CDC consultations related to ophthalmologic practices and settings, 2016–2021

Background: Healthcare activities that include instrumentation or manipulation of mucosal tissue or normally sterile sites, such as the eye and its associated structures, place patients at risk of infectious and other complications. We reviewed queries to the CDC Prevention and Response Branch that...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Kevin Spicer, Joseph Perz, Kiran Perkins
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Cambridge University Press 2023-06-01
Series:Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology
Online Access:https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2732494X23004023/type/journal_article
_version_ 1797670841149816832
author Kevin Spicer
Joseph Perz
Kiran Perkins
author_facet Kevin Spicer
Joseph Perz
Kiran Perkins
author_sort Kevin Spicer
collection DOAJ
description Background: Healthcare activities that include instrumentation or manipulation of mucosal tissue or normally sterile sites, such as the eye and its associated structures, place patients at risk of infectious and other complications. We reviewed queries to the CDC Prevention and Response Branch that were focused on ophthalmologic procedures and settings to examine opportunities to improve infection prevention and control (IPC) practices in these settings. Methods: We reviewed internal CDC consultation records received from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2021, to identify those involving ophthalmologic procedures or settings. Consultations were reviewed to determine setting type, number of patients affected, organisms identified, nature of infection control breaches, and whether medical products were implicated. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Results: We identified 24 consultations among 19 states and US territories. Of these, 21 (87.5%) involved outpatient settings, of which 9 (43%) were ambulatory surgery centers. Consultations included the following non–mutually exclusive categories. There were 18 adverse postsurgical events (75%), such as mycobacterial infection after laser surgery and toxic anterior segment syndrome following cataract surgery (n = 5). There were 11 infections following ophthalmologic clinical care (46%), such as epidemic keratoconjunctivitis due to adenovirus 8. There were 8 suspected medication-related events (33%) including contamination of ophthalmic medication when manufactured or compounded offsite. There were 8 medical-device reprocessing concerns (33%) including inappropriate high-level disinfection. There were 8 instances of improper environmental cleaning and disinfection (33%), for example, during an adenovirus outbreak. There were 3 cases of potential mishandling of medications onsite (12.5%), such as multiuse eye drops. Also, 3 events (12.5%) were associated with potentially contaminated donor tissue, such as corneas for transplantation. When a consultation included identification of a pathogen (n = 11), organisms included bacteria (n = 7, 64%), viruses (n = 2, 18%), and fungi (n = 3, 27%). In total, 202 patients had confirmed ophthalmologic infections or adverse events. Conclusions: Based on our review of recent outbreaks, healthcare personnel in ophthalmologic settings may have deficits in training related to instrument reprocessing and environmental cleaning specific to ophthalmic equipment and settings that can result in harm to patients. These settings could benefit from targeted training to improve IPC practices specific to ophthalmologic examinations and procedures. This review was limited to analysis of investigations that were voluntarily reported to the CDC. A formal surveillance system for adverse outcomes in this setting could clarify the nature and frequency of IPC issues of greatest concern.
first_indexed 2024-03-11T21:06:39Z
format Article
id doaj.art-348369344d2a4d5292edd21226430528
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2732-494X
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-11T21:06:39Z
publishDate 2023-06-01
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format Article
series Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology
spelling doaj.art-348369344d2a4d5292edd212264305282023-09-29T12:56:52ZengCambridge University PressAntimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology2732-494X2023-06-013s120s12010.1017/ash.2023.402CDC consultations related to ophthalmologic practices and settings, 2016–2021Kevin SpicerJoseph PerzKiran PerkinsBackground: Healthcare activities that include instrumentation or manipulation of mucosal tissue or normally sterile sites, such as the eye and its associated structures, place patients at risk of infectious and other complications. We reviewed queries to the CDC Prevention and Response Branch that were focused on ophthalmologic procedures and settings to examine opportunities to improve infection prevention and control (IPC) practices in these settings. Methods: We reviewed internal CDC consultation records received from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2021, to identify those involving ophthalmologic procedures or settings. Consultations were reviewed to determine setting type, number of patients affected, organisms identified, nature of infection control breaches, and whether medical products were implicated. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Results: We identified 24 consultations among 19 states and US territories. Of these, 21 (87.5%) involved outpatient settings, of which 9 (43%) were ambulatory surgery centers. Consultations included the following non–mutually exclusive categories. There were 18 adverse postsurgical events (75%), such as mycobacterial infection after laser surgery and toxic anterior segment syndrome following cataract surgery (n = 5). There were 11 infections following ophthalmologic clinical care (46%), such as epidemic keratoconjunctivitis due to adenovirus 8. There were 8 suspected medication-related events (33%) including contamination of ophthalmic medication when manufactured or compounded offsite. There were 8 medical-device reprocessing concerns (33%) including inappropriate high-level disinfection. There were 8 instances of improper environmental cleaning and disinfection (33%), for example, during an adenovirus outbreak. There were 3 cases of potential mishandling of medications onsite (12.5%), such as multiuse eye drops. Also, 3 events (12.5%) were associated with potentially contaminated donor tissue, such as corneas for transplantation. When a consultation included identification of a pathogen (n = 11), organisms included bacteria (n = 7, 64%), viruses (n = 2, 18%), and fungi (n = 3, 27%). In total, 202 patients had confirmed ophthalmologic infections or adverse events. Conclusions: Based on our review of recent outbreaks, healthcare personnel in ophthalmologic settings may have deficits in training related to instrument reprocessing and environmental cleaning specific to ophthalmic equipment and settings that can result in harm to patients. These settings could benefit from targeted training to improve IPC practices specific to ophthalmologic examinations and procedures. This review was limited to analysis of investigations that were voluntarily reported to the CDC. A formal surveillance system for adverse outcomes in this setting could clarify the nature and frequency of IPC issues of greatest concern.https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2732494X23004023/type/journal_article
spellingShingle Kevin Spicer
Joseph Perz
Kiran Perkins
CDC consultations related to ophthalmologic practices and settings, 2016–2021
Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology
title CDC consultations related to ophthalmologic practices and settings, 2016–2021
title_full CDC consultations related to ophthalmologic practices and settings, 2016–2021
title_fullStr CDC consultations related to ophthalmologic practices and settings, 2016–2021
title_full_unstemmed CDC consultations related to ophthalmologic practices and settings, 2016–2021
title_short CDC consultations related to ophthalmologic practices and settings, 2016–2021
title_sort cdc consultations related to ophthalmologic practices and settings 2016 2021
url https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2732494X23004023/type/journal_article
work_keys_str_mv AT kevinspicer cdcconsultationsrelatedtoophthalmologicpracticesandsettings20162021
AT josephperz cdcconsultationsrelatedtoophthalmologicpracticesandsettings20162021
AT kiranperkins cdcconsultationsrelatedtoophthalmologicpracticesandsettings20162021