Untitled

57793_CH00_FM_ARIAS.
qxd 1/21/09 5:16 AM Page i
OUTBREAK INVESTIGATION,
PREVENTION, AND
CONTROL IN HEALTH
CARE SETTINGS
Critical Issues for Patient Safety
Second Edition
Kathleen Meehan Arias

MS, MT (ASCP), CIC
Arias Infection Control Consulting, LLC
Crownsville, Maryland
JONES AND BARTLETT PUBLISHERS

Sudbury, Massachusetts
B OSTON T ORONTO L ONDON S INGAPORE
57793_CH00_FM_ARIAS.qxd 1/21/09 5:16 AM Page ii
World Headquarters
Jones and Bartlett Publishers Jones and Bartlett Publishers International
40 Tall Pine Drive Barb House, Barb Mews
Sudbury, MA 01776 London W6 7PA
978-443-5000 United Kingdom
[email protected]
www.jbpub.com
Jones and Bartlett Publishers Canada
6339 Ormindale Way
Mississauga, Ontario L5V 1J2
Canada
Jones and Bartlett’s books and products are available through most bookstores and online booksellers.
To contact Jones and Bartlett Publishers directly, call 800-832-0034, fax 978-443-8000, or visit our web-
site www.jbpub.com.
Substantial discounts on bulk quantities of Jones and Bartlett’s publications are available to corpo-
rations, professional associations, and other qualified organizations. For details and specific discount
information, contact the special sales department at Jones and Bartlett via the above contact infor-
mation or send an email to [email protected].
Copyright © 2010 by Jones and Bartlett Publishers LLC

All rights reserved. No part of the material protected by this copyright may be reproduced or utilized in
any form, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and
retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner.
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the Sub-
ject Matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering
legal, accounting, or other professional service. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required,
the service of a competent professional person should be sought.
Production Credits
Publisher: Michael Brown
Production Director: Amy Rose
Associate Editor: Katey Birtcher
Editorial Assistant: Catie Heverling
Senior Production Editor: Tracey Chapman
Production Assistant: Roya Millard
Marketing Manager: Sophie Fleck
Manufacturing and Inventory Control Supervisor: Amy Bacus
Composition: Achorn International
Cover Design: Scott Moden
Cover Image: © Daniela Illing/ShutterStock, Inc.
Printing and Binding: Malloy, Inc.
Cover Printing: Malloy, Inc.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Arias, Kathleen Meehan.
Outbreak investigation, prevention, and control in health care settings: critical issues for patient
safety / Kathleen Meehan Arias.
p. ; cm.
Rev. ed. of: Quick reference to outbreak investigation and control in health care facilities / Kathleen
Meehan Arias. 2000.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN-13: 978-0-7637-5779-3 (pbk.)
ISBN-10: 0-7637-5779-9 (pbk.)
1. Health facilities—Sanitation—Handbooks, manuals, etc. 2. Nosocomial infections—Prevention
—Handbooks, manuals, etc. 3. Cross infection—Prevention—Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Arias, Kathleen
Meehan. Quick reference to outbreak investigation and control in health care facilities. II. Title.
[DNLM: 1. Health Facilities—Handbooks. 2. Infection Control—methods—Handbooks. 3. Dis-
ease Outbreaks—Handbooks. 4. Epidemiologic Methods—Handbooks. WX 39 A696o 2010]
RA969.A736 2010
614.4'4--dc22
2008029520
6048
Printed in the United States of America
13 12 11 10 09 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
57793_CH00_FM_ARIAS.qxd 1/21/09 5:16 AM Page iii
For my wonderful husband, Bob.

For his patience, understanding, and support while I worked on the
second edition of “the book.”
57793_CH00_FM_ARIAS.qxd 1/21/09 5:16 AM Page iv
I am indebted to the contributing authors (colleagues and friends who

graciously shared their expertise) and to their families who were under-
standing of the time it takes to prepare a manuscript.
The author would like to thank Robert Arias, Patti Grant, and James
Luby, MD, for reviewing sections of the manuscript and providing con-
structive criticism, and Shawn M. Phillips for sharing his mom.

57793_CH00_FM_ARIAS.qxd 1/21/09 5:16 AM Page v
Contents
Preface to the Second Edition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii
CHAPTER 1. AN INTRODUCTION TO EPIDEMIOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Definitions Used in Healthcare Epidemiology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A Historical Perspective: Some Epidemiological Tidbits. . . . . . . . . . . . 2
The Multifactorial Nature of Disease. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Etiologic Agents of Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Biological Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Chemical Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Physical Agents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Host Factors Affecting Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Environmental Factors Affecting Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Study Methods Used in Epidemiology: The Five Ws—What, Who,
Where, When, and Why . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Descriptive Epidemiology: Who, Where, and When . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Analytic Epidemiology: Why . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Criteria for Judging Causality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Establishing Causal Relations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
The Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
The Infectious Disease Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Frequently Inapparent Infection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Infection Resulting in Rarely Fatal Clinical Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Infection Resulting in Usually Fatal Severe Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
v
57793_CH00_FM_ARIAS.qxd 1/21/09 5:16 AM Page vi
vi CONTENTS
The Infectious Disease Process: The Chain of Infection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Infectious Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Reservoirs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Portals of Exit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Modes of Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Portals of Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Susceptible Host . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Identifying Effective Measures to Control or Prevent the
Spread of Infection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Measures Directed at the Reservoir or Source of an Agent . . . . . . . . 26
Measures Directed at Interrupting Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Measures Directed at the Host . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Suggested Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
CHAPTER 2. SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS, PUBLIC HEALTH,

AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Surveillance Programs in Healthcare Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Surveillance: What Is It and Why Do It? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Surveillance Programs in Hospitals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Surveillance Programs in Healthcare Settings Other
Than Acute Care Hospitals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Surveillance Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Housewide (Comprehensive) Surveillance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Targeted (Focused) Surveillance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Combining Housewide and Targeted Surveillance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Guidelines for Developing and Evaluating a
Surveillance Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Developing a Surveillance Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Identify the Surveillance Methodology to be Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Assess and Define the Population and Select the
Events to be Monitored . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Determine the Time Period for Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Select Surveillance Criteria and Case Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Determine the Process for Gathering Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Identify How to Calculate Rates and Analyze the Data. . . . . . . . . . . 51
Develop an Interpretive Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Determine Who Should Receive the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Develop a Written Surveillance Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Evaluating a Surveillance Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
57793_CH00_FM_ARIAS.qxd 1/21/09 5:16 AM Page vii
CONTENTS vii
Regulations and Requirements Affecting Surveillance

Programs in Healthcare Settings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
The Healthcare Provider’s Role in Public Health
Surveillance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Global Surveillance and Emergency Preparedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
CHAPTER 3. OUTBREAKS REPORTED IN ACUTE

CARE SETTINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Endemic vs. Epidemic Infections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Organisms Responsible for Hospital-Associated Outbreaks. . . . . . . . 72
Outbreaks Associated with Products, Devices, and
Procedures (Common Source Outbreaks) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Outbreaks Associated with Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Intrinsic Contamination of Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Extrinsic Contamination of Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Noninfectious Adverse Events Related to Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Outbreaks Associated with Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Outbreaks Associated with Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and Bronchoscopy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Outbreaks Associated with Surgery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Outbreaks Associated with Pseudomonas, Ralstonia,
and Burkholderia Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Outbreaks Associated with Human
Carriers or Disseminators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Staphylococcus aureus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Group A Beta-Hemolytic Streptococcus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Candida and Nocardia Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Gram-Negative Organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Hepatitis B Virus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Hepatitis C Virus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Human Immunodeficiency Virus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Salmonella Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Hepatitis A Virus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
57793_CH00_FM_ARIAS.qxd 1/21/09 5:16 AM Page viii
viii CONTENTS
Outbreaks Spread from Person to Person by Airborne

and Droplet Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Diseases Spread by Airborne Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Measles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Varicella (Chickenpox) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Diseases Spread by Droplet Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Infection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Pertussis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
More on Diseases Spread by the Airborne and Droplet Routes . . . . . . . . 100
Outbreaks of Gastroenteritis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Outbreaks of Diseases That Have Environmental
Reservoirs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Legionnaire’s Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Epidemiology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Mode of Transmission. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Control Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Aspergillosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Epidemiology and Mode of Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Outbreaks and Pseudo-Outbreaks Associated with a
Water Reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Potable Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Ice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Water Baths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Outbreaks of Nosocomial Pneumonia in Intensive
Care Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Outbreaks of Sick Building Syndrome and
Building-Related Illness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Newly Recognized Agents and Sources for
Healthcare-Associated Outbreaks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Candida Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Epidemiology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Identifying New Risk Factors and Sources for Infection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
The Importance of Personnel and Employee Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Suggested Reading and Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Agencies and Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
57793_CH00_FM_ARIAS.qxd 1/21/09 5:16 AM Page ix
CONTENTS ix
CHAPTER 4. OUTBREAKS REPORTED IN

LONG-TERM CARE SETTINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Endemic Infections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Risk Factors for Infection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Epidemic Infections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Recognizing and Confirming an Outbreak in the
Long-Term Care Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Outbreaks of Respiratory Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Streptococcus pneumoniae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Neisseria meningitidis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Outbreaks of Respiratory Disease Caused by Other Organisms . . . . . . . 152
Outbreaks of Gastrointestinal Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Outbreaks of Conjunctivitis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Outbreaks Caused by Group A Streptococcus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Epidemiology and Mode of Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Control Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
CHAPTER 5. OUTBREAKS REPORTED IN

AMBULATORY CARE SETTINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Physicians’ Offices and Outpatient Clinics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Outbreaks Associated with Products and Devices
(Common Source Outbreaks) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Intrinsically Contaminated Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Extrinsically Contaminated Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Contaminated Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Control Measures for Preventing Product- and
Device-Related Outbreaks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
57793_CH00_FM_ARIAS.qxd 1/21/09 5:16 AM Page x
x CONTENTS
Outbreaks Associated with Patient-to-Patient

Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Transmission via Direct Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Transmission via Unsafe Injection Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Transmission via the Airborne Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Dental Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Measures Used to Prevent Transmission of Infection in
Dental Settings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Dialysis Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Ophthalmology Offices and Clinics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Measures Used to Prevent Spread of Epidemic
Keratoconjunctivitis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and Bronchoscopy
Procedure Suites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Ambulatory Surgery Centers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Preventing Infections in Ambulatory Surgery Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
The Changing Face of Health Care. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Risk Factors Associated with Infectious Disease Outbreaks
in the Ambulatory Care Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Measures Used to Prevent Transmission of Infectious Agents
in the Ambulatory Care Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
CHAPTER 6. PSEUDO-OUTBREAKS REPORTED IN

HEALTHCARE SETTINGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Pseudo-Outbreaks Involving Mycobacterium Species . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Pseudo-Outbreaks of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Pseudo-Outbreaks of Nontuberculous Mycobacteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
Pseudo-Outbreaks of Noninfectious Etiology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Recognizing a Pseudo-Outbreak. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Verifying the Diagnosis and Verifying the Existence
of an Outbreak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
57793_CH00_FM_ARIAS.qxd 1/21/09 5:16 AM Page xi
CONTENTS xi
Preventing Pseudo-Outbreaks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
CHAPTER 7. ORGANISMS AND DISEASES

ASSOCIATED WITH OUTBREAKS IN A
VARIETY OF HEALTHCARE SETTINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Organisms Associated with Nosocomial Outbreaks in a
Variety of Healthcare Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the
Acute Care Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
Epidemiology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
Control Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
MRSA in the Long-Term Care Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Epidemiology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus in the Acute Care Setting . . . . . . . . 219
Epidemiology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
VRE in the Long-Term Care Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
Epidemiology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
Staphylococcus aureus with Reduced Susceptibility to
Vancomycin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Acute Care and Ambulatory
Care Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
Epidemiology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Long-Term Care Settings. . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Epidemiology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Multidrug-Resistant and Extensively Drug-Resistant
Mycobacterium tuberculosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Control Measures for Mycobacterium tuberculosis in
Healthcare Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
Clostridium difficile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Epidemiology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
57793_CH00_FM_ARIAS.qxd 1/21/09 5:16 AM Page xii
xii CONTENTS
Influenza Virus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

