Search

Objectives: Following a cluster of COVID-19 cases in a Singapore public hospital in April 2021, the local health authority mandated the use of N95 respirators in all inpatient wards. This increased the demand for N95 mask fit-testing to ensure that healthcare workers were donning respirators that fit their facial characteristics and hence provided protection through a good facial seal. The demand for fit-testing during the pandemic highlighted the scarcity of manpower and ergonomics concern, such as carpel tunnel syndrome experienced in long hours of qualitative fit-testing sessions. We evaluated the operational efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and difference in passing rate after the introduction of the quantitative method. Methods: Conventional qualitative fit-testing was conducted using manual pumping of a challenge agent, enabling the user to determine the fit of the respirator. The quantitative fit-testing protocol used a condensation particle counter (CPC) to measure the concentration of particles inside the mask and the atmosphere to determine the fit of respirator. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)–approved minimum fit factor of 100 was used as the criterion for a successful N95 respirator fit. Tubes used during quantitative fit-testing were reprocessed using thermal disinfection. Results: Quantitative mask fit-testing provided an objective numerical measure to assess adequate fit of N95 respirator, which provided users with confidence in the respirator fit. It addressed a manpower limitation issue because it did not require qualified trainers to conduct the test, and automation also prevented any potential occupational hazard from repeated actions required in qualitative fit-testing. An increase in the passing rate for N95 fit-testing from 94.5% to 95.5% was observed. However, the high cost of equipment, annual recalibration, and consumables must be considered. Conclusions: Quantitative N95 fit-testing, when adopted with careful consideration of its cost, is an approach to consider for hospital-wide fit-testing.

Objectives: Improper reprocessing of endoscopes may result in healthcare-associated infections. Regular microbiological surveillance is an important means of evaluating the quality of endoscope reprocessing. We evaluated the effectiveness of reprocessing endoscopes (including the protocols on steps to be taken in the event of any positive microbiological results) in a sterile supply unit (SSU) and an endoscopy unit in a Singapore tertiary-care academic hospital. Methods: Singapore General Hospital (SGH) is a 1,750-bed, tertiary-care, academic medical center in Singapore with 2 main SSUs: 1 inpatient endoscopy unit and 1 outpatient endoscopy unit. We reviewed microbiological surveillance results from endoscopes following reprocessing from January 2018 to December 2021. In total, 160 endoscopes (27 bronchoscopes, 58 gastroscopes, 52 colonoscopes, 6 duodenoscopes, 5 echoscopes, 5 cystoscopes, 5 rhinolaryngoscopes, and 5 enteroscopes) and 15 automated endoscope reprocessors (AERs) were evaluated for the presence of microorganisms. Samples were obtained by swabbing the tip of the scope and the biopsy channel. Fluid was flushed from the biopsy channel after reprocessing, and this water from the AERs was sampled after waterline disinfection. Results: Of the 15,783 samples collected, 15,667 (99.3%) yielded no growth; 36 (0.2%) were positive for gut and environmental flora; and 80 (0.5%) were positive for low-concern organisms such as skin flora. Conclusions: Microbiological surveillance yielded a high percentage of negative results confirming the effectiveness of endoscope reprocessing. This quality-assurance process is necessary and beneficial in achieving patient safety.

Objectives: Streptococcus mitis is a gram-positive coccus and is a common commensal found in the throat, nasopharynx, and mouth. In an immunocompromised host, S. mitis opportunistically multiplies and can translocate to other sites. At baseline, the prevalence of S. mitis remained stable among hematological patients, averaging ~1 case monthly. However, in August–September 2020, 5 S. mitis cases were documented in a hematology ward and included overlapping inpatient stays. In this descriptive cluster report, we sought to identify the reasons for the increased prevalence of S. mitis in our institution. Methods: A literature review was undertaken to gain a better understanding of the bacteriology of S. mitis. Subsequently, geographical mapping was performed to identify epidemiological links. Further culture and sensitivity testing was requested. Hand hygiene compliance, environmental audit, and handling of central lines within the ward were examined for any lapses in practice. Results: Based on geographical mapping, no epidemiological linkages were established between patients; they were admitted to different rooms and did not share any equipment. Moreover, based on the antibiogram, different bacteria sensitivities were recorded across the isolates from these patients. A hand hygiene and environmental audit result showed 100% compliance. Nurses performed care of central lines in accordance with guidelines. However, an investigation of changes in practice revealed that the use of a toothbrush had only recently been permitted as part of streamlining oral care for hematology patients. Because toothbrushes were not provided by the hospital, patients were utilizing their personal toothbrushes with no direct supervision of their oral care regimen. Conclusions: The prevalence of S. mitis in hematological patients was likely due to the neutropenic condition of patients. This report provides valuable information supporting the optimization of oral hygiene in immunocompromised patients while minimizing the risk of opportunistic infections.