CliniCal Practice DeveloPment Louisa Stone
People with advanced disease approaching the end of life require sensitive consideration with regard to infection control procedures. Strict adherence to infection control guidelines designed for the acute hospital setting may not always be appropriate for terminal y il patients. This article examines the management of meticillin (methicillin)-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) within the hospice patient population. It argues that limited evidence is available on which to base practice, noting that procedures and protocols vary across hospices. It is not the intention of the article to provide details of infection control procedures related to MRSA. That information is reported widely in the literature. Instead it wil concentrate on the prevalence of MRSA within the hospice setting and those aspects of infection control practice that have the potential to affect patients in the final stages of life, e.g. screening and isolation practices. Although it analyses the implications of MRSA precautions for hospice care practice, the findings are applicable to any environment in which dying patients receive care. Conflicts of interest: none
for people near the end of their life. They
also provide care for terminally ill people
and infection control practices pertaining
to a terminal y il patient population. It
wil highlight the need for flexibility and
physical, psychological, social and spiritual/
sensitivity with regard to certain aspects
existential) and of er respite breaks for
of infection control practice, which have
the potential negatively to af ect patients in
2008a). Patients are admitted to hospices
the final stage of life. Such practices include
from all areas of the healthcare system.
isolation of patients who test positive for
evidence-based infection control practices
is an essential aspect of caring for all
patient populations, including those who
are terminal y il . However, no standard
2001; Afif et al, 2002; Cepeda et al, 2005;
hospice/palliative care infection prevention/
Suetens et al, 2006; Gaspard et al, 2009;
2004). It is a Gram-positive strain of the
bacteria Staphylococcus aureus and is
resistant to first-line antibiotics (Royal
hospices; therefore, little is known about
organisations with policies, procedures,
National Institute for Health and Clinical
Louisa Stone is Research Assistant, Gold
Excellence (NICE), 2003; DH, 2003, 2005,
al, 2009). There is a dif erence between
St Christopher’s Hospice, London. At the time
Pratt et al, 2007). Therefore, it is not
of writing, she was Deputy Ward Manager,
this article’s intention to discuss general
Nuffield Ward, St Christopher’s Hospice,
infection control procedures. Its aim is
London. Email: [email protected]
to examine the limited literature relating
CliniCal Practice DeveloPment
only 0.6% occurring in a hospice (Office
settings. Over the timeframe, a total of
for National Statistics, 2009). However, it
120 patients transferred from either the
Anderson et al, 2002; Ali et al, 2005). A
is difficult to gauge the true number of
MRSA deaths, as it is often the underlying
be termed a ‘carrier’. Approximately 30%
of the UK population are colonised with S. aureus (Tarzi et al, 2001), with the bacteria
Statistics, 2009). The true prevalence, i.e.
general y residing on the skin, hairline and
in the nose, skinfolds, perineum and navel
(RCN, 2005; DH, 2007a). Clinical infection
occurs if the organism invades the carrier’s
skin or deeper tissues and multiplies. In
healthy individuals the presence of MRSA
risk areas (British Society for Antimicrobial
However, it can be life threatening in the
their patients may have many of the risk
al, 2006; Humphreys, 2009). Suetens et al
(2006), in a 3-year cohort study, assessed
in hospices in the UK. In 1998, Prentice
present. Of these patients, 11 (7.1%) were
northern part of Belgium (Flanders). Dates
carried out a retrospective review of the
were several limitations to the study, e.g.
the researchers acknowledged that not all
were col ected every 6 months during the
new inpatients were enrol ed in the study
3-year period. After adjustment for age, sex
and co-morbidities, the risk for 36-month
A prospective study of factors influencing
mortality remained significantly higher in
admission, which may have affected results,
was then conducted. In the three hospices
highest ef ect of MRSA on mortality was in
the proportion of patients admitted with
patients with severe cognitive impairment,
after admission. The study found that the
prevalence of MRSA colonisation/infection
hospitalised twice as frequently for MRSA
community, irrespective of the setting from
they were infected before admission. Risk
factors for colonisation were similar to
the general population. There were only a
and tenderness at the site of infection.