Epidemiology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Additional Information on Seasonal Influenza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Pandemic Influenza and Avian Influenza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Norovirus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Epidemiology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Parasitic Diseases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
Sarcoptes scabiei (Scabies) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
Cryptosporidium Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Giardia lamblia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
Pneumocystis carinii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
Ectoparasites Other Than Scabies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Disease Syndromes—Gastrointestinal Illness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Epidemiology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Food-Borne Outbreaks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
Preventing Person-to-Person Transmission of Enteric Agents . . . . . . . . . 256
Preventing Foodborne Transmission of Enteric Agents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
Suggested Reading and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
Foodborne and Gastrointestinal Diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
Norovirus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
Tuberculosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
CHAPTER 8. INVESTIGATION, PREVENTION, AND CONTROL

OF OUTBREAKS IN THE HEALTHCARE SETTING . . . . . . . 281
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
Recognizing a Potential Outbreak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
Initiating an Outbreak Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
Steps in Conducting an Outbreak Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
Initial Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
57793_CH00_FM_ARIAS.qxd 1/21/09 5:16 AM Page xiii
CONTENTS xiii
Steps in Conducting an Outbreak Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287

Identify and Verify the Diagnosis of Newly Reported Cases . . . . . . 287
Develop a Case Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Review Clinical and Laboratory Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
Confirm the Existence of an Outbreak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
Conduct a Literature Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
Consult with the Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
Notify Essential Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
Assemble a Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
Determine the Need for Outside Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
Institute Early Control Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
Seek Additional Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
Create a Data Collection Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
Describe the Epidemic: Person, Place, and Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
Draw an Epidemic Curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
Evaluate the Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
Determine the Need for Additional Cultures or Other
Diagnostic Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
Formulate a Tentative Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
Implement Control Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
Evaluate the Efficiency of Control Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
Evaluate and Test the Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
Continue Surveillance, Analysis, and Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
Prepare and Distribute Written Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
Publishing an Article About an Outbreak Investigation . . . . . . . . . . 302
Risk Management Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
Outbreak Investigation Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
Outbreak Prevention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
Public Health Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
Recognizing and Reporting Clusters and Suspected Outbreaks . . . . . . . 304
Community Outbreaks Can Affect Healthcare Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
Emerging Infectious Diseases, Biological Weapons, and
Terrorist Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
Using Technology to Aid in Outbreak Detection and
Investigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
Additional Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
57793_CH00_FM_ARIAS.qxd 1/21/09 5:16 AM Page xiv
xiv CONTENTS
CHAPTER 9. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND OUTBREAK

INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
Using Information Techonology for Surveillance in
Healthcare Settings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
Data Collection, Management, and Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
Data Review, Analysis, and Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
Public Domain Software for Outbreak Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
Using Information Techonology for Public Health
Surveillance Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
Electronic Notification, Reporting Systems, and E-Mail Lists . . . . . 317
Using Information Technology for Literature and
Information Searches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
Medical Literature Search Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
Journals and Periodicals on the World Wide Web . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
Other Sources of Information on the Internet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
Suggested Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
CHAPTER 10. STATISTICAL METHODS USED IN

OUTBREAK INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
Descriptive Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
Frequency Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
Ratios and Proportions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
Measures of Central Tendency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
Mean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
Median. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
Skewness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
Measures of Dispersion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
Range. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
Deviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
Variance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
Standard Deviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
57793_CH00_FM_ARIAS.qxd 1/21/09 5:16 AM Page xv
CONTENTS xv
Normal Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336

Measures of Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336
The Risk Ratio (Relative Risk) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336
The Odds Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
Confidence Intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
Analytic Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
Cohort Studies and the Risk Ratio (Relative Risk) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
The Case-Control Study and the Odds Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
Designing and Conducting a Case-Control Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
Bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
Selecting Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
Selecting Controls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
Confounding Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346
Sample Size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346
Hypothesis Testing (Inferential Statistics) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346
State the Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
Formulate the Null Hypothesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
Choose a Statistical Significance Cutoff Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
Conduct an Analytic Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
Apply Statistical Significance Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
Reject, or Fail to Reject, the Null Hypothesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
Type I and Type II Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
Tests of Statistical Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
The Chi-Square Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
Fisher’s Exact Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350
Using Computers to Make Life Easier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350
Interpreting Results: The Meaning of Statistical
Significance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
CHAPTER 11. THE ROLE OF THE LABORATORY IN

OUTBREAK DETECTION, PREVENTION, AND
INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
Infection Surveillance, Prevention, and Control Programs . . . . . . 358
57793_CH00_FM_ARIAS.qxd 1/21/09 5:16 AM Page xvi
xvi CONTENTS
Identification of Microorganisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358

Rapid Test Methods and Molecular Procedures for
Detecting and Identifying Microorganisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358
Detection of Antimicrobial Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
Challenges Presented by Emerging and Reemerging
Diseases and Bioterrorism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361
Infection Surveillance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364
Identification of Clusters and Outbreaks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
Outbreak Investigation and Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
Special Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366
Microbiologic Cultures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366
Culturing Personnel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366
Specimen Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
Epidemiologic Typing Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
Reporting Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368
Additional Public Health Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
Emergency Preparedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
Employee (Personnel) Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370
Quality Assurance and Pseudo-Outbreaks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371
Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376
CHAPTER 12. COLLECTING, ORGANIZING, AND

DISPLAYING EPIDEMIOLOGIC DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
Collecting and Organizing Epidemiologic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
Using Forms and Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
The Line List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380
Using Computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380
Displaying Epidemiologic Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383
Using Tables, Graphs, and Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383
Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383
Graphs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386
Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390
Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394
57793_CH00_FM_ARIAS.qxd 1/21/09 5:16 AM Page xvii
CONTENTS xvii
Using Computers to Create Graphs and Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395

Histograms vs. Bar Charts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395
Selecting the Best Method to Illustrate Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396
Avoiding “ChartJunk”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398
GLOSSARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407
This page intentionally left blank
57793_CH00_FM_ARIAS.qxd 1/21/09 5:16 AM Page xix
Preface to the Second Edition
Although optimists once imagined that serious infectious disease threats

would by now be conquered, newly emerging (e.g., severe acute respira-
tory syndrome [SARS]), reemerging (e.g., West Nile virus), and even delib-
erately disseminated infectious diseases (e.g., anthrax bioterrorism)
continue to appear throughout the world.
—Fauci AS, Touchette NA, Folkers GK. Emerging infectious diseases: a
10-year perspective from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11:519.
Since the 1970s, over 35 new human pathogens have been identified, and many
known pathogens have emerged or reemerged. Many of these agents have caused
outbreaks in healthcare settings. The ability of a previously unrecognized
human pathogen to emerge and cause a pandemic was demonstrated by the
severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak that began in late 2002 in
the southern People’s Republic of China and spread to over 25 countries on five
continents before it was brought under control in July 2003.
Several major events have occurred since the first edition of this book was
published. One was SARS, whose rapid global spread was facilitated by travel-
ers on airplanes. Another was the intentional release of Bacillus anthracis
spores through the United States postal system in September 2001. SARS
caused clusters of respiratory disease in hospitals that resulted in deaths of
healthcare workers. The anthrax cases that resulted from a bioterrorist event
taxed the ability of healthcare facilities and public health agencies to respond
quickly to identify and treat those who were infected, prevent further trans-
mission, and care for the “worried-well”. In the early 2000s a new hyperviru-
lent strain of C. difficile caused widespread hospital outbreaks in Canada that
were associated with severe morbidity and increased mortality. This more vir-
ulent strain is refractory to antibiotic treatment, has emerged in several coun-
tries, and has caused healthcare-associated outbreaks in the United States,
United Kingdom, and Europe. The person-to-person transmission of the avian
influenza virus, H5N1, was first documented in Asia in the early 2000s, and
the potential exists for H5N1 to cause a pandemic in humans. Drug-resistant
organisms, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and
multidrug-resistant strains of Pseudomonas, Acinetobacter, Klebsiella, and
Enterobacter continue to evolve, spread globally, and cause outbreaks in
healthcare settings worldwide.
All of these events highlight the need for infection surveillance, prevention,
and control (ISPC) systems worldwide and a strong infrastructure to link and
support these systems. Healthcare personnel and healthcare facilities play an
integral role in interrupting the transmission of infectious agents and recogniz-
ing, preventing, and controlling outbreaks caused by infectious and noninfectious
agents. The field of healthcare epidemiology was initially concerned with infec-
tion surveillance, prevention, and control in acute care hospitals. However,
xix
57793_CH00_FM_ARIAS.qxd 1/21/09 5:16 AM Page xx
xx PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
since the provision of health care continues to shift from the acute care hospital
to a variety of ambulatory and long-term care settings, healthcare epidemiology
has evolved beyond the hospital to include these settings and has expanded
beyond infections to include the use of sound epidemiological principles in
studying noninfectious outcomes of medical care. One factor that has greatly
benefited infection surveillance, prevention, and control programs since 2000
is the growth of information technology (hardware, software, and Internet-
based computer systems) to collect, store, analyze, report, and transmit data
and information. The Internet is now widely used to gather and disseminate
information on infectious diseases and outbreaks.
As with the first edition, this book was written for infection prevention and
control (ICP) professionals, healthcare epidemiologists, clinical laboratory sci-
entists, healthcare quality management personnel, public health personnel,
students, and educators—those who are interested in using epidemiologic
methods to monitor healthcare outcomes. This text has the following purposes:
1. Explain epidemiologic principles as they apply to the healthcare setting
2. Serve as a reference for published reports pertaining to the identifica-
tion, investigation, prevention, and control of outbreaks in a variety of
settings
3. Present practical guidelines for identifying, investigating, preventing,
and controlling outbreaks caused by either infectious or noninfectious
agents
4. Discuss the use of information technology (IT) in ISPC programs
The following changes and revisions have been made in this edition: The book
title has been changed from Quick Reference to Outbreak Investigation and
Control in Health Care Facilities to Outbreak Investigation, Prevention, and
Control in Health Care Settings: Critical Issues for Patient Safety. The need to
implement routine practices that can prevent outbreaks has become critical as
pathogens develop multidrug resistance and the possibility of untreatable in-
fections becomes a reality. Consequently, prevention has been added to the title,
and infection prevention measures have been updated and expanded through-
out the text. The word facility has been changed to setting because many
healthcare facilities, especially hospitals, now encompass a wide variety of
healthcare settings, such as outpatient offices, same-day (ambulatory) surgery,
and rehabilitation and other long-term care services. The subtitle Critical
Issues for Patient Safety has been added to focus on the essential role that
ISPC play in providing a safe healthcare environment.
The title of Chapter 2 has been changed from “Surveillance Programs in
Healthcare Facilities” to “Surveillance Programs, Public Health, and Emer-
gency Preparedness.” In response to events such as the SARS outbreak,
anthrax bioterrorism, and the global spread of new and reemerging infections,
information has been added on global surveillance programs, emergency pre-
paredness, and the healthcare community’s role in public health surveillance.
Chapter 9 (formerly “Conducting a Literature Search”) has been renamed
“Information Technology and Outbreak Investigation” and has been expanded
to discuss the various roles that IT plays in detecting, investigating, prevent-
ing, and controlling outbreaks in the healthcare setting.
57793_CH00_FM_ARIAS.qxd 1/21/09 5:16 AM Page xxi
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION xxi
Chapter 11 has been renamed “The Role of the Laboratory in Outbreak

