Search

Summary Background In 2014, two residents of a long-term care facility (LTCF) developed invasive group A streptococcal (iGAS) infections with identical typing (emm 11), resulting in one death. The second resident recovered but had a subsequent episode of emm 11 iGAS infection 10 months later. This second episode was linked to a third case, within 12 days, leading to a further outbreak investigation. Aim To combine different techniques to establish whether this was a protracted outbreak, understand transmission pathways and inform appropriate control measures. Methods Following a routine response to the first cluster, the second investigation included a care record review. This informed network analysis of case interactions with staff and visitors during 10 days prior to infection. These data were combined with post-outbreak whole-genome sequencing (WGS) using isolates from cases, and staff and resident screening (44 GAS isolates: 11 outbreak-related and 33 sporadic isolates). Findings Two of the three confirmed iGAS cases died (one suffered two episodes). All iGAS cases, and six non-invasive isolates from 2015, were emm 11 (monophylogenetic WGS clade). Network analysis highlighted only indirect contact through staff–visitor interactions between iGAS cases in 2015. This suggested a common source and transmission propagation through carriage and/or environmental contamination over an 11-month period. Conclusions This outbreak highlighted benefits of staff/resident screening and typing as part of routine response. Network analysis and highly discriminatory WGS clarified the protracted nature of the outbreak, supporting findings of hygiene and infection control issues and adding to our understanding of the epidemiology.

Summary Background An electronic reporting system (ERS) for the enhanced surveillance of carbapenemase-producing Gram-negative bacteria (CPGNB) was launched by Public Health England in May 2015. Aim This evaluation aimed to assess uptake, timeliness and completeness of data provided and explore potential barriers and facilitators to adopting the system. Methods The evaluation comprised a retrospective analysis of surveillance data and semi-structured interviews with ERS users. Findings The proportion of organisms referred for investigation of carbapenem resistance via ERS increased over the first 12 months post-implementation from 35% to 73%; uptake varied widely across regions of England. Completeness of enhanced data fields was poor in 78% of submitted isolates. The median number of days to report confirmatory test results via ERS was 1 day for the regional service and nine days for the national reference laboratory, which additionally conducts phenotypic testing to confirm carbapenemase negativity. Hindrances to ERS utility included: a lack of designated, ongoing resource for system maintenance, technical support and development; uncertainty about how and when to use ERS and workload. Incomplete data prevented gaining a better understanding of important risk factors and transmission routes of CPGNB in England. Conclusion The ERS is the only surveillance system in England with the potential to gather intelligence on important risk factors for CPGNB to inform public health measures to control their spread. Although the ERS captures more information on CPGNB than other surveillance systems, timeliness and completeness of the enhanced data require substantial improvements in order to deliver the desired health benefits.