Surgical site infections (SSI) are among the most frequently occurring healthcare-associated infections worldwide. Various analyses to determine risk factors have been conducted in the past, generally attributing a higher SSI-risk to male patients. However, when focusing on specific procedures, this is not always true. Our objective was to identify for which procedures male or female sex represents an independent risk factor for SSI and which parameters may explain these differences. We used the database of surgical procedures from the German national nosocomial infection surveillance system. We included procedures conducted between 2008 and 2017. We excluded procedures solely executed for one sex (e.g. mastectomy) and procedures with 20,000 or fewer operations. The observed outcome was the occurrence of SSI. All models were adjusted for confounders, which were eliminated with backward selection. The following factors were included in the analysis: age, ASA score, wound contamination class, duration of surgery, and season. All models contained the investigated factor sex. Sixteen procedure types with 1,266,782 individual procedures and 18,824 SSI were included. Overall, the incidence rate ratio and the adjusted odds ratio for SSI were significantly higher for male patients. The included individual procedures were grouped into five surgical categories. For orthopedics and traumatology as well as abdominal surgery, SSI-rates were significantly higher for male patients. For heart and vascular surgery, SSI-rates were significantly higher for female patients. Other included surgical categories and individual procedures yielded diverse results. Similar results were found when solely analyzing deep and organ-space SSI. Multivariable analysis for attributable gender-related risk factors revealed differences with regard to underlying risk factors. SSI-rates differ by sex for certain procedures. When examining underlying risk factors, differences between male and female patients can be demonstrated. Our analysis considered a limited number of parameters, which were not sufficient to fully explain the observed differences. Further studies are required to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the topic and to include gender-specific aspects into future SSI-prevention strategies.

Healthcare-associated infections (HAI) pose a burden on healthcare providers worldwide. To prevent HAI and strengthen infection prevention and control (IPC) structures, the WHO has developed a variety of tools and guidelines. Recently, the WHO released the Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF), a questionnaire-like tool designed for assessing IPC structures at the facility level. The IPCAF reflects the eight WHO core components of IPC. Data on the implementation of IPC measures in German hospitals are scarce. Therefore, it was our objective to utilize the IPCAF in order to gather information on the current state of IPC implementation in German hospitals, as well as to promote the IPCAF to a broad audience. The National Reference Center for Surveillance of Nosocomial Infections (NRZ) sent a translated version of the IPCAF to 1472 acute care hospitals in Germany. Data entry and transfer to the NRZ was done electronically between October and December 2018. The IPCAF was conceived in a way that depending on the selected answers a score was calculated, with 0 being the lowest possible and 800 the highest possible score. Depending on the overall score, the IPCAF allocated hospitals to four different “IPC levels”: inadequate, basic, intermediate, and advanced. A total of 736 hospitals provided a complete dataset and were included in the data analysis. The overall median score of all hospitals was 690, which corresponded to an advanced level of IPC. Only three hospitals (0.4%) fell into the category “basic”, with 111 hospitals (15.1%) being “intermediate” and 622 hospitals (84.5%) being “advanced”. In no case was the category “inadequate” allocated. More profound differences were found between the respective core components. Components on multimodal strategies and workload, staffing, ward design and bed occupancy revealed the lowest scores. IPC key aspects in general are well established in Germany. Potentials for improvement were identified particularly with regard to workload and staffing. Insufficient implementation of multimodal strategies was found to be another relevant deficit. Our survey represents a successful attempt at promoting the IPCAF and encouraging hospitals to utilize WHO tools for self-assessment.

In 2011 and 2012, the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) urged all European countries to conduct national point prevalence surveys (PPS) on the occurrence of nosocomial (healthcare-associated) infections (NI) and antibiotic use...

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) represents an unprecedented healthcare challenge. Various SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in healthcare facilities have been reported. Healthcare workers (HCWs) may play a critical role in the spread of the virus, particularly when asymptomatic. We examined four healthcare-associated outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infections that occurred at a university hospital in Berlin, Germany. We aimed to describe and analyze the spread of the virus in order to draw conclusions for effective containment of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare facilities. Methods: Healthcare-associated outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infections were defined as two or more laboratory confirmed infections with SARS-CoV-2 where an epidemiological link within the healthcare setting appeared likely. We focused our analysis on one of three sites of the Charité-University Medicine hospital within a 2 month period (March and April 2020). Results: We observed four healthcare-associated outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infections, with a total of 24 infected persons (23 HCWs and one patient). The outbreaks were detected in the departments of nephrology and dialysis (n = 9), anesthesiology (n = 8), surgical pediatrics (n = 4), and neurology (n = 3). Each outbreak showed multiple unprotected contacts between infected HCWs. A combination of contact tracing, testing, physical distancing and mandatory continuous wearing of face masks by all HCWs was able to contain all four outbreaks. Conclusions: HCW to HCW transmission represented the likely source of the four outbreaks. Ensuring proper physical distancing measures and wearing of protective equipment, also when interacting with colleagues, must be a key aspect of fighting COVID-19 in healthcare facilities.

Background: Infection prevention and control (IPC) is crucial for patient safety. The World Health Organization (WHO) has released various tools to promote IPC. In 2018, the WHO released the Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF) that enables acute care healthcare facilities to evaluate IPC structures and practices. Data regarding IPC implementation in Austria are scarce. To deliver insights into this topic and promote the IPCAF within the Austrian IPC community, we decided to invite all Austrian hospitals participating in the German nosocomial infection surveillance system to conduct a self-assessment using the WHO IPCAF. Methods: The IPCAF follows the eight WHO core components of IPC. A German translation of the IPCAF was sent to 127 Austrian acute care hospitals. The survey period was from October to December 2018. Participation in the survey, data entry and transfer to the German national reference center for surveillance of healthcare-associated infections was on a voluntary basis. Results: Altogether, 65 Austrian hospitals provided a complete dataset. The overall median IPCAF score of all hospitals was 620 (of a possible maximum score of 800), which corresponded to an advanced level of IPC. Of the 65 hospitals, 38 achieved an advanced IPC level. Deeper analysis of the different core components yielded diverse results. Scores were lowest for core components on multimodal strategies for implementation of IPC interventions, and IPC education and training. Around 26% (n = 17) of hospitals reported that the local IPC team was not steadily supported by an IPC committee. Senior clinical staff was not present in the IPC committee in 23% (n = 15) of hospitals. Only 26% (n = 17) of hospitals reported employing at least one IPC professional per ≤250 beds. Surveillance for multidrug-resistant pathogens was not conducted in 26% (n = 17) of hospitals. Conclusions: Implementation of IPC key aspects is generally at a high level in Austria. However, potentials for improvement were demonstrated, most prominently with regard to staffing, IPC education and training, effective implementation of multimodal strategies, and involvement of professional groups. Our survey demonstrated that the IPCAF is a useful tool for IPC self-assessment and can uncover deficits even in a high-income setting like Austria.