Detection, Prevention, and Investigation” (formerly “The Role of the Labora-
tory in Outbreak Investigation”), and information on laboratory test methods
and bioterrorism has been updated.
Information on outbreaks and pseudo-outbreaks that have occurred in
acute, long-term, and ambulatory healthcare settings since the first edition
has been added.
Updated information on emerging (new) and reemerging pathogens has
been incorporated throughout the text.
The References and Suggested Reading and Resources sections at the end of
each chapter have been updated and additional Web-based resources and
links have been provided.
An increased emphasis has been placed on the integral role of the health-
care community in supporting the medical and public health infrastructures
needed to effectively detect, investigate, prevent, and control outbreaks at the
local, national, and international levels.
An Overview of the Content
Chapter 1 defines terms used in healthcare epidemiology, describes the differ-

ent types of epidemiologic studies used in the healthcare setting, discusses the
multifactorial nature of disease, and addresses the concepts of association and
causation. Chapter 2 outlines the components of effective surveillance programs
for a variety of healthcare settings—programs that are necessary to recognize
a potential outbreak or occurrence of adverse events. Chapters 3 through 7
review reports of outbreaks and pseudo-outbreaks that have occurred in acute
care, long-term care, and ambulatory care settings. By studying these reports,
healthcare and public health personnel can expand their knowledge of the epi-
demiology of healthcare-associated outbreaks and identify effective interven-
tions that can be used to interrupt and prevent outbreaks.
Chapter 8 presents practical guidelines for identifying, investigating, and
controlling outbreaks in healthcare settings. Chapter 9 discusses the use of IT
in outbreak detection, investigation, and control. Chapter 10 explains basic
statistical terms and concepts used in outbreak investigation so the reader
can recognize how and when to apply these methods to describe an outbreak,
perform an epidemiologic study, analyze findings, and test a hypothesis on the
likely cause of an outbreak. Chapter 11 outlines the integral role of the labora-
tory in the diagnosis and surveillance of infections and the detection and
investigation of outbreaks. Chapter 12 gives practical information on collect-
ing, organizing, and displaying epidemiologic data using tables, graphs, and
charts.
The appendices (available for download at this text’s Web site: http://www
.jbpub.com/catalog/9780763757793/) contain a glossary of terms used in health-
care epidemiology, case definitions for infectious diseases, and infection preven-
tion and control guidelines related to outbreak investigation, prevention, and
control.
57793_CH00_FM_ARIAS.qxd 1/21/09 5:16 AM Page xxiii
Contributors
Lorraine Messinger Harkavy, RN, MS

Consultant, Infection Control and Prevention
Potomac, Maryland
Deborah Y. Phillips, RN, BSN, MPH

Associate Director
Texas/Oklahoma AIDS Education and Training Center
Parkland Health and Hospital System
Dallas, Texas
xxiii
57793_CH01_ARIAS.qxd 1/19/09 6:34 PM Page 1
CHAPTER 1
An Introduction to Epidemiology
Microbial threats continue to emerge, reemerge, and persist. Some

microbes cause newly recognized diseases in humans; others are previ-
ously known pathogens that are infecting new or larger population
groups or spreading into new geographic areas. . . . The emergence and
spread of microbial threats are driven by a complex set of factors, the con-
vergence of which can lead to consequences of disease much greater than
any single factor might suggest.1
INTRODUCTION
Since the 1970s, over 35 new human pathogens have been identified, and
many known pathogens have emerged or reemerged.2,3 New and emergent
pathogenic agents include bacteria such as Borrelia burgdorferi, Campylobac-
ter sp, Clostridium difficile, Ehrlichia chaffeensis, Escherichia coli O157:H7,
Helicobacter pylori, Legionella pneumophila, Mycobacterium tuberculosis
(especially multidrug-resistant strains), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus (MRSA), Streptococcus pyogenes (group A strep), Vibrio cholerae, and
Vibrio vulnificus; viruses such as adenovirus, avian influenza, the severe acute
respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus, Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever,
chikungunya, dengue, Ebola, hantaviruses, hepatitis B, C, and E, the human
immunodeficiency viruses, human parvovirus B19, influenza, Lassa, measles,
monkeypox, norovirus, and rotavirus; prions such as those causing variant
Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and bovine spongiform encephalopathy or mad-cow
disease; and other agents such as Babesia, Cryptococcus, Cryptosporidium,
and Pneumocystis carinii. Many of these pathogens have caused outbreaks in
healthcare settings. The ability of a previously unrecognized human pathogen
to emerge and cause a pandemic was demonstrated by the SARS outbreak that
began in late 2002 in the southern People’s Republic of China and spread to
more than 25 countries on five continents before it was brought under control
in July 2003.4
This chapter provides the reader with information needed to investigate
outbreaks in healthcare facilities and to understand that “complex set of fac-
tors, the convergence of which can lead to consequences of disease much
greater than any single factor might suggest.”1(p1)
DEFINITIONS USED IN HEALTHCARE EPIDEMIOLOGY
The term epidemiology is derived from three Greek words: epi, on or among,
demos, people, and logos, the study of. Although many definitions can be found,
1
2 AN INTRODUCTION TO EPIDEMIOLOGY
the following is appropriate for use in the healthcare setting: “Epidemiology is

the study of the distribution and determinants of health-related states and
events in defined populations, and the application of this study to the control
of health problems.”5
In other words, epidemiology is used to describe what, who, where, when,
and why disease and other health-related problems occur so that control mea-
sures can be identified and implemented. The information in this chapter
focuses on the basic principles of epidemiology as they are applied to the sur-
veillance, prevention, and control of healthcare-associated infections and other
adverse events in healthcare facilities.
The terms defined in the following list are used in this text to describe the
occurrence of disease The word disease is used throughout the text in a broad
sense to include health-related conditions and events such as accidents,
adverse drug reactions, and injuries. These definitions, as well as many others,
can be found in the Glossary.
• Community acquired—A disease that results from exposure to physical,
chemical, or biological agents in the community.
• Endemic—The usual or expected number of cases of disease within a spe-
cific geographic location or population.
• Epidemic—The occurrence of more cases of disease than expected in a
given area or specific population over a specified period of time.
• Incidence—The number of new cases of disease in a particular population
during a specified period of time.
• Nosocomial or healthcare-associated—A disease that results from expo-
sure to physical, chemical, or biological agents in the healthcare setting.
• Pandemic—An epidemic that affects several countries or continents.
• Prevalence—The number of existing cases (both old and new) of disease
in a particular population during a specified period of time.
A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: SOME EPIDEMIOLOGIC

TIDBITS
Epidemiologic principles have long been used to determine the suspected
cause of diseases so that control measures can be identified and implemented
to prevent their spread. We know from the Bible that lepers were isolated from
society (c. 1400 BC) to prevent the spread of leprosy (“he shall dwell alone . . .”
Leviticus 13:46). In the Mosaic code, the consumption of pork was forbidden
(“The swine . . . is unclean to you.” Leviticus 11:7), and this prohibition still
exists today in some cultures. Around 400 BC, Hippocrates wrote his famous
treatise, On Airs, Waters, and Places, in which he associated disease occur-
rence with environmental factors such as air, water, and places rather than
with supernatural causes. In the Dark Ages (c. AD 500–1400), diseases were
thought to be caused by miasmas or rising vapors, such as those from
marshes, that were thought to infect the air. The word “quarantine” comes
from 14th-century Italy where sailing vessels were detained for 40 days
(“quaranta giorni”) before travelers could disembark. This precaution was
taken to prevent the spread of plague. This practice carries over to modern-day
A Historical Perspective: Some Epidemiologic Tidbits 3
maritime regulations where a vessel, upon arrival from a foreign port, is

required to display a square yellow flag until permission is granted to land.6
The yellow signal flag represents the letter Q in the international code of flags
that ships around the world use to communicate.
In the 1500s, Italian physician and poet Girolamo Fracastoro recognized
that there were three modes of transmission (person-to-person, air, and
objects), and in his 1546 work, De Contagione et Contagiosis Morbis, he sus-
pected that minute agents caused disease.
The word malaria can be traced back to the 1700s and comes from the Ital-
ian mala aria or “bad air.” This alludes to the former belief that malaria was
spread by foul air from swamps. In the late 1700s, the British physician
Edward Jenner observed that dairy workers who had contact with cows hav-
ing cowpox did not succumb when exposed to smallpox. He discovered that
individuals could be protected from smallpox if they were inoculated with cow-
pox—thus giving us the word vaccine, which is adopted from the Latin vacci-
nus for cow.
In 1846, Panum noticed that if measles were introduced to a population,
there were fewer cases if some of the population previously had measles. He
was the first person to scientifically explain herd immunity (i.e., the resistance
of a population to invasion and spread of an infectious agent because many in
the population are immune). In the 1840s Ignaz Phillipp Semmelweis noticed
that there appeared to be more deaths from puerperal (childbed) fever in the
first division of the Vienna Lying-In Hospital than in the second division. He
reviewed the literature on the proposed causes of puerperal fever, observed
practices, and carefully collected data on the numbers of deaths and possible
risk factors, such as exposure to different types of medical personnel. After
comparing mortality rates and risk factors between the two divisions, he
formed the hypothesis that cadaveric material on the hands of medical stu-
dents was somehow responsible for causing puerperal fever. Semmelweis then
required students and physicians to wash their hands in chlorinated lime
after performing autopsies prior to attending a patient. Semmelweis was able
to demonstrate a dramatic decrease in maternal mortality rates after mandat-
ing hand disinfection.7 Florence Nightingale began her reformation of the
British army medical system by introducing sanitary practices, such as envi-
ronmental cleanliness and safe food and water, during the Crimean War
(1853–1855). After the war, she collaborated with the British statistician
William Farr to study mortality rates in British hospitals. Using carefully col-
lected epidemiologic data, they were able to show that many deaths were
caused by communicable diseases, and they used this information to lobby for
further improvements in hospital sanitation.8
In his well-known epidemiologic studies conducted in the 1850s, the anes-
thesiologist John Snow investigated the occurrence of cholera in the Golden
Square area of London and deduced that the water supply coming from the
Broad Street pump was associated with development of the disease.9 Based on
his findings, Snow reportedly removed the handle of the water pump, thus end-
ing the cholera outbreak. John Snow is known as the “father” of field epidemiol-
ogy because his studies classically illustrate the use of the epidemiologic
principles used today to investigate and control outbreaks. It should be noted
that Jenner, Panum, Semmelweis, Nightingale, and Snow used imagination,
logic, and common sense to determine the most likely factors causing disease
and to develop preventive measures—and all worked before the French
chemist Louis Pasteur developed his germ theory in the late 1800s.
Any discussion of the evolution of epidemiology would be incomplete with-
out mentioning Robert Koch (1843–1910) who won the Nobel Prize for his
studies in microbiology. Among other things, Koch established techniques for
growing microorganisms in pure culture and studied the relationship between
Mycobacterium tuberculosis and tuberculosis (TB). He developed four postu-
lates, now known as Koch’s postulates, that he believed were necessary to
prove that an organism was the cause of a disease:
1. The organism must be associated with all cases of a given disease.
2. The organism must be isolated in pure culture from persons with that
disease.
3. When the pure culture is inoculated into a susceptible person or animal,
it must cause the same disease.
4. The organism must then be isolated in pure culture from the person or
animal infected by this inoculation.
Although Koch’s postulates cannot be used to establish the etiologic rela-
tionship of some organisms, such as viruses and noncultivable agents, to the
disease they are thought to cause, he created a scientific standard for estab-
lishing disease causation.10
THE MULTIFACTORIAL NATURE OF DISEASE
Etiologic Agents of Disease
The multifactorial nature of disease is now well recognized.11 That is, a dis-
ease cannot be attributed to any one factor because there is a complex interre-
lationship between various agents, a host, and the environment—a concept
known as the epidemiologic triangle.
Epidemiology was originally concerned with the study of infectious disease,
and thus the epidemiologic triangle of agent, host, and the environment is the
traditional model used to explain disease causation. Because the epidemio-
logic principles are now applied to the study of noninfectious conditions as
well, the concept of the causative agent has been expanded beyond biological
agents to include chemical and physical agents. Exhibit 1–1 provides examples
of the various etiologic agents of disease.
Biological Agents
Despite advances in medicine, more people die annually worldwide from
infectious diseases than from any other cause.2 Many of the agents noted
above as newly recognized or emerging since the 1970s have caused outbreaks
in the community and in healthcare facilities. Several well-known pathogens
have developed drug resistance and have caused serious epidemics: MRSA,
vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE), and multidrug-resistant and exten-
sively drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis.
The Multifactorial Nature of Disease 5
Exhibit 1–1 Examples of Etiologic Agents of Disease
Biological Agents Examples