few single rooms, which delayed admission
admission. Screening patients on admission
2005). Risk factors predisposing acquisition
further reduced bed availability. Prentice
patients went on to develop the infection.
stay hospital admission; previous repeated
associated with significant morbidity in a
or long-term antibiotic therapy; invasive
small number of palliative care patients.
devices, e.g. urinary catheterisation and
hospices is not wel documented. Practice
intravenous cannulation; frailty/old age;
of the infection in this patient population
immune system (Prentice et al, 1998; Ali et
directors of adult hospices/palliative care
units in London and the south of England.
colonisation and infection among patients
mrSa prevalence/management in hospices
protocols adopted by specialist pal iative
deaths occurred in a hospital setting, with
care inpatient units in southern England
CliniCal Practice DeveloPment
worn when coming into contact with body as touch is such an important part of care
fluids or contaminated linen or dressings
(Prentice et al, 1998; Parker, 2007).
(Pratt et al, 2007). The wearing of gloves
microbes and transmission of microbes to
patients and staff (NICE, 2003). However,
the protocol. Infection control protocols/
gloves can provide staff with a false sense
of infection (Boyce et al, 2004; DH, 2008b).
result is positive, a decolonisation regimen
patients were MRSA colonised or infected.
just before starting a task and discarded
possible, irrespective of the availability of
immediately after it has finished (Pratt et al,
isolation facilities, to reduce the number
per cent isolated patients with known or
of microorganisms present on an infected
individual (DH, 2007b; Patel, 2007) (Figure 1). However, screening does not identify
patients within the unit, e.g. going to the
carrying out personal care. According to
screening swabs only provide results for
day centre, smoking areas, recreational and
Parker (2007), it needs to be considered
the body area from which they are taken,
refreshment areas or cof ee shops. Seven
(12.5%) units restricted al MRSA-positive
providing personal care, particularly when
patients. However, such restrictions mainly
patients are dying. She stated: ‘Even though
2003). Dand et al (2005), as cited above,
someone has an infection and is in a single
reported that none of the pal iative care
infection. Three-quarters of respondents
felt that MRSA did not af ect admissions
admissions to the inpatient unit and only
and discharges. Opinion was divided about
12.5% screened patients with a history of
tasks. What is important is that hands are
colonisation were relevant to hospices and
hospital. They pointed out that, as routine
nurse does not put the individual patient
screening is not part of routine practice,
patients’ quality of life. Some respondents
at risk of cross-infection and that hands
reported that protocols resulted in patient
are washed after specific tasks have been
felt that routine screening could lead to
decrease in quality of life. The sample was
small and only covered southern England.
must be aware that the wearing of gloves
However, the study highlighted that there
patient anxiety during the end stages of
the disease process. The patient’s condition
should be taken into consideration before
relationships at the end of life, especial y
Figure 1.
control procedures that may have a negative ef ect on terminal y il patients will
mrSa decolonisation protocols
When patients are found to be MRSA positive they should not automatically be prescribed antibiotics.
