Last data update: May 06, 2024. (Total: 46732 publications since 2009)
Records 1-2 (of 2 Records) |
Query Trace: Wendorf KA[original query] |
---|
Cost of measles containment in an ambulatory pediatric clinic
Wendorf KA , Kay M , Ortega-Sanchez IR , Munn M , Duchin J . Pediatr Infect Dis J 2015 34 (6) 589-93 BACKGROUND: Measles is highly infectious; prompt containment of illnesses is necessary to prevent spread. In August 2013, a 13-year-old male with measles exposed patients and employees in a pediatric clinic. We studied containment costs to identify avoidable costs. METHODS: Measles exposure was defined as in-person contact with or presence in the same room <2 hours after the measles patient. Costs were calculated retrospectively using published costs of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine, cost-to-charge ratios for inpatient care in urban Washington State and local emergency department charges for post-exposure immunoglobulin (IG). Personnel costs were calculated by multiplying hourly wages by time for employees who worked on the response; overhead was excluded. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients, 60 caretakers and 10 employees were exposed. Personnel time cost $1961. Exposed patients had a mean age of 9.6 years (range: 2 months-19 years); 34 (65%) were fully vaccinated, and 18 (35%) were <12 months of age and too young to be vaccinated. Five patients (10%) were <6 months of age and required IG; 13 infants (25%) 6-11 months of age required measles-mumps-rubella vaccination. Caretakers followed up with their physicians for evidence of immunity. One employee had documented evidence of immunity; 9 required measles antibody testing or vaccination. Management of exposed persons cost $3694; overall clinic costs were $5655. CONCLUSION: Responding to 1 measles case cost the pediatric clinic more than $5000, despite isolating the patient promptly after examination. Documentation of employee immunity, vaccination of eligible patients and strict infection control precautions might reduce ambulatory costs associated with measles containment. |
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-associated AmpC Escherichia coli outbreak
Wendorf KA , Kay M , Baliga C , Weissman SJ , Gluck M , Verma P , D'Angeli M , Swoveland J , Kang MG , Eckmann K , Ross AS , Duchin J . Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015 36 (6) 1-9 BACKGROUND: We identified an outbreak of AmpC-producing Escherichia coli infections resistant to third-generation cephalosporins and carbapenems (CR) among 7 patients who had undergone endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography at hospital A during November 2012-August 2013. Gene sequencing revealed a shared novel mutation in a bla CMY gene and a distinctive fumC/ fimH typing profile. OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent and epidemiologic characteristics of the outbreak, identify potential sources of transmission, design and implement infection control measures, and determine the association between the CR E. coli and AmpC E. coli circulating at hospital A. METHODS: We reviewed laboratory, medical, and endoscopy reports, and endoscope reprocessing procedures. We obtained cultures from endoscopes after reprocessing as well as environmental samples and conducted pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and gene sequencing on phenotypic AmpC isolates from patients and endoscopes. Cases were those infected with phenotypic AmpC isolates (both carbapenem-susceptible and CR) and identical bla CMY-2, fumC, and fimH alleles or related pulsed-field gel electrophoresis patterns. RESULTS: Thirty-five of 49 AmpC E. coli tested met the case definition, including all CR isolates. All cases had complicated biliary disease and had undergone at least 1 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography at hospital A. Mortality at 30 days was 16% for all patients and 56% for CR patients. Two of 8 reprocessed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography scopes harbored AmpC that matched case isolates by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. Environmental cultures were negative. No breaches in infection control were identified. Endoscopic reprocessing exceeded manufacturer's recommended cleaning guidelines. CONCLUSION: Recommended reprocessing guidelines are not sufficient. |
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:May 06, 2024
- Content source:
- Powered by CDC PHGKB Infrastructure