Arthropods Sarcoptes (mites); Dermacentor, Amblyomma, and Ixodes
(ticks)
Bacteria Staphylococcus, Pseudomonas, Mycobacterium,
Campylobacter, Clostridium, Ehrlichia
Fungi Candida, Aspergillus, Cryptococcus, Histoplasmosis
Metazoa Trichinella; Necator and Ancylostoma (hookworm)
Prions Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(mad cow disease)
Protozoa Plasmodium (malaria), Cryptosporidium, Giardia,
Pneumocystis, Toxoplasma
Rickettsiae Rickettsia
Viruses Hepatitis, human immunodeficiency virus, herpes, influenza,
measles, norovirus, rotavirus
Chemical Agents Examples

Food additives Monosodium glutamate
Inorganic chemicals Heavy metals
Occupational exposure Industrial/laboratory reagents, silica, asbestos, latex
Organic chemicals Aldehydes (e.g., gluteraldehyde), disinfectants
Pesticides DDT, sterilants (e.g., ethylene oxide)
Pharmaceuticals Antibiotics, analgesics, psychotropics
Physical Agents Examples

Ionizing radiation X-rays
Light Ultraviolet, laser, lightning
Moving objects Cars, bicycles, bullets
Noise Music
Physical forces Repetitive motion, lifting, falls
Thermal extremes Heat, cold
Chemical Agents
Many chemical agents can cause adverse reactions in man. Personnel and
patients in healthcare facilities have developed dermatitis and other allergic
reactions following exposure to gluteraldehyde and latex, and patients have
experienced hearing loss after therapy with gentamycin.
Physical Agents
Physical agents such as heat, cold, electricity, light, or ionizing radiation
may cause injuries in the healthcare setting, For example, lasers have caused
burns when they malfunctioned during surgery, and ultraviolet light has
caused conjunctivitis in exposed personnel. Healthcare workers are also at
risk for back injuries from lifting patients and from percutaneous injuries
caused by needles and sharp instruments.
Host Factors Affecting Disease
Host factors are conditions that affect an individual’s risk of exposure and
resistance or susceptibility to disease. They include intrinsic factors such as
age, sex, genetic composition, or race. Age is one of the most important host
factors because it affects both risk of exposure and immunologic status. Fac-
tors that influence a person’s risk of exposure to disease-causing agents
include socioeconomic status, lifestyle behaviors, occupation, and marital sta-
tus. Factors that influence a person’s susceptibility or resistance to disease
include immunologic and nutritional status, underlying disease, severity of ill-
ness, and psychological state.
Environmental Factors Affecting Disease
Environmental factors are extrinsic factors that affect either the agent or a
person’s opportunity for exposure to the agent. Factors that affect a person’s
risk of exposure to nosocomial events include hospitalization or residing in a
long-term care facility. Crowding, sanitation, and living in a rural versus
urban area are all environmental factors. In some instances, it is difficult to
determine whether a particular factor should be classified as agent or environ-
ment. For instance, factors such as intravenous therapy, mechanical ventila-
tion, surgery, and invasive diagnostic procedures all affect a patient’s risk of
exposure to both biological and physical agents; these procedures are also
associated with the environment of health care.
Although the traditional epidemiologic triangle may not be appropriate for
illustrating disease causation in many noninfectious conditions, it can facili-
tate understanding of the many interrelated factors that affect the occurrence
of infectious diseases. This is an important concept that must be recognized
when investigating outbreaks of disease.
STUDY METHODS USED IN EPIDEMIOLOGY: THE FIVE Ws—

WHAT, WHO, WHERE, WHEN, AND WHY
Epidemiology is used to understand the causes of a disease (what) by study-

ing its distribution (who, where, and when) and its determinants (why). This
helps to characterize the natural history of a disease so that prevention and
control measures can be identified. Note that a major purpose of epidemiology
is to develop intervention and prevention programs rather than to find a cure.
Epidemiology is a population-based science. Many disciplines contribute to
the knowledge of human health and disease—the basic sciences (such as
microbiology and biochemistry), the clinical sciences (such as infectious dis-
eases, pediatrics, and internal medicine), and population medicine (such as
community medicine and public health)—and all are highly interrelated. The
major difference between clinical medicine and population medicine is that
Study Methods Used in Epidemiology 7
the former focuses on an individual person, such as a patient with a respira-

tory disease, while the latter focuses on the community as a whole, such as an
influenza outbreak. Epidemiology is a science of comparison and rates. The
epidemiologist looks for groups with high or low rates of disease so that rea-
sons for disease and freedom from disease can be postulated.
There are three types of epidemiologic studies: descriptive (or observational),
analytic, and experimental. Descriptive and analytic studies are used to
observe the natural course of events, such as an outbreak of food-borne illness
or the course of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) epidemic; however, in
an experimental study, the investigator studies the impact of varying some fac-
tor under his control (e.g., clinical trials of products or therapeutic agents).
Descriptive Epidemiology: Who, Where, and When
Descriptive studies are used to identify individuals and populations at

greatest risk of acquiring a disease, to determine clues as to the etiology of dis-
ease, and to predict disease occurrence through knowledge of association of a
disease with some risk factor. In descriptive epidemiology one studies the inci-
dence (rates) and distribution (population at risk) of disease. Data are orga-
nized according to the variables of person, place, and time to identify factors
that may be causally related to disease incidence.
Person
The major factors that affect a person’s risk of developing a disease include:
• Age—Age is considered the most important factor among the personal
variables because it affects one’s potential for exposure (e.g., school chil-
dren are exposed to childhood diseases and adults are exposed to occupa-
tional diseases), immune status (e.g., infants have poorly developed
immune systems; the elderly have decreased resistance to many infec-
tions), and mental and physical condition (e.g., the elderly are generally
more prone to falls than the young).
• Sex—Males have higher incidence rates for some diseases and conditions
than females (e.g., HIV infection) while females have higher rates for oth-
ers (e.g., breast cancer).
• Socioeconomic status—Variables such as social class, occupation, lifestyle,
educational level, and family income affect nutritional status, travel,
access to health care, and environmental living and working conditions—
all of which influence a person’s susceptibility or resistance to disease and
risk of exposure to various agents and physical injury.
• Ethnic and racial groups—Cultural and religious differences can affect a
person’s risk of exposure to various agents, such as types of food eaten
and methods of preparing it.12
• Genetic variables—Variables associated with genetic composition can
affect susceptibility to some diseases, such as sickle cell, Tay-Sachs, and
Kaposi’s sarcoma.
Place
Depending on the event being studied, place may be characterized by birth-
place, residence, school, hospital unit, place of employment, restaurant, and so
on. One can use political boundaries such as country, state, city, county, or
parish, or natural boundaries such as mountains, valleys, or watersheds. Some
diseases are associated with the place where they were first recognized, such
as Lyme disease with a town in Connecticut.
In the healthcare setting, surveillance data are usually collected and ana-
lyzed by the number of cases or the incidence rates in a specific place or area
(e.g., the incidence of central line-associated bloodstream infections in an
intensive care unit (ICU), intravenous therapy-related phlebitis on 3 West; or
resident falls in the North Wing).
Many health departments use counties, census tracts, and ZIP codes to
report statistics on injuries, illnesses, or communicable diseases (Table 1–1).
Those responsible for infection control and other quality management pro-
grams in healthcare facilities should use this type of information to identify
populations at risk for disease. Because exposure to many infectious diseases
occurs both in the healthcare setting (through infected patients, residents, vis-
itors, or personnel) and in the community (through infected relatives, friends,
co-workers, classmates, etc.), outbreaks in healthcare facilities often reflect
what is occurring locally. For example, community outbreaks of pertussis,
chickenpox, rotavirus, TB, and influenza have caused simultaneous outbreaks
in area hospitals and long-term care facilities.13–16 In addition, community dis-
ease profiles should be used to conduct an assessment of the risk of healthcare
workers’ exposure to diseases such as TB.17
Table 1–1 Maryland Tuberculosis Incidence—New Cases and Rates per 100,000
Population by Geographic Area (2004–2007)
Jurisdiction 2004 2005 2006 2007

High-Incidence
Jurisdictions (6) Cases Rate Cases Rate Cases Rate Cases Rate
Montgomery 93 10.0 81 8.8 62 6.7 82 8.8
Baltimore City 58 9.1 68 10.6 35 5.5 47 7.4
Prince George’s 72 8.6 57 6.7 72 8.5 66 7.9
Baltimore County 31 4.0 20 2.6 17 2.2 31 3.9
Anne Arundel 6 1.2 15 2.9 19 3.7 9 1.8
Howard 14 5.2 12 4.5 6 2.2 11 4.0
Remaining 40 2.5 30 1.8 42 2.6 24 1.5
Counties (18)
Statewide 314 5.6 283 5.1 253 4.5 270 4.8
Source: Adapted from Maryland Tuberculosis Incidence: New Cases and Rates per 100,000 Popula-
tion by Geographic Area and Demographic Features (1998–2007). Maryland Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene, Office of Epidemiology and Disease Control Programs, Division of TB Control.
http://edcp.org/tb/pdf/TB_Rate_Table.xls. Accessed February 22, 2008.
Time
Surveillance data are collected and analyzed over time for evidence of
change in the incidence of an event (such as healthcare-associated infections
or medication errors). These data are often shown on a graph with the number
of cases or the incidence rate on the vertical axis ( y-axis) and time on the hor-
izontal axis (x-axis) (Figure 1–1). The time periods depicted on the x-axis may
be hours, days, weeks, months, quarters, or years, depending on the event
described.
Epidemic period. An epidemic is the occurrence of more cases of disease
than expected in a given area or population over a specified period of time. For
some diseases, a graph of an epidemic period, called an epidemic curve, can be
used to provide insight into the time of exposure, the mode of transmission,
and the agent causing the outbreak (Figure 1–2). Information on constructing
and using epidemic curves can be found in Chapters 8 and 12.
Secular (long-term) trends. Surveillance data can be graphed over a period
of years to show trends occurring over long periods of time. This information
can be used to monitor the efficacy of infection prevention and control and per-
formance improvement programs in healthcare facilities and in the public
health sector. For example, Figure 1–3, a graph of the incidence of TB reported
in the United States for the period 1982 through 2006 illustrates the increas-
ing incidence that occurred in the late 1980s and early 1990s and the decline
that followed through 2006.18 According to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, factors that were associated with the resurgence of TB included
the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)/HIV epidemic; immigration
of persons from countries where incidence rates are 10–30 times higher than
in the United States; transmission of TB in settings such as hospitals, homeless
Central line-associated bloodstream infection rate, Intensive Care

Unit, by quarter, Jan. 2005–Dec. 2007
9
Rate per 1,000 central line-days
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Q
Q
1-
2-
3-
4-
1-
2-
3-
4-
1-
2-
3-
4-
05
05
05
05
06
06
06
06
07
07
07
07
Quarter-Year
Figure 1–1 Surveillance Data Showing Infection Rates Over Time.

