There is legislation in Illinois that we should keep an eye on - they are trying to pass a bill in the legislature that is accused of being too narrow in focus and not based on scientific evidence (House Bill 378 and Senate Bill 233). Michael O. Vernon, the President of Chicago’s APIC (Association for Professionals in Infection Control) offers this commentary and suggestion for improvement of the bill:
Instead we support an alternative bill that would cast a wider and more effective net (House Bill 192). This legislation favors a more comprehensive approach toward controlling MRSA as well as a broad spectrum of other multi-drug-resistant organisms that pose equal or greater risk to patients as MRSA.
HB 192 requires hospitals to assess and address annually their most important infection-control problems, including MRSA, through screenings and/or other infection-control measures. In addition, HB 192 addresses not only MRSA acquired within the health-care environment, as HB 378 and SB 233 propose, but community-acquired MRSA as well.
A recent clinical trial sponsored by the National Institutes of Health showed no benefit from the routine MRSA screenings in hospital intensive-care units that are proposed as part of HB 378 and SB 233. Scientific research also shows that a focus on a single strain of bacteria does not improve the overall safety of patients.
In the Netherlands, the country most often cited for developing the “search and destroy” approach to MRSA, low rates of MRSA have been achieved while overall hospital-acquired infection rates remain similar to or greater than U.S. rates.
We urge lawmakers to support HB 192, legislation that is scientifically sound and in the best interests of patients. HB 378 and SB 233 meet neither of these objectives. [source]
His position is supported by the CDC, APIC, SHEA and the IHA MRSA Task Force. I hope the legislators will listen to them. I am encouraged though that Illinois seems to be trying to take a stand and clean things up (see the earlier Illinois tattoo shop story) - lets do it the right way the first time though.
.gif)
1 response so far ↓
W. John Martin, MD, PhD // May 5, 2007 at 10:50 am
Dear members,
The issue of requiring hospitals to screen patients for MRSA has moved from the scientific to the political/economic arena. I have copied below an earlier press release supporting the value of screening. Kind regards, W. John Martin, MD, PhD.
Hospitals’ Responsibility in Reducing Community Risks of Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Infections: Response to APIC and SHEA Statement
Should hospitals routinely test patients for MRSA is under review by various State Governments. Two major epidemiology organizations have argued against such a provision. The counter argument is that such measures, along with testing healthcare personnel, will help reduce community levels of MRSA.
/24-7PressRelease/ - BURBANK, CA, March 08, 2007 - The recent APIC and SHEA joint position statement on the use of active surveillance cultures to screen for MRSA and VRE bacteria,* fails to address the continuing spread of MRSA bacteria from healthcare facilities to the community. No longer is susceptibility to MRSA infections restricted to hospitalized patients. Rather, the entire population is at risk by the increasing presence of MRSA bacteria in the community environment. Healthcare providers colonized by MRSA have been, and continue to be, an unwitting source of these bacteria within the community. So too are individuals who inadvertantly acquire MRSA as hospitalized patients and are not informed or treated prior to discharge.
The position statement expresses concern that legislation requiring routine surveillance testing of patients would exclude a role of local experts in risk assessments and resource allocation. One wonders where these experts were during the growing emergence over the last 15 years of highly toxic strains of MRSA. Are healthcare personnel so uninformed by these experts that they would not want to know if they are placing not only their patients, but themselves, family members and social contacts at risk of a serious infection? Who has the responsibility to inform the public of their civil right to test their homes, workplaces and other public facilities for MRSA? The issue of cost of testing is moot. Sensitive, yet simple MRSA detection plates are available at little more than $1.50 per plate. These plates have been distributed by the Institute of Progressive Medicine to the Martin Luther King Junior International Youth Foundation and other civil rights groups. It would be ironic if the responsibility of hospital epidemiologists and Public Health officials were to fall upon the shoulders of community based volunteers. For further information on the MRSA “Staph Detection Plates” and advice on decontamination procedures please contact the Institute of Progressive Medicine by email at s3support@mail.com
W. John Martin, MD, PhD
Institute of Progressive Medicine
Burbank, CA 91502
* Weber SG, et al. Legislative mandates for use of active surveillance cultures to screen for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci: Position statement from the Joint SHEA and APIC Task Force. American Journal of Infection Control 35: 73-85, 2007.
Leave a Comment