A Case of Novel Coronavirus Disease 19 in a Chronic Hemodialysis Patient Presenting with Gastroenteritis and Developing Severe Pulmonary Disease.

Novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a highly infectious, rapidly spreading viral disease with an alarming case fatality rate up to 5%. The risk factors for severe presentations are concentrated in patients with chronic kidney disease, particularly patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who are dialysis dependent. We report the first US case of a 56-year-old nondiabetic male with ESRD secondary to IgA nephropathy undergoing thrice-weekly maintenance hemodialysis for 3 years, who developed COVID-19 infection. He has hypertension controlled with angiotensin receptor blocker losartan 100 mg/day and coronary artery disease status-post stent placement. During the first 5 days of his febrile disease, he presented to an urgent care, 3 emergency rooms, 1 cardiology clinic, and 2 dialysis centers in California and Utah. During this interval, he reported nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and low-grade fevers but was not suspected of COVID-19 infection until he developed respiratory symptoms and was admitted to the hospital. Imaging studies upon admission were consistent with bilateral interstitial pneumonia. He was placed in droplet-eye precautions while awaiting COVID-19 test results. Within the first 24 h, he deteriorated quickly and developed acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), requiring intubation and increasing respiratory support. Losartan was withheld due to hypotension and septic shock. COVID-19 was reported positive on hospital day 3. He remained in critical condition being treated with hydroxychloroquine and tocilizumab in addition to the standard medical management for septic shock and ARDS. Our case is unique in its atypical initial presentation and highlights the importance of early testing

Knowledge, Attitude and Practices about Cervical Cancer and Screening among Nurses of a Tertiary Care Centre in Western India

Introduction: Nurses play a crucial role of enlightening commu- nity about need and availability of screening test so it is important to explore the knowledge, attitude and practices of nurses about cervical cancer and screening. Methodology: A pretested semi structured questionnaire used to carry out the study among nurses of a tertiary care centre in West- ern India. Observations: Out of total 103 nurses, 90.3% were married with mean age was 34 years. Majority (98%) were aware about cervical cancer while 73.8% agreed that it could be prevented. Major symp- toms of cervical cancer recognized were irregular bleeding (31.7%) & foul smelling vaginal discharge (34.2%). Nursing academic study (51.3%) was the leading source of all information. Risk fac- tors identified were Human Papilloma Virus (15.6%) and poor personal hygine (14.7%). As many as 62% nurses felt that they were not at risk of cervical cancer. Only 3.9% had received HPV vaccine. Conclusions: This study highlights major Knowledge, Attitude, Practice gap among nursing staff regarding cervical cancer

Rapid response to syphilis outbreak among female sex workers

Background: Outbreak of syphilis, i.e., 16 cases of rapid plasma reagin (RPR) reactive cases of syphilis was reported in Community Based Organization (CBO) Sahyog of Surat, India, from April to August 2014. The aim of the study was to find risk factors and take immediate actions to prevent spread. Materials and Methods: Outbreak investigation of 16 Female Sex Workers of CBO Sahyog in Surat who were found Rapid Plasma Reagin (RPR) and Treponema Pallidum Hemagglutination Assay (TPHA) positive from April to August 2014; was carried out. Clinico-epidemiological and laboratory-based evidence for different sexually transmitted infections (STIs) conducted at Government Medical College, New Civil Hospital, Surat. Root cause analysis (RCA) of index case was carried out. Results: Desk review for the past 3 years data of STI revealed total STI cases as 88 (2011), 95 (2012), and 130 (2013), of which 4, 2, and 2 found RPR reactive, respectively. Data from April to August 2014 revealed 16 RPR reactive cases and confirmed by TPHA. On examination, one had ulcerative cervical lesion, rest did not have any symptoms of syphilis. Eleven had vaginal/cervical discharge, 11 had lower abdominal pain. A total of 11 had unprotected sex, 7 encountered condom tear in the past 6 months, and 5 reported sexual violence. Seven had sexual activity under influence of alcohol. Laboratory investigation revealed two as HIV-positive. RPR reactivity reported highest (9 out of 16) from same area of hotspot. RCA of probable index case revealed factors responsible as violence and nonuse of condoms. Conclusions: Outbreak investigation revealed one probable index case. All 16 treated with injection Penidure. Violence or condom tear is responsible for the spread. Crisis management team should be strengthened

Impact of a Central-Line Insertion Site Assessment (CLISA) score on localized insertion site infection to prevent central-line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI).