10
9
8
7
6
Number
5
4
3
2
1
0
16 23 30 6 13 20
May June
Date
*N = 34
Figure 1–2 Epidemic Curve of a Measles Outbreak, Indiana, May–June, 2005.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Impact-Associated Measles Outbreak—Indiana, May–June
2005. MMWR. October 28, 2005; 54: 1073–1075. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5442a1.htm
shelters, and prisons; and declines in resources for TB control.19 The down-
ward trend that began in 1993 has been attributed to the implementation of
stronger TB control programs that emphasize prompt identification of persons
with TB, initiation of appropriate therapy, and completion of therapy.20
Seasonal occurrence. Some diseases have a characteristic seasonal pattern.
For instance, in the United States the common cold caused by rhinovirus in
adults occurs most frequently in the fall, and chickenpox occurs most frequently
in winter and early spring. In temperate climates, outbreaks of influenza gener-
ally occur in winter. Information such as this can be used to recognize the possi-
ble causative agent of an outbreak of respiratory disease in a healthcare facility
and to target the timing of influenza immunization campaigns.
Analytic Epidemiology: Why
When conducting an outbreak investigation, descriptive epidemiology is

used to describe the outbreak or the cluster of events (i.e., the population
involved, the time, and the place), and then rates can be calculated to identify
the population with the highest rate of disease. The next step in the investiga-
Reported TB Cases*
United States, 1982–2006
28,000
26,000
NUmber of cases
24,000
22,000
20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
0
1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006
Year
*Updated as of April 6, 2007.
Figure 1–3 Graph Depicting Secular Trend of Tuberculosis from 1982 Through 2006
in the United States.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reported Tuberculosis in the United States 2006. Atlanta,
GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, September 2007: 86. http://www.cdc.gov/tb/surv
tion is to use analytic methods to search for a probable cause by mathemati-

cally comparing risk factors (attack rates) between the population with the
disease and the population without the disease. The statistical methods used
are discussed in Chapter 10.
Two important concepts used in analytic epidemiology are cause and associ-
ation. A cause is a factor that directly influences the occurrence of a disease.
Reduction or elimination of the causative factor in a population will reduce or
eliminate the occurrence of the disease in that population. An association is a
statistical relationship between two or more variables.
It is commonly said that one cannot use statistics to prove that a particular
factor caused an event. Therefore, when a population with a particular charac-
teristic is more likely to develop a disease than a population without that
characteristic, the characteristic is said to be associated with the occurrence of
the disease.21 In analytic epidemiology, the results of observational studies are
analyzed to determine (1) if an association exists between a factor (exposure)
and a disease and (2) the strength of that association if one does exist.
There are three types of statistical associations:
1. Artefactual, or spurious—A false association that occurs from chance
alone or from some bias in the study method (this is also known as a
type I error)
2. Indirect, or noncausal—An association that occurs between a factor and

a disease only because both are related to some underlying condition
3. Causal—Factor A truly causes B. This occurs if, and only if, A occurs
prior to B; a change in A correlates to a change in B; and this correlation
is not the consequence of both A and B being correlated with some
prior C.
Criteria for Judging Causality

The following criteria provide a basis for judging if an association is causal
(i.e., the suspected factor is the likely cause of the event)22:
1. Strength of association—The prevalence of disease is higher in the
exposed group than in the nonexposed group.
2. Dose-response relationship—There is a quantitative relationship bet-
ween the factor and the frequency of disease. For example, those with
the most exposure to the agent have the greatest frequency or severity
of illness.
3. Consistency of association—The findings are reproducible; they have
been confirmed by different investigators in different populations.
4. Chronological relationship—Exposure to the factor precedes the onset of
disease. This criterion obviously must be met in order for a factor to be
able to cause a disease.
5. Specificity of association—If the factor occurs, disease can be predicted.
6. Biologically plausible—The findings are coherent with existing informa-
tion. They are acceptable in light of current knowledge.
Establishing Causal Relations

Two types of observational studies are used to determine causal relations:
case-control and cohort. Case-control studies compare groups of people who
have a disease (the cases) with groups from the same population who do not
have the disease (the controls). Cohort studies compare groups of people based
on their exposures to specific risk factors. In a cohort study the disease rate in
the exposed group is compared with the disease rate in the unexposed group.
The case-control study. The case-control study is the most commonly used
method for testing causal associations when investigating outbreaks in the
healthcare setting. In a case-control study, cases are identified (i.e., persons
identified as having a disease or condition) and compared with controls (i.e.,
persons from the same population who do not have the disease or condition).
Case-control studies can be used to investigate outbreaks of either infectious
or noninfectious events.23,24 A statistical analysis is conducted to determine if
the two groups differ in the proportion of persons who were exposed to a spe-
cific factor.
A case-control study is a retrospective method because it compares cases
and controls to an exposure that has already occurred. For example, the micro-
biology laboratory in a hospital reports to the infection prevention and control
department that it has isolated Burkholderia cepacia from the respiratory
secretions of seven patients in the ICU in the past month. A review of micro-
biology reports for the previous 6 months reveals only one prior isolate of B.
cepacia. Despite reinforcement of appropriate handwashing practices, the
organism is isolated from the respiratory tract of two more patients in the
ICU in the next 2 weeks. A case-control study could be designed to evaluate
exposures among cases (those from whom B. cepacia is isolated) and controls
(patients in the ICU at the same time as the cases but who do not have a posi-
tive culture for B. cepacia) in order to determine which risk factors (exposures)
are associated with the occurrence of B. cepacia.
Information on designing, conducting, analyzing, and interpreting a case-
control study can be found in Chapter 10.
The cohort study. In a cohort study, a defined group of individuals (a cohort)
is studied to determine if specified exposures result in disease. Cohort studies
may be conducted prospectively or retrospectively. A prospective cohort study
begins with a group of subjects who are free of a given disease. The cohort is
divided into groups, one of which is exposed to a potential risk factor and one
of which is not. These are then followed over time (prospectively) to determine
if there are differences in the rates at which disease develops in relation to the
risk factor. The Framingham Heart Study, conducted by the National Heart,
Lung, and Blood Institute in Massachusetts, is a well-known example of a
long-term prospective study. Some of the subjects in this study have been fol-
lowed for almost 40 years.25
By contrast, a retrospective cohort study can be used to analyze an outbreak
in a small, well-defined population. For example, many of the 29 attendees of a
luncheon at a long-term care facility are reported to have developed nausea,
vomiting, and abdominal cramps within a 5-hour period following the lun-
cheon. A few have diarrhea. A case definition for gastrointestinal illness
should be developed and, using the methodology of a cohort study, the 29
attendees could be identified and questioned to determine whether or not they
had become ill after attending the luncheon. An attack rate (the percentage of
persons who became ill) could then be calculated. If the investigator found
that 11 persons fit the case definition, this would be an attack rate of 38 % (11
ill out of 29 total attendees × 100). Since it is unusual for 38% of the attendees
at a meal to develop these symptoms in such a short time period, it would be
possible to develop a preliminary hypothesis that the attendees may have
developed an acute food-borne illness following the consumption of a contami-
nated food or beverage at the luncheon. At this point, a retrospective cohort
study could be designed to investigate possible associations between expo-
sures to specific foods and the development of a gastrointestinal illness, as dis-
cussed in Chapter 10.
Experimental studies. Experimental studies are not used in the investiga-
tion of outbreaks, and they will not be covered in this text. However, infection
prevention and control professionals, hospital epidemiologists, and quality
management personnel frequently need to review published experimental
studies before making decisions about the merits of a new device, product, or
procedure. Therefore, they must be familiar with the principles, problems, and
pitfalls in the design and interpretation of experimental studies. For informa-
tion on conducting and interpreting experimental studies, refer to the Suggested
Reading list at the end of this chapter. In addition, many articles about criti-
cally reviewing the results of clinical trials have been published, and several
of these are listed in the reference section.26–29
THE EPIDEMIOLOGY OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Because most outbreak investigations in healthcare facilities involve infec-

tious diseases, this section will describe the spectrum of disease, explain the
infectious disease process, and illustrate how these affect the surveillance,
prevention, and control of infections.
The Infectious Disease Spectrum
By definition, a disease is an illness that is “characterized usually by at

least two of these criteria: recognized etiologic agent(s), identifiable group of
signs and symptoms, or consistent anatomical alterations.”30
As illustrated in Figure 1–4, most diseases have a characteristic natural
history, or progression, from onset to resolution unless medical intervention
occurs. Although this concept applies to both infectious and noninfectious con-
ditions, this discussion will focus on infectious diseases. Because not all infec-
tions result in disease (i.e., signs and symptoms), conducting an outbreak
investigation requires familiarity with the natural history of a disease in
order to identify persons who may be infected. If an outbreak is caused by an
agent that frequently causes inapparent infection, many infected persons may
be missed if an active search for cases is not conducted.
The infectious disease spectrum can be divided into three classes of infection:
(1) infection is frequently inapparent, (2) infection results in clinical disease that
is rarely fatal, and (3) infection results in severe disease that is usually fatal.
Frequently Inapparent Infection
Agents. Agents that often cause inapparent or subclinical infection include

the hepatitis A, B, and C viruses, M. tuberculosis, polio virus, N. gonorrhea in
females, Chlamydia trachomatis, HIV, many nontyphoid strains of Salmo-
nella, and cytomegalovirus.
USUAL TIME
OF DIAGNOSIS
PATHOLOGIC ONSET OF
EXPOSURE CHANGES SYMPTOMS
STAGE OF STAGE OF STAGE OF STAGE OF RECOVERY,

SUSCEPTIBILITY SUBCLINICAL DISEASE CLINICAL DISEASE DISABILITY, OR DEATH
Figure 1–4 The Natural History of Disease.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Principles of Epidemiology: An Introduction to Applied
Epidemiology and Biostatistics. 2nd ed. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology Program Office; 1992:43.
The Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases 15
Infection control/public health significance of inapparent infections.

Because they have no signs and symptoms, most persons with an inapparent
infection will not be identified, even though many may be able to spread the
infectious agent to others. Because only a small percentage of those infected (the
tip of the iceberg) develop clinical disease, only a few will seek medical attention.
Therefore, an even smaller percentage are likely to be hospitalized and/or
reported. Statistics on these types of infections are likely to be inaccurate because
the number of cases diagnosed and reported will be less than the true number.
If an outbreak is caused by an agent that rarely causes signs and symptoms,
it is necessary to actively search for cases by utilizing the appropriate diagnos-
tic tests, such as serologic tests for the hepatitis viruses, stool cultures for Sal-
monella, and skin tests for M. tuberculosis, in order to identify infected
persons. If diagnostic tests are necessary, the laboratory should be consulted
in the early stages of an outbreak investigation to ensure that the correct tests
and specimen collection procedures are used, as discussed in Chapter 11.
Contact tracing (i.e., finding and treating the contacts of infectious persons)
is a public health method used to control the spread of these types of dis-
eases. Contacts are persons who are exposed to an infectious individual in
such a way that infection is likely to occur. For instance, healthcare workers
with prolonged unprotected exposure to a patient subsequently found to be
infectious for M. tuberculosis would be identified as a contact and tested to
detect infection.
Carriers are persons who have no signs and symptoms but are infectious.
These cases are important from an infection control standpoint because they
may unwittingly spread their infection to others.
Because patients with inapparent infection may be infectious, healthcare
workers may transfer organisms from one patient to another, or to themselves,
if they do not properly follow standard precautions. It is important to remem-
ber that not everyone who has an inapparent infection is infectious. For exam-
ple, most people who are infected with M. tuberculosis develop a latent
infection and will usually test positive by tuberculin skin test or blood assay,
but they are not infectious and cannot spread the infection to others.17(p113)
Infection Resulting in Rarely Fatal Clinical Disease
Agents. Agents that typically cause clinical disease in those who become
infected include the measles and chickenpox viruses and rhinovirus.
Infection control/public health significance. Most persons with measles
or chickenpox can be identified clinically. Nevertheless, diagnostic tests should
be used to confirm the diagnosis of measles because it is uncommonly seen in
the United States (due to a highly immunized population), and many clini-
cians are not familiar with its presentation.
Infection Resulting in Usually Fatal Severe Disease
Agents. Agents that cause severe infection that is invariably fatal if not
treated include the rabies virus, Clostridium tetani, and HIV. Infection
with HIV is unique in that it presents with a long subclinical phase in which
infection is inapparent and then develops into AIDS. Therefore HIV can be
placed into two of the three classes in the infectious disease spectrum.
Infection control/public health significance. Statistics on incidence rates
for these diseases are more accurate than the other two classes because these
infections are more likely to be reported and can also be detected by surveil-
lance systems that compile data from death certificates.
The Infectious Disease Process: The Chain of Infection
Certain conditions must be met in order for an infectious disease to be

spread from person to person. This process, called the chain of infection, can
occur only when all elements are present (Figure 1–5). For the infectious dis-
ease process to occur, an infectious agent must leave a reservoir through a por-
tal of exit, be conveyed by an appropriate mode of transmission, and find a
suitable portal of entry into a susceptible host. If an outbreak occurs, one must
know or determine the likely chain of infection in order to identify effective
control measures.
Infectious Agents
When an outbreak of unknown etiology occurs, it is important to remember
that a variety of agents can produce similar clinical syndromes. For instance,
an outbreak of diarrhea may be caused by a variety of biological agents, such
as viruses, parasites, or bacteria; however, it could also be caused by a chemi-
cal agent such as a heavy metal or a toxin. Inherent characteristics of biologi-
cal agents that affect their ability to cause disease are discussed in the
following sections.
Figure 1–5 The Chain of Infection

