Search

Introduction: Antibiotic resistance poses a threat to public health and healthcare systems. Escherichia coli causes more bacteraemia episodes in England than any other bacterial species. This study aimed to estimate the burden of E. coli bacteraemia and associated antibiotic resistance in the secondary care setting., Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study, with E. coli bacteraemia as the main exposure of interest. Adult hospital in-patients, admitted to acute NHS hospitals between July 2011 and June 2012 were included. English national surveillance and administrative datasets were utilised. Cox proportional hazard, subdistribution hazard and multistate models were constructed to estimate rate of discharge, rate of in-hospital death and excess length of stay, with a unit bed day cost applied to the latter to estimate cost burden from the healthcare system perspective., Results: 14,042 E. coli bacteraemia and 8,919,284 non-infected inpatient observations were included. E. coli bacteraemia was associated with an increased rate of in-hospital death across all models, with an adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio of 5.88 (95% CI: 5.62-6.15). Resistance was not found to be associated with in-hospital mortality once adjusting for patient and hospital covariates. However, resistance was found to be associated with an increased excess length of stay. This was especially true for third generation cephalosporin (1.58 days excess length of stay, 95% CI: 0.84-2.31) and piperacillin/tazobactam resistance (1.23 days (95% CI: 0.50-1.95)). The annual cost of E. coli bacteraemia was estimated to be £14,346,400 (2012 £), with third-generation cephalosporin resistance associated with excess costs per infection of £420 (95% CI: 220-630)., Conclusions: E. coli bacteraemia places a statistically significant burden on patient health and the hospital sector in England. Resistance to front-line antibiotics increases length of stay; increasing the cost burden of such infections in the secondary care setting., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Hospital performance is often measured using self-reported statistics, such as the incidence of hospital-transmitted micro-organisms or those exhibiting antimicrobial resistance (AMR), encouraging hospitals with high levels to improve their performance. However, hospitals that increase screening efforts will appear to have a higher incidence and perform poorly, undermining comparison between hospitals and disincentivising testing, thus hampering infection control. We propose a surveillance system in which hospitals test patients previously discharged from other hospitals and report observed cases. Using English National Health Service (NHS) Hospital Episode Statistics data, we analysed patient movements across England and assessed the number of hospitals required to participate in such a reporting scheme to deliver robust estimates of incidence. With over 1.2 million admissions to English hospitals previously discharged from other hospitals annually, even when only a fraction of hospitals (41/155) participate (each screening at least 1000 of these admissions), the proposed surveillance system can estimate incidence across all hospitals. By reporting on other hospitals, the reporting of incidence is separated from the task of improving own performance. Therefore the incentives for increasing performance can be aligned to increase (rather than decrease) screening efforts, thus delivering both more comparable figures on the AMR problems across hospitals and improving infection control efforts., Competing Interests: I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: All authors declare no support from any organisation for the submitted work; NW has received research grants from Wockhardt, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, Roche, Meiji Seika, Enigma Diagnostics, Bio-Rad, Biomerieux, Accelerate, BD Diagnostics, Astrazeneca, Check points, GlaxoSmithKline, Kalidex, Malinta, Momentum, Norgine, Rempex, Rotikan, Smith&Nephew, Venato Rx Pharmaceuticals, and Basilea for research projects or contracted evaluations. There were no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Hospital networks, formed by patients visiting multiple hospitals, affect the spread of hospital-associated infections, resulting in differences in risks for hospitals depending on their network position. These networks are increasingly used to inform strategies to prevent and control the spread of hospital-associated pathogens. However, many studies only consider patients that are received directly from the initial hospital, without considering the effect of indirect trajectories through the network. We determine the optimal way to measure the distance between hospitals within the network, by reconstructing the English hospital network based on shared patients in 2014-2015, and simulating the spread of a hospital-associated pathogen between hospitals, taking into consideration that each intermediate hospital conveys a delay in the further spread of the pathogen. While the risk of transferring a hospital-associated pathogen between directly neighbouring hospitals is a direct reflection of the number of shared patients, the distance between two hospitals far-away in the network is determined largely by the number of intermediate hospitals in the network. Because the network is dense, most long distance transmission chains in fact involve only few intermediate steps, spreading along the many weak links. The dense connectivity of hospital networks, together with a strong regional structure, causes hospital-associated pathogens to spread from the initial outbreak in a two-step process: first, the directly surrounding hospitals are affected through the strong connections, second all other hospitals receive introductions through the multitude of weaker links. Although the strong connections matter for local spread, weak links in the network can offer ideal routes for hospital-associated pathogens to travel further faster. This hold important implications for infection prevention and control efforts: if a local outbreak is not controlled in time, colonised patients will appear in other regions, irrespective of the distance to the initial outbreak, making import screening ever more difficult.