effect of infection control procedures
Treatment depends on clinical signs, local policies, risk to others, internal risk factors, such as presence
on terminally ill patients
of invasive devices and being immunocompromised, and whether the patient is colonised or infected
(in infected individuals a course of systemic antibiotics is usually required). Decolonisation protocols
usually consist of applying mupirocin ointment to the anterior nares three times a day for 5–7 days
rates of MRSA (Johnson et al, 2005; Girou
to eradicate nasal colonisation and applying an antiseptic body lotion, e.g. triclosan or chlorhexidine,
et al, 2006; Cromer et al, 2008; Beggs et
to eradicate skin colonisation. Some policies recommend hexachlorophene talcum powder to the axil ae
and groin, but this should not be used on broken areas of skin. Topical antiseptics, e.g. povidone iodine,
et al, 2010). It is outside the remit of this
silver sulphadiazine or mupirocin, may help to eliminate wound colonisation. However, it is important to
article to consider hand decontamination
check that the agent is appropriate for the wound and prolonged application of topical agents should be
avoided. Antibiotic creams for colonised wounds should not be used because of resistance. Local wound
refer to Pratt et al’s (2007) best practice
care policies should be followed. In the case of chronic wounds, e.g. pressure ulcers and leg ulcers, advice
should be sought. Topical agents may not be appropriate in the case of invasive devices (e.g. percutaneous
wearing gloves routinely requires specific
endoscopic gastrostomy tubes or urinary catheters) as there is a risk of degeneration.
consideration with regard to patients at
Source: Royal College of Nursing (RCN) (2005)
CliniCal Practice DeveloPment
patient is in the advanced stage of disease.
isolation is unavoidable, strategies should
because hospice patients are dying, their
distress, e.g. ef ective communication and
providing appropriate social support. The
decolonised or isolated (Ali et al, 2005).
study involved a small number of patients.
exclusively care for patients during the end
stage of terminal il ness. Patients are also
admitted to hospices for symptom control,
infection, or have been identified as an
rehabilitation and respite. These patients
asymptomatic carrier, should be isolated
acknowledge. Research is required into the
may be discharged home or, in some cases,
to reduce the risk of infection transmission
ef ect of isolation procedures within the
transferred to hospital. Also, although a
(Jernigan et al, 1996; Boyce et al, 2004; DH,
patient may be dying, the contraction of an
2007b). This is usually achieved by placing
infection unrelated to their primary disease
adds unnecessarily to patient suffering.
personal protective equipment (gloves and
However, Ali et al (2005) deemed that the
aprons) when entering the room, which is
burden relating to screening and treatment
safely discarded before exit. According to
total number of participants (n=40)
benefits for most patients. They cal ed for
available, organisations should consider
hospitals and one elderly care hospital.
of MRSA colonisation/infection, the rates
non-carriers in bays or wards. Admission
Fol owing a period of hospitalisation or
to a pal iative care unit for patients who
isolation, the 20 patients in the control
effectiveness of current hospice protocols.
available (Prentice et al, 1998). The ef ect
four psychological measurements relating
They advised caution with regard to strict
of isolating terminal y il patients must be
adherence to current guidelines developed
careful y considered, as there is evidence
that such procedures are associated with
that hospitalisation resulted in negative
rigorous for hospice patients and impair
quality of life. Parker (2007) recommended
et al (2001) conducted a cross-sectional,
that pal iative care organisations should
matched control study to investigate the
psychological impact of hospitalisation and
MRSA isolation on older adults undergoing
depression that were significantly higher
ensure that terminally ill patients receive
(P<0.001 and P<0.001 respectively) and
effective and pertinent infection control.
feelings of self-esteem and sense of control
that were significantly lower (P<0.005
conclusion
relating to depression, mood, anxiety and
and P<0.001 respectively) than those
The prevalence and cross-infection rates
anger. Statistical analysis showed that the
rates of depression (t=3.00, P<0.01) and
anxiety (t=2.98, P<0.01) than the non-
isolated group. There was no significant
promote psychological wel being. This is
dif erence in the anger scores for the two
particularly the case when people are at
the end of their lives. Although both the
involve a combination of activities in order
studies cited above had smal sample sizes
palliative care populations, they highlight
isolation and screening procedures within
the potential negative psychological ef ects
the palliative care environment. EOLC
that it was isolation that had a negative
of isolation. The aims of pal iative care
are to improve quality of life and relieve/
references
inpatients. Those involved in caring for
prevent physical, psychosocial and spiritual
Afif W, Huor P, Brassard P, Loo VG (2002)
hospitalised older adults should be aware
Health Organization, 2008). Therefore, the
Staphylococcus aureus precautions in a teaching hospital. American Journal of Infection Control30(7): 430–3
alternative approaches to isolation in the
Ali S, Sykes N, Flock P, Hall E, Buchan J
(2005) An investigation of MRSA infection in a
(Pike and McLean, 2002; Ali et al, 2005).