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Principles of Epidemiology: An Introduction to Applied
Epidemiology and Biostatistics. 2nd ed. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemiology Program Office; 1992:45.
Infectious dose. This is the number of organisms needed to cause infection;

generally speaking, the larger the dose of infective microorganisms, the
greater the chance that infection will result. For example, infection with Cox-
iella burnetii, the rickettsia that causes Q fever, can occur by inhaling only one
organism. It is usually necessary to ingest 100–1000 Salmonella organisms to
cause infection31(p412); however, only a few Shigella (10–100 organisms) are
needed for infection to occur.31(p422) In many food-borne outbreaks, persons who
eat a large quantity of a contaminated food are more likely to develop symp-
toms than those who eat a small quantity because those who eat a greater
amount are more likely to have ingested an infectious dose.
Invasiveness. This is the ability of an organism to enter the body and spread
through tissue. Examples include the rabies virus, which has a predilection for
the brain. Even if it enters the body through the leg, such as from a dog bite,
the rabies virus can spread through tissue to reach the brain.
Infectivity. This is the ability of an agent to initiate and maintain infection.
Examples include the chickenpox virus, exposure to which generally results in
infection in a susceptible host.32 By contrast, for Treponema pallidum, the
causative agent of syphilis, only approximately 30% of exposures result in
infection.31(p451)
Pathogenicity. This is the capacity of an agent to cause disease in a suscepti-
ble host. For example, the measles virus is highly pathogenic, and almost all
persons who become infected will develop a rash, whereas Enterococcus fae-
calis, which is commonly found in the intestinal tract of man, rarely causes
disease in a normal host and is considered to have low pathogenicity.
Virulence. This is the degree of pathogenicity of an infectious agent: the abil-
ity to cause severe disease or death. Virulence is a complex property that com-
bines infectivity, invasiveness, and pathogenicity. For example, although
measles is highly pathogenic (it easily causes disease in a susceptible person),
it is not very virulent, because it rarely causes severe disease.33 However, the
rabies virus is both highly pathogenic (it causes disease in all who are
infected) and extremely deadly, or virulent.34
Antigenic variation. This is the ability of an agent to change its antigenic
components that are responsible for the specificity of immunity resulting from
infection with that agent. For example, influenza A periodically modifies its
antigenic structure.35 This allows the virus to spread more easily through a
population that does not have immunity to the new variant. For this reason,
the influenza vaccine is modified yearly to protect against those strains of
virus that are expected to be prevalent, and one must be immunized annually
in order to obtain maximum protection.35
Viability in the free state. This is the ability of an organism to live outside of
a host. For example, the hepatitis B virus (HBV) can survive for at least 7 days
on inanimate surfaces at room temperature.36 For this reason, environmental
surfaces and fomites may very well be reservoirs for transmission in an out-
break of hepatitis B. Other organisms, such as HIV, Neisseria meningitidis,
and Neisseria gonorrhoeae, are sensitive to air and will not survive for long on
a dry surface, and the tubercle bacillus is readily killed by sunlight. Therefore,
fomites are less important in the transmission of these organisms. (This
explains why it is unlikely that one can catch a sexually transmitted disease
from the often-maligned toilet seat.) Some organisms produce spores that may
resist heat and drying—spores of Bacillus anthracis may remain infective for
many years in contaminated soil and articles.
Host specificity. Some agents are species specific, and others will infect more
than one species. For example, the measles virus, poliovirus, Neisseria gonor-
rhoeae, and Treponema pallidum infect only humans; other agents may infect
many species. There are numerous serotypes of Salmonella that infect
humans, other mammals, reptiles, and birds. In some cases, one can hypothe-
size a likely source of an outbreak if the organism and serotype are known. For
instance, since humans are the reservoir for Salmonella typhi, one would look
for a carrier or for a water or food source contaminated by human feces when
investigating an outbreak caused by this organism. An outbreak caused by
Salmonella enteritidis, however, would suggest a food-borne source because
this organism infects both man and poultry, and outbreaks are commonly
associated with consumption of raw or undercooked eggs.
Ability to develop resistance to antimicrobials. Some organisms develop
resistance to multiple antibiotics while others remain fairly sensitive; predis-
posing factors and genetic predilection for developing resistance differs from
genus to genus. For example: Streptococcus pyogenes (group A strep) has
remained sensitive to penicillin, but Streptococcus pneumoniae has become
increasingly resistant to penicillin and other antimicrobial agents. Staphylo-
coccus aureus developed resistance to penicillin and to methicillin shortly
after these antibiotics were introduced. MRSA, VRE, and antibiotic-resistant
strains of gram-negative organisms, such as Pseudomonas, Acinetobacter, and
the Enterobacteriaceae (especially Klebsiella, Serratia, and Enterobacter) are
common causes of healthcare-associated infections in hospitals and long-term
care facilities.
Immunogenicity. This is the ability of an agent to stimulate an immuno-
genic response. For example, infection with some agents will stimulate the
production of antibodies that confer immunity. Some organisms, such as the
measles, chickenpox, and HBV, promote a strong immunogenic response that
generally results in long-term immunity to each specific disease. Organisms
that stimulate a protective immune response are good candidates for vaccine
development. Other agents, such as Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia tra-
chomatis, are poorly immunogenic, and reinfection can occur when a person is
reexposed.
Reservoirs
The reservoir is the normal habitat in which an infectious agent lives, mul-
tiplies, and grows. Reservoirs for infectious agents exist in humans, animals,
and the environment—any of these reservoirs may serve as the source of
infection for a susceptible host. Viruses need a living reservoir (human, plant,
or animal) to grow and multiply. Gram-positive bacteria such as Staphylococcus
and Streptococcus grow well in a human reservoir but poorly in the environ-
ment. Gram-negative bacteria may have a human, animal, or environmental

reservoir.
The terms reservoir and source are frequently used interchangeably; how-
ever, they may not be the same. A reservoir is the place where an organism
normally lives and reproduces, and the source is the place from which an
organism is transmitted to a host through some means of transmission. Some-
times the reservoir and source are the same (e.g., in an outbreak of chickenpox
the reservoir and the source of the outbreak may be the same person), and
sometimes they are different (e.g., water is a reservoir for Pseudomonas aerug-
inosa that may contaminate a bronchoscope that then becomes the source of
an outbreak of respiratory tract infections). This difference may be important
if one is investigating an outbreak and is trying to identify the source so con-
trol measures can be implemented. The inanimate environment, especially flu-
ids, can become contaminated from a reservoir and can serve as the source of
an outbreak in the healthcare setting (e.g., intravenous solutions contami-
nated with Enterobacter; hand lotion contaminated with Serratia; eggnog
made with unpasteurized eggs harboring Salmonella).
Human reservoirs. There are three types of human reservoirs: carriers, colo-
nized persons, and persons who are ill.
1. Carriers—Carriers are persons who are infected but who have no overt
signs and symptoms, yet are able to transmit their infection to others.
Carriers are potential sources of infection for others, especially because
they usually do not know they are infectious and do not take precautions
to prevent the spread of their infection to others. There are several types
of carriers:
• Those whose infection is inapparent throughout its course—Also
known as subclinical infection, an example is hepatitis A infection,
which in children is typically mild or inapparent, and jaundice is not a
common manifestation. Hepatitis A spreads easily among children in
the day care setting and on pediatric units because symptoms, if any,
are so slight that little attention is paid to them. Outbreaks in these
settings are frequently recognized only after parents or healthcare
providers become infected and develop clinical disease.
• Those who are in the incubatory stage—These are persons who are
infected and are infectious but have not yet developed signs and
symptoms. For example, a susceptible person who was exposed to
chickenpox may have become infected and may be infectious 48 hours
before the eruption of chickenpox32; because he does not know he is
infectious, he does not limit contact with others and unwittingly
spreads his infection to others.
• Those who are in the convalescent phase—These are persons who con-
tinue to be infectious during and after return to health. Those who
continue to harbor agents for a prolonged period of time are said to be
chronic carriers. For example, approximately 10% of untreated per-
sons infected with Salmonella typhi will continue to excrete bacilli for
3 months after onset of symptoms and 2–5% will become permanent
carriers.31(p504)
2. Those who are colonized—These are persons who harbor an infectious

agent but who do not have an infection. A person who is colonized with
an infectious agent is a reservoir and may serve as the source of infec-
tion for that organism by transmitting it to another person, either by
(1) direct contact, (2) by indirect contact with inanimate objects or envi-
ronmental surfaces, or (3) by transferring the organism to another site
on their own body. For example, approximately 20–30% of healthy per-
sons carry Staphylococcus aureus (coagulase-positive staphylococci) in
their anterior nares. These organisms can be transmitted to others or
can be inoculated into a break in one’s own skin. Autoinfection is
thought to be responsible for at least one third of staphylococcal infec-
tions.31(p430) Many patients in hospitals and residents of long-term care
facilities become colonized with antibiotic-resistant organisms, such as
MRSA and VRE, and can serve as the source of infection for others if
routine infection prevention measures such as hand hygiene and envi-
ronmental cleanliness are not properly followed.
3. Those who are ill. These are persons who are infected and have signs
and symptoms of disease. Because their illness is apparent and precau-
tions can be taken to prevent transmission to others, acute clinical cases
are probably less likely to spread their infection to others than those
who are carriers or who are colonized. For example, if a resident in a
long-term care facility develops diarrhea caused by Clostridium difficile,
precautions such as hand hygiene and environmental disinfection can
be implemented to prevent the transmission of the organism to other
residents.
Animal reservoirs. As shown in Table 1–2, animals may serve as reservoirs
for many agents that infect humans.31,37–40 An animal may be a carrier, such as
a chicken with Salmonella, or may be clinically infected, such as a cat with
ringworm. Many food-borne outbreaks in the healthcare setting have been
associated with animal reservoirs—most notably, outbreaks caused by Salmo-
nella species from eggs, poultry, and other meats. Infectious agents may be
transmitted directly from an animal to man (such as Pasteurella multocida
transferred from the mouth of a cat to man by a cat bite), or they may be car-
ried by an insect vector (such as Borrelia burgdorferi, the causative agent of
Lyme disease, which is transmitted by a tick bite).
The author found no published accounts of outbreaks associated with animal-
assisted activities or resident animals in healthcare facilities and few studies
that evaluate the potential risk of transmission of zoonoses in the healthcare
setting.37,40 Personnel who work in facilities that have animal programs
should be aware of the agents that can be transmitted from animals to
patients or to residents and should ensure that appropriate precautions are
taken by those in charge of the pets.40,41 There is a report of an outbreak of
Malassezia pachydermatis in an intensive care nursery that was associated
with the colonization of healthcare workers’ pet dogs at home42 and an out-
break of surgical site infections caused by Rhodococcus bronchialis that was
thought to be associated with a colonized nurse whose dogs were also colo-
nized with Rhodococcus.43
Table 1–2 Diseases Transmitted from Animal Reservoirs to Humans (Zoonoses)
Disease Causative Agent Animal Reservoir(s) Mode of Transmission

