontaminated, the carbapenemase gene present at enrollment was subsequently detected in 10 (91%): 1 (10%) at day 14, 3 (30%) at month 1, 4 (40%) at month 3, 1 (10%) at month 4, and 1 (10%) at month 6. The median time to a swab yielding CPE was 1 day in the comparator group versus 14 days in the intervention group (Fig. 1). Overall, 24 drains (73%) had a carbapenemase gene (that was not detectable at enrollment) appear in the follow-up. Of patients identified as CPE colonized or infected during this study, none occupied rooms with these drains. Conclusions: Chemical, mechanical, and heat cleaning were superior to standard cleaning for CPE decontamination of hospital drains at 7 days, but these trends were not sustained. Such cleaning may be useful if applied repeatedly. Funding: None Disclosures: Allison McGeer reports funds to her institution for studies for which she is the principal investigator from Pfizer and Merck as well as consulting fees from Sanofi-Pasteur, Sunovion, GSK, Pfizer, and Cidara.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it