hospice. Palliative Medicine19(3): 188–96
CliniCal Practice DeveloPment
Anderson DM, Keith J, Novak PA, Elliot MA,
Department of Health (DH) (2008a) End of
Patel S (2007) Managing MRSA in hospital and
eds (2002) Mosby’s Medical, Nursing & Allied Life Care Strategy: Promoting High Quality Care
in the community. Nursing Times103(10): 48–9 Health Dictionary. 6th edn. Mosby, St Louis
for all Adults at the End of Life. The Stationery
Pike JH, McLean D (2002) Ethical concerns
Bannister BA, Begg NT, Gillespie SH (2000)
in isolating patients with methicillin-resistant
Infectious Diseases. Blackwell Science, Oxford
Department of Health (DH) (2008b) Impact Staphylococcus aureus on the rehabilitation
Assessment of Screening Elective Patients for
ward: a case report. Archives of Physical MRSA. The Stationery Office, London
Medicine and Rehabilitation 83(7): 1028-–30
behaviour impact upon the transmission of
Department of Health (DH) (2009) MRSA
Pratt RJ, Pellowe CM, Wilson JA et al (2007)
MRSA between patients?: an analysis using a
Objective for 2010–11. DH, London
epic2: National evidence-based guidelines for
Monte Carlo model. BMC Infectious Diseases
Gammon J (1998) Analysis of the stressful effects
preventing healthcare-associated infections in
9(15 May): 64
of hospitalisation and source isolation on coping
NHS hospitals in England. Journal of Hospital
Boyce JM, Havill NL, Kohan C, Dumigan DG,
and psychological constructs. International Journal Infection65(Suppl 1): S1–64
Ligi CE (2004) Do infection control measures
of Nursing Practice4(2): 84–96
Prentice W, Dunlop R, Armes PJ, Cunningham
work for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
Gaspard P, Eschbach E, Gunther D, Gayet S,
aureus? Infection Control and Hospital
Bertrand X, Talon D (2009) Meticillin-resistant
resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection in
Epidemiology25(5): 395–401 Staphylococcus aureus contamination of healthcare
palliative care. Palliative Medicine12(6): 443–9
British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy,
workers’ uniforms in long-term care facilities.
Hospital Infection Society, Infection Control
Journal of Hospital Infection71(2): 170–5 Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA):
Nurses Association (1998) Revised guidelines
Girou E, Legrand P, Soing-Altrach S et al (2006)
Guidance for Nursing Staff. RCN, London
for the control of methicillin-resistant
Association between hand hygiene compliance
Suetens C, Niclaes L, Jans B, Verhaegen J,
Staphylococcus aureus infection in hospitals.