ObjectiveTo assess the impact of a newly developed Central-Line Insertion Site Assessment (CLISA) score on the incidence of local inflammation or infection for CLABSI prevention.DesignA pre- and postintervention, quasi-experimental quality improvement study.Setting and participantsAdult inpatients with central venous catheters (CVCs) hospitalized in an intensive care unit or oncology ward at a large academic medical center.MethodsWe evaluated CLISA score impact on insertion site inflammation and infection (CLISA score of 2 or 3) incidence in the baseline period (June 2014-January 2015) and the intervention period (April 2015-October 2017) using interrupted times series and generalized linear mixed-effects multivariable analyses. These were run separately for days-to-line removal from identification of a CLISA score of 2 or 3. CLISA score interrater reliability and photo quiz results were evaluated.ResultsAmong 6,957 CVCs assessed 40,846 times, percentage of lines with CLISA score of 2 or 3 in the baseline and intervention periods decreased by 78.2% (from 22.0% to 4.7%), with a significant immediate decrease in the time-series analysis (P < .001). According to the multivariable regression, the intervention was associated with lower percentage of lines with a CLISA score of 2 or 3, after adjusting for age, gender, CVC body location, and hospital unit (odds ratio, 0.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.34; P < .001). According to the multivariate regression, days to removal of lines with CLISA score of 2 or 3 was 3.19 days faster after the intervention (P < .001). Also, line dwell time decreased 37.1% from a mean of 14 days (standard deviation [SD], 10.6) to 8.8 days (SD, 9.0) (P < .001). Device utilization ratios decreased 9% from 0.64 (SD, 0.08) to 0.58 (SD, 0.06) (P = .039).ConclusionsThe CLISA score creates a common language for assessing line infection risk and successfully promotes high compliance with best practices in timely line removal

Impact of a Central-Line Insertion Site Assessment (CLISA) score on localized insertion site infection to prevent central-line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI)

AbstractObjective:To assess the impact of a newly developed Central-Line Insertion Site Assessment (CLISA) score on the incidence of local inflammation or infection for CLABSI prevention.Design:A pre- and postintervention, quasi-experimental quality improvement study.Setting and participants:Adult inpatients with central venous catheters (CVCs) hospitalized in an intensive care unit or oncology ward at a large academic medical center.Methods:We evaluated CLISA score impact on insertion site inflammation and infection (CLISA score of 2 or 3) incidence in the baseline period (June 2014–January 2015) and the intervention period (April 2015–October 2017) using interrupted times series and generalized linear mixed-effects multivariable analyses. These were run separately for days-to-line removal from identification of a CLISA score of 2 or 3. CLISA score interrater reliability and photo quiz results were evaluated.Results:Among 6,957 CVCs assessed 40,846 times, percentage of lines with CLISA score of 2 or 3 in the baseline and intervention periods decreased by 78.2% (from 22.0% to 4.7%), with a significant immediate decrease in the time-series analysis (P &lt; .001). According to the multivariable regression, the intervention was associated with lower percentage of lines with a CLISA score of 2 or 3, after adjusting for age, gender, CVC body location, and hospital unit (odds ratio, 0.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.06–0.34; P &lt; .001). According to the multivariate regression, days to removal of lines with CLISA score of 2 or 3 was 3.19 days faster after the intervention (P &lt; .001). Also, line dwell time decreased 37.1% from a mean of 14 days (standard deviation [SD], 10.6) to 8.8 days (SD, 9.0) (P &lt; .001). Device utilization ratios decreased 9% from 0.64 (SD, 0.08) to 0.58 (SD, 0.06) (P = .039).Conclusions:The CLISA score creates a common language for assessing line infection risk and successfully promotes high compliance with best practices in timely line removal.</jats:sec

Impact of a Central-Line Insertion Site Assessment (CLISA) score on localized insertion site infection to prevent central-line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI).

ObjectiveTo assess the impact of a newly developed Central-Line Insertion Site Assessment (CLISA) score on the incidence of local inflammation or infection for CLABSI prevention.DesignA pre- and postintervention, quasi-experimental quality improvement study.Setting and participantsAdult inpatients with central venous catheters (CVCs) hospitalized in an intensive care unit or oncology ward at a large academic medical center.MethodsWe evaluated CLISA score impact on insertion site inflammation and infection (CLISA score of 2 or 3) incidence in the baseline period (June 2014-January 2015) and the intervention period (April 2015-October 2017) using interrupted times series and generalized linear mixed-effects multivariable analyses. These were run separately for days-to-line removal from identification of a CLISA score of 2 or 3. CLISA score interrater reliability and photo quiz results were evaluated.ResultsAmong 6,957 CVCs assessed 40,846 times, percentage of lines with CLISA score of 2 or 3 in the baseline and intervention periods decreased by 78.2% (from 22.0% to 4.7%), with a significant immediate decrease in the time-series analysis (P &lt; .001). According to the multivariable regression, the intervention was associated with lower percentage of lines with a CLISA score of 2 or 3, after adjusting for age, gender, CVC body location, and hospital unit (odds ratio, 0.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.34; P &lt; .001). According to the multivariate regression, days to removal of lines with CLISA score of 2 or 3 was 3.19 days faster after the intervention (P &lt; .001). Also, line dwell time decreased 37.1% from a mean of 14 days (standard deviation [SD], 10.6) to 8.8 days (SD, 9.0) (P &lt; .001). Device utilization ratios decreased 9% from 0.64 (SD, 0.08) to 0.58 (SD, 0.06) (P = .039).ConclusionsThe CLISA score creates a common language for assessing line infection risk and successfully promotes high compliance with best practices in timely line removal