Anthrax Bacillus anthracis Herbivores, especially Inhalation of spores
sheep and goats from contaminated soil,
wool, bones, or hides
Avian Influenza viruses Swine, poultry Close contact with
influenza animals
Brucellosis Brucella species Cattle, swine, sheep, Contact with blood,
goats, and dogs urine, and tissues (esp.
placentas and aborted
fetuses); ingestion of
raw milk and dairy
products
Hantavirus Hantaviruses Rats, mice Contact with urine and
pulmonary feces from infected
syndrome rodents
Hookworm Ancylostoma species Cats, dogs Contact with larva
(from feces) in soil
Pasteurellosis Pasteurella multocida, Cats, dogs Animal bite
P. haemolytica
Plague Yersinia pestis Wild rodents Bite of infected flea;
(especially ground contact with tissues of
squirrels) infected animals
Psittacosis Chlamydia psittaci Psittacine birds Inhalation of agent from
(parrots, parakeets); desiccated feces,
poultry contaminated dust, or
feathers
Ringworm Trichophyton species, Cats, dogs, cattle Direct or indirect
Microsporum species contact with infected
animals
Rabies Rabies virus Skunks, raccoons, Direct contact with
bats, dogs, coyotes, saliva of infected
foxes, jackals, wolves, animal; corneal
transplants from
infected person
Salmonellosis Many Salmonella Poultry, swine, cattle, Ingestion of organisms
species rodents, reptiles (esp. in food; fecal-oral
iguanas, turtles, and transmission
snakes), cats, dogs,
hedgehogs
Toxocariasis Toxocara canis, Dogs, cats Ingestion of Toxocara
T. cati eggs from the
environment
Table 1–2 (Continued )
Disease Causative Agent Animal Reservoir(s) Mode of Transmission

Toxoplasmosis Toxoplasma gondii Cats and other felines Direct contact with
are definitive hosts; feces; ingestion of raw
sheep, swine, rodents, or undercooked meat
cattle, and birds may be
intermediate hosts
Tularemia Francisella tularensis Rabbits, hares, Direct contact with
muskrats, beavers, infected animal tissue
hard ticks (especially when
skinning and process-
ing meat of infected
animals); ingestion of
undercooked meat or
contaminated water;
tick bite
Environmental reservoirs. Water and soil are the primary environmental

reservoirs for many agents that are pathogenic for man. Pseudomonas,
Legionellae, Cryptosporidium, and some Mycobacterium species live and mul-
tiply in water.40 Therefore, an aqueous source or reservoir should be consid-
ered when investigating an outbreak or cluster of infections caused by one of
these organisms.40 Aspergillus, Histoplasma, Blastomyces, Cryptococcus, and
Coccidioides are fungi that live in the environment in soil or in decaying
organic matter, and infection with these fungi occurs through inhalation. Out-
breaks of Aspergillus in healthcare facilities are frequently associated with
disruptions in the physical plant that occur during construction, demolition,
and renovation.40
Portals of Exit
The portal of exit is the path by which an infectious agent leaves its host.
The portals of exit and entry for an agent usually correspond to the site in
which infection occurs in the body. Agents may leave their human or animal
hosts through several portals:
• Respiratory tract—Diseases that are caused by agents released through
the respiratory tract include the common cold, TB, influenza, chickenpox,
measles, meningococcal disease, pneumococcal disease, infectious
mononucleosis, diphtheria, mumps, rubella, and pertussis.44
• Genitourinary tract—Diseases of the genital tract that are spread
through sexual contact include chlamydia, syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes,
lymphogranuloma venereum, and granuloma inguinale.44 HIV and HBV
are blood-borne pathogens that may also be spread through semen and
vaginal secretions.44 Many types of organisms, both gram positive and
gram negative, can cause urinary tract infections, especially in a catheter-

ized patient, and will be excreted in the urine. Cytomegalovirus is also
shed in the urine and in cervical secretions.44
• Gastrointestinal tract—Agents that cause gastrointestinal infections and
are excreted in feces include Salmonella, Shigella, Clostridium difficile,
hepatitis A virus, Vibrio cholerae, poliovirus, Campylobacter, Giardia
lamblia, Yersinia enterocolitica, norovirus, rotavirus, Escherichia coli, and
the many viral agents that cause acute gastroenteritis.44
• Skin and mucous membranes—Organisms that are shed by the skin or
mucous membranes include Herpes simplex from an oral, skin, or genital
lesion; Treponema pallidum from a syphilitic lesion or rash; Staphylococ-
cus aureus from a skin lesion or wound infection; and the many viral and
bacterial agents that cause conjunctivitis.
• Blood—Organisms that are found in blood include HIV, HBV, hepatitis C
virus, cytomegalovirus, Treponema pallidum, and Plasmodium species
(malaria).44
• Transplacental route—Agents that may be transferred from mother to
infant across the placenta include the rubella virus, cytomegalovirus, Trep-
onema pallidum, HBV, HIV, and Toxoplasma gondii.44
Modes of Transmission
Because microorganisms cannot travel on their own, several modes of trans-
mission facilitate the movement of an agent from its reservoir to a susceptible
host. These may be classified as one of three modes of transmission: direct,
indirect, and airborne.
Direct transmission. This implies immediate transmission of an infectious
agent to an appropriate portal of entry (i.e., one through which infection can
occur). Direct transmission can occur through touching, kissing, and sexual
intercourse. Direct transmission can also occur through droplet spread.
Droplets produced during coughing, talking, sneezing, spitting, or singing may
contain infectious agents that can be carried for a short distance to reach the
conjunctiva or mucous membranes of the nose or mouth of a susceptible host.
Droplet spread is considered to be direct transmission because two people
must be in close proximity for transmission to occur.45 The meningococcus,
pneumococcus, influenza virus, rhinovirus, and group A streptococcus are
spread by the droplet route.
Indirect transmission. Transmission by the indirect route involves an inter-
mediary (inanimate or animate) that carries the agent from the source to a sus-
ceptible host.45 Agents can be vehicle borne, which occurs when an inanimate
object (fomite) serves as a means of transmission. Vehicles in the healthcare
setting include food, water, surgical instruments, medical devices and equip-
ment, intravenous fluids, and blood and blood products. Some agents actively
grow and multiply in the vehicle, and some can produce toxins in the vehicle.
For example, Pseudomonas species readily grow and multiply in fluids; S.
aureus produces an enterotoxin in contaminated foods; and other agents just
passively hitch a ride, such as hepatitis A virus in a contaminated salad and
M. tuberculosis on a contaminated bronchoscope. In addition to inanimate

vehicles, many agents that cause healthcare-associated infections and out-
breaks in healthcare settings are frequently carried on the hands of health-
care workers who transfer the organisms to a person from an object or another
person.
Indirect transmission can also be vector borne. Vectors are animate interme-
diaries that carry an infectious agent from host to host. Most vectors are
arthropods such as flies, mosquitoes, fleas, lice, and ticks. Insects can transfer
organisms by mechanical means (e.g., flies have been shown to carry patho-
genic organisms on their feet) or they may be involved in the multiplication or
life cycle development of the agent (e.g., Plasmodium species multiply in the
Anopheles mosquito, which injects the organism into humans through a bite).
Airborne transmission. This occurs when microbial aerosols are suspended

in air and reach the respiratory tract of a susceptible host.17,45 Particles that
are between 1 and 5 microns in size are easily inhaled and can bypass the
defenses of the upper respiratory tract to be deposited in the alveoli where
they grow and multiply. There are two types of aerosols:
• Small particles—Small particles can carry infective agents such as

Aspergillus conidia from decaying matter and the Sin Nombre virus (a
hantavirus) which is thought to be aerosolized from rodent excreta in
soil.39
• Droplet nuclei—These are the dried residue of exhaled droplets; they can
remain suspended for long periods of time and can be carried on air cur-
rents. Droplet nuclei can also be produced by medical procedures such as
bronchoscopy and suctioning of the respiratory tract. Chickenpox,
measles, and TB are spread by the airborne route in droplet nuclei.45
Portals of Entry
The portals of entry are similar to the portals of exit described above.
Organisms require a specific portal of entry in order to cause infection. If they
do not reach this specific portal of entry, they will not be able to establish an
infection. For example, enteric pathogens are agents that are transmitted by
direct or indirect contact with feces. They are spread by what is commonly
called the fecal-oral route (i.e., they are excreted in the feces and enter the
body through the mouth). Hepatitis A virus is spread through the fecal-oral
route; it is excreted in the feces and is ingested by a host either through direct
contact with feces (as may occur if one does not wash hands after changing a
soiled diaper) or indirectly by eating or drinking contaminated food or water.
The skin is an excellent barrier against invasion from infectious agents.
Only a few human pathogens, such as the larvae of hookworm and the cer-
cariae of the schistosomes (blood flukes) can effectively penetrate intact skin.
Organisms such as Staphylococcus aureus and group A Streptococcus can
cause infection if they are introduced into a break in the skin; however, they
are not able to initiate infection through intact skin. This is one reason why
hand hygiene is such an important measure for preventing the transmission
of infection. If transient organisms such as staphylococci can be removed from
the hands before being introduced into a portal of entry, such as the nose or a
wound, then they will not be able to cause an infection.
Salmonella and Shigella must be able to reach the intestinal lining in order
to cause infection. For this to occur, these organisms generally must be
ingested; however, they may also be iatrogenically introduced into the intes-
tine. Salmonella has been transmitted in the healthcare setting by improperly
disinfected endoscopes.
Mycobacterium tuberculosis is spread by the airborne route, and the tuber-
cule bacilli must be able to reach the lung in order to initiate a pulmonary
infection (i.e., the organism must be able to bypass the hairs, the cilia, and the
mucus in the respiratory tract).17 Generally, a person must inhale the organ-
ism for this to occur; however, the tubercule bacilli has also been nosocomially
introduced into the lung via contaminated instruments, such as broncho-
scopes. Extrapulmonary TB does occur and can affect any organ or tissue;
however, the initial site of infection is almost always the respiratory tract with
hematogenous spread to other parts of the body. Although the skin is an excel-
lent barrier against M. tuberculosis, there are rare reports of primary cuta-
neous infection caused by direct innoculation.46
Susceptible Host
The susceptible host is the final link in the chain of infection. Several factors
affect a host’s ability to resist infection. These include inherent, or nonspecific,
factors; acquired immunity; and secondary resistance factors.
Inherent factors—Inherent, or nonspecific, factors are those that we are

born with, including:
• Natural barriers, such as skin, hairs in the nasal passages, mucous mem-
branes, cilia of the respiratory tract, gastric acidity, and reflexes such as
coughing, sneezing, and swallowing
• Special mechanisms such as the liver, spleen, and lymph nodes that can
filter organisms from the bloodstream
• Hormonal activity such as estrogen that can protect premenopausal
females from coronary artery disease
Acquired immunity refers to protective antibodies that are directed against
a specific agent. There are two types—active immunity and passive immunity.
Active immunity occurs when the host develops antibodies in response to an
antigen and may be acquired naturally or artificially. It is acquired naturally
when the host develops antibodies in response to an infection. For some dis-
eases this immunity persists for the life of the host (e.g., measles and chicken-
pox). It is acquired artificially in response to a vaccine or toxoid; the duration
of protection varies according to disease (e.g., active immunity induced by
tetanus toxoid is not permanent, and booster doses are recommended every
10 years).47 Passive immunity results from borrowed antibodies and, like
acquired immunity, may be acquired naturally or artificially.
Natural passive immunity is acquired through transfer of antibodies from

mother to fetus; this immunity usually lasts from 6 to 9 months. Passive
immunity is acquired artificially through injection of antiserum (e.g., hepatitis

B or varicella-zoster immune globulin) or antitoxin; this protection usually
lasts only 4 to 6 weeks.
Secondary resistance factors. Secondary resistance factors are those that
affect the host’s potential for exposure to an infectious agent. These include
extrinsic and intrinsic factors. Extrinsic, or environmental, factors include
lack of food, water, or rest; exposure to diagnostic or therapeutic procedures;
temperature and humidity; and occupation and socioeconomic status. Exam-
ples of extrinsic factors that place the host at risk for healthcare-associated
infection include devices such as ventilators and endotracheal tubes, which
compromise the natural defenses in the respiratory tract; surgical procedures
and intravascular catheters, which disrupt the skin barrier; urinary catheters,
which allow organisms to enter the urinary tract; and chemotherapeutic
agents, which are used to suppress the immune system in transplant patients.
Intrinsic resistance factors include age, sex, genetic disposition, and diseases
that impair the immune response. Examples of diseases that impair the
immune response include neoplasias and HIV infection.
Identifying Effective Measures to Control or Prevent the

Spread of Infection
If an agent can be identified—how it enters and exits a host and how it is

transmitted—then appropriate prevention and control measures can be deter-
mined. These measures are aimed at one of the links in the chain of infection
and are usually directed toward the reservoir or source, the mode of transmis-
sion, or the susceptibility of the host.
Measures Directed at the Reservoir or Source of an Agent

The nature of the reservoir is of paramount importance in determining the
appropriate method of control. If domestic animals are the reservoir, measures
include immunization (e.g., vaccinating dogs against rabies), testing of herds
to identify infected animals (e.g., screening cows for bovine TB), and treatment
or destruction of infected animals, such as the destruction of poultry to pre-
vent the spread of avian influenza A to man. If wild animals are the reservoir,
such as rodents for plague and hantavirus, control is more difficult but can be
accomplished by limiting the entry of these animals into the living areas of
man. When insects are the reservoir (e.g., mosquitoes for malaria), their entry
into dwellings may be limited by screens or the insects may be eradicated with
pesticides or repelled with chemicals. If the reservoir is man, obviously eradi-
cation of the host is not a viable option; however, if the infection is recognized,
a person can be treated with an antimicrobial to eliminate the agent or can be
isolated (i.e., restricted from exposing other persons, such as when a patient
with infectious pulmonary TB is placed in an isolation room or is instructed to
stay home until the period of communicability is over).
Measures Directed at Interrupting Transmission

Measures directed at interrupting transmission may be aimed at preventing
the organism from entering or exiting the host or at limiting direct contact,
indirect contact, or airborne dissemination. Examples include hand hygiene;
standard precautions; protective barriers, such as gloves, gowns, respirators,
and masks used by healthcare workers; aseptic technique; chemical repellents
and window and door screens to protect against insects; isolation and quaran-
tine; and dressings to cover wounds.
Contaminated vehicles can transmit infectious agents from one host to
another. Food and water have the potential for affecting large numbers of
people from one source and have been the vehicles for many outbreaks in
the community and in healthcare facilities. Measures used to prevent this
type of transmission include purification of drinking water; pasteurization
of milk; irradiation of food; and safe handling and preparation of food, with
an emphasis on hand hygiene, cleanliness of equipment, and proper refrige-
ration, cooking, and storage. Contaminated medication, equipment, instru-
ments, and devices have served as vehicles in many outbreaks in the
healthcare setting. Measures used to prevent or control these outbreaks
include aseptic technique when handling medications and intravenous fluids,
and proper cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization of instruments and medical
devices.
Measures Directed at the Host

Measures directed at the host are aimed at reducing host susceptibility and
include chemoprophylaxis and immunization. Examples in the healthcare set-
ting include policies that require healthcare providers to show evidence of
immunity to measles, mumps, rubella, and hepatitis B as a condition of
employment (this may be required by law in some areas); blood-borne
pathogens exposure management protocols that include hepatitis B vaccine
(active immunization), hepatitis B immune globulin (passive immunization),
and chemoprophylaxis for HIV; and TB control programs that include skin
testing to identify infected persons so that chemoprophylaxis can be provided
to prevent disease.
Sometimes there may be a shift in emphasis in the primary control measure
used to prevent the spread of a disease—such has occurred for TB and
measles. For TB the change was prompted by the development of effective
antimicrobial agents; for measles the change occurred when an effective vac-
cine was produced. Before the discovery of effective chemotherapy, the pri-
mary control measure used to prevent transmission of TB was placement in a
sanitarium or a specialized TB ward. Now the primary control method is
prompt identification and treatment of infectious persons and follow-up of
their contacts. Before the measles vaccine was widely implemented, the pri-
mary control method was isolation of an infected person; now immunization is
the primary control method used.
SUMMARY
Microbes will continue to emerge, reemerge, and persist. To effectively pre-

vent the spread of infectious agents and the occurrence of outbreaks, it is nec-
essary to understand epidemiologic principles and the dynamic relationship
between the host, microbial agents, and the environment. Additional informa-
tion on epidemiology, infectious diseases, and infection prevention and control
can be found in the Suggested Reading section at the end of this chapter.
REFERENCES
1. Smolinski MS, Hamburg MA, Lederberg J, eds. Microbial Threats to Health: Emergence,
Detection, and Response. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2003. p.1 Executive
Summary. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10636. Accessed April 21, 2008.
2. Merrell DS, Falkow S. Frontal and stealth attack strategies in microbial pathogenesis.
Nature. 2004;430:250–256.
3. Lederberg J, Shope R, Oaks S, eds. Emerging Infections: Microbial Threats to Health in the
United States. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1992:36–41. http://www.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record_id=2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.
4. Peiris JSM, Guan Y. Confronting SARS: a view from Hong Kong. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B
Biol Sci. 2004;29:359:1075–1079. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?
artid=1693390. Accessed July 28, 2008.
5. Last JM, ed. Dictionary of Epidemiology. 4th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press;
2001:61.
6. Maloney ES. Chapman’s Piloting, Seamanship and Small Boat Handling. 62nd ed. New
York, NY: Hearst Marine Books; 1996:55.
7. Miller PM. Semmelweis. Infect Control. 1982;3:405–409.
8. LaForce FM. The control of infections in hospitals: 1750 to 1950. In: Wenzel RP, ed. Preven-
tion and Control of Nosocomial Infections. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1987:1–12.
9. Snow J. On the Mode of Communication of Cholera. 2nd ed. London, England: Churchill;
1885. Reproduced in Snow on Cholera. New York, NY: Commonwealth Fund; 1936.
10. Fredericks DN, Relman DA. Sequence-based identification of microbial pathogens: a recon-
sideration of Koch’s postulates. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1996;9:18–33.
11. The ecology of pathogenesis. In: Forum on Microbial Threats. Board on Global Health.
Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Ending the War Metaphor: The Chang-
ing Agenda for Unraveling the Host-Microbe Relationship. Workshop Summary. Wash-
ington, DC: National Academy Press; 2006:102–158. http://www.nap.edu. Accessed July
28, 2008.
12. Lee LA, Gerber AR, Lonsway DR. Yersinia enterocolitica O:3 infections in infants and chil-
dren associated with the household preparation of chitterlings. N Engl J Med. 1990;322:
984–987.
13. Christie CDC, Glover AM, Wilke MJ, et al. Containment of pertussis in the regional pediatric
hospital during the Greater Cincinnati epidemic of 1993. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1995;16:556–563.
14. Faoagali J, Darcy D. Chickenpox outbreak among the staff of a large, urban adult hospital:
costs of monitoring and control. Am J Infect Control. 1995;23:247–250.
15. Raad I, Sheretz R, Russell B, Reuman P. Uncontrolled nosocomial rotavirus transmission
during a community outbreak. Am J Infect Control. 1990;18:24–28.
16. Agerton T, Valway S, Gore B, et al. Transmission of a highly drug-resistant strain (strain W1)
of Mycobacterium tuberculosis: community outbreak and nosocomial transmission via a con-
taminated bronchoscope. JAMA. 1997;278:1073–1077.
References 29
17. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for preventing the transmission of
Mycobacterium tuberculosis in health-care settings, 2005. MMWR. 2005;54(RR17):1–141.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5417a1.htm?s_cid=rr5417a1_e. [errata
http://www.cdc.gov/tb/pubs/mmwr/Errata09–25-06.pdf]. Accessed November 20, 2007.
18. Reported Tuberculosis in the United States, 2006. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, CDC; 2007. http://www.cdc.gov/tb/surv. Accessed November 19, 2007.
19. Cantwell MF, Snider DE, Cauthen GM, Onorato IM. Epidemiology of tuberculosis in the
United States, 1985 through 1992. JAMA. 1994;272:535–539.
20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tuberculosis morbidity—United States, 1997.
MMWR. 1998;47:253–257.
21. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Principles of Epidemiology in Public Health
Practice: An Introduction to Applied Epidemiology and Biostatistics. 3rd ed. Atlanta, GA: US
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Con-
trol and Prevention, Office of Workforce and Career Development; 2005. http://www2a
.cdc.gov/TCEOnline/registration/detailpage.asp?res_id=1394. Accessed May 10, 2008.
22. Last JM, Tyler CW. Epidemiology. In: Last JM, Wallace RB, eds. Maxcy-Rosenau-Last Public
Health and Preventive Medicine. 13th ed. Stamford, CT: Appleton & Lange; 1992:33.
23. Dwyer DM, Strickler H, Goodman RA, Armenian HK. Use of case-control studies in outbreak
investigations. Epidemiol Rev. 1994;16:109–123.
24. Terdiman JP, Ostroff JW. Gastrointestinal bleeding in the hospitalized patient: a case-control
study to assess risk factors, causes, and outcomes. Am J Med. 1998;104:349–354.
25. Post WS, Larson MG, Myers RH, et al. Heritability of left ventricular mass: the Framingham
Heart Study. Hypertens. 1997;30:1025–1028.
26. Research Development Committee, Society for Research and Education in Primary Care
Internal Medicine. Clinical research methods: an annotated bibliography. Ann Intern Med.
1983;99:419–424.
27. Carpenter LM. Is the study worth doing? Lancet. 1993;342:221–223.
28. Glynn JR. A question of attribution. Lancet. 1993;342:530–532.
29. Victoria CG. What’s the denominator? Lancet. 1993;342:345–347.
30. Stedman’s Medical Dictionary. 25th ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1990:444
31. Benenson AS, ed. Control of Communicable Diseases Manual. 16th ed. Washington, DC:
American Public Health Association; 1995.
32. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Varicella. In: Atkinson W, Hamborsky J, McIn-
tyre L, Wolfe S, eds. Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases. 10th ed.
Washington, DC: Public Health Foundation; 2007. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/
pinkbook/default.htm. Accessed November 20, 2007.
33. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Measles. In: Atkinson W, Hamborsky J, McIn-
34. CDC. Human Rabies Prevention—United States, 1999. Recommendations of the Advisory
Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR. 1999;48(RR-1):1–21. http://www
.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056176.htm. Accessed November 20, 2007.
35. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza. In: Atkinson W, Hamborsky J, McIn-
36. Bond WW, Favero MS, Petersen NJ, Gravelle CR, Ebert JW, Maynard JE. Survival of hepati-
tis B after drying and storage for one week. Lancet. 1981;1:550–551.
37. Lefebvre SL, Waltner-Toews D, Peregrine AS, et al. Prevalence of zoonotic agents in dogs vis-
iting hospitalized people in Ontario: implications for infection control. J Hosp Infect.
2006;62:458–466.
38. Plaut M, Zimmerman EM, Goldstein RA. Health hazards to humans associated with domes-
tic pets. Annu Rev Pub Health. 1996;17:221–245.
39. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome—United
States: updated recommendations for risk reduction. MMWR. 2002;51(RR09):1–12.
40. Sehulster L, Chinn LYW. Guidelines for environmental infection control in health-care facili-
ties: recommendations of the CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory
Committee (HICPAC). MMWR. 2003;52:1–42.
41. Fredrickson M, Howie AR. Methods, standards, guidelines and considerations in selecting
animals for animal-assisted therapy. Part B. Guidelines and standards for animal selection
in animal-assisted activity and therapy programs. In: Fine AH, ed. Academic Press Handbook
on Animal Assisted Therapy: Theoretical Foundations and Guidelines for Practice. San Diego,
CA: Academic Press; 2000:99–114.
42. Chang HJ, Miller HL, Watkins N, et al. An epidemic of Malassezia pachydermatis in an inten-
sive care nursery associated with colonization of healthcare workers’ pet dogs. N Engl J Med.
1998;338:706–711.
43. Richet HM, