112 Outbreak of Carbapenemase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae in a Regional Burn Centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Antimicrobial resistance is an increasing problem in hospitals worldwide, though the prevalence of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) in our region is low. Burn patients are among the most vulnerable to infection because of the loss of the protective skin barrier. Because of this, burn centres prioritize infection prevention and control with measures like additional precautions, enhanced environmental cleaning, dedicated facilities, and mandatory use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Methods This report describes a CPE outbreak in a regional burn centre. We hypothesized that contamination of in-room hand hygiene sinks with CPE was a potential source of transmission. In a period of 2.5 months, four nosocomial cases of CPE were identified, three containing the KPC gene and one VIM gene. There was more than one month between the first and second KPC case, with no overlap in patient stay or rooms. Results The first two cases were identified while there was no CPE patient source on the unit. CPE KPC gene was isolated in sink drains of three different rooms. In addition to the rigorous infection control practices already in place due to the unique patient population, additional outbreak control measures were implemented. The burn centre restricted admissions to complex burns or burns >10% total body surface area, in consultation with the attending surgeon. No elective admissions were permitted. To avoid CPE exposure to new patients, initial admissions were rerouted to the emergency department and, if possible, the patient was admitted to another unit. Patient cohorting was implemented through nursing team separation for CPE positive and negative patients and geographical separation of CPE positive cases to one side of the unit. Conclusions Despite aggressive infection control measures already in place at our burn centre, there was hospital acquired CPE colonization/infection. Given there was CPE acquisition when there was no positive patients on the unit and CPE contaminated sinks of the same enzyme were identified, it suggests that hospital sink drains can become a potential source of CPE.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".