and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in
Schuermans A, Van Eldere J, Buntinx F (2006)
Working Party Report. Journal of Hospital
a French rehabilitation hospital. Infection Control
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusInfection39(4): 253–90. Erratum in: Journal of and Hospital Epidemiology27(10): 1128–30
colonization is associated with higher mortality
Hospital Infection (1999) 42(1): 83
Humphreys H (2009) Do guidelines for the
prevention and control of methicillin-resistant
cognitive status. Journal of the American
(2005) Isolation of patients in single rooms or
Staphylococcus aureus make a difference? Clinical Geriatrics Society54(12): 1854–60
cohorts to reduce spread of MRSA in intensive-
Microbiology and Infection15(Suppl 7): 39–43
Tarzi S, Kennedy P, Stone S, Evans M (2001)
care units: prospective two-centre study. The
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus:
Lancet365(9456): 295–304
JC, Cauda R (2009) Prevention and control
psychological impact of hospitalization and
Coia JE, Duckworth GJ, Edwards DI et al (2006)
of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
isolation in an older adult population. Journal
Guidelines for the control and prevention of
Clinical Microbiology and Infection15(2): 120–4 of Hospital Infection49(4): 250–4
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
Jernigan JA, Titus MG, Gröschel DH, Getchell-
Vandenesch F, Naimi T, Enright MC et al (2003)
(MRSA) in healthcare facilities. Journal of
White S, Farr BM (1996) Effectiveness of
Community-acquired methicillin-resistant
Hospital Infection635(Suppl 1): S1–S44
contact isolation during a hospital outbreak
Staphylococcus aureus carrying Panton-Valentine
Cromer AL, Latham SC, Bryant KG et al (2008)
of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
American Journal of Epidemiology143(5): Emerging Infectious Diseases9(8): 978–84
compliance and the impact on facility-acquired
Watson M, Lucas C, Hoy A (2006) Adult
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.
Johnson PD, Martin R, Burrell LJ et al (2005)
Palliative Care Guidance. 2nd edn. South West
American Journal of Infection Control36(9): 672–7
Efficacy of an alcohol/chlorhexidine hand
London, Surrey, West Sussex and Hampshire,
Cummings KL, Anderson DJ, Kaye KS (2010)
rates of nosocomial methicillin-resistant
Ireland Palliative Medicine Group. http://
of hospital-acquired methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection.
Staphylococcus aureus infection. Infection Control Medical Journal of Australia183(10): 509–14
adultsectionFeb2008.pdf (last accessed 27
and Hospital Epidemiology31(4): 357–64
Dand P, Fyvie J, Yee A, Sykes N (2005) A survey
World Health Organization (2008) WHO
of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusDefinition of Palliative Care. WHO, Geneva
(MRSA) management in hospices/palliative care
infections. Joint Commission Journal on Quality
units. Palliative Medicine19(3): 185–7 and Patient Safety35(4): 180–5
Department of Health (DH) (2003) Winning
Leung-Chen P (2008) Everybody’s crying
Ways: Working Together to Reduce Healthcare
MRSA. American Journal of Nursing108(8): Key Points Associated Infection in England. The Stationery
Mears A, White A, Cookson B et al (2009)
Department of Health (DH) (2005) Saving
Healthcare-associated infection in acute
Lives: a Delivery Programme to Reduce Healthcare
hospitals: which interventions are effective?
Associated Infections Including MRSA: Skills for Journal of Hospital Infection71(4): 307–13 Implementation. The Stationery Office, London
National Institute for Health and Clinical
Department of Health (DH) (2006) Essential
Excellence (NICE) (2003) Infection Control, Steps to Safe, Clean Care: Reducing Healthcare-Prevention of Healthcare-associated Infection in Primary and Community Care. NICE, London
Department of Health (DH) (2007a) Hospital
Office for National Statistics (2009) Health Organisation, Speciality Mix and MRSA. The
Statistics Quarterly No. 43. ONS, Newport,
Department of Health (DH) (2007b) Saving
Parker LJ (2007) The dying touch: infection
Lives: Reducing Infection, Delivering Clean and
control at the end of life. End of Life Care 1(2): Safe Care. The Stationery Office, London
THIS CIRCULAR IS IMPORTANT AND REQUIRES YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION The definitions and interpretation commencing on page 4 of this circular apply to this circular, including this cover page. If you are in any doubt as to what action to take in relation to this circular, please consult your CSDP, broker, banker or other professional adviser immediately. ACTION REQUIRED 1. This circular
Sage Technical Services $2,000 Deductible Limited Benefit Health Plan Benefit Summary Effective 1/2011 This is a limited benefit health plan that provides inpatient hospital benefits and limited outpatient benefits. Benefits provided are not intended to cover all medical expenses. This summary provides a brief description of your limited health plan benefits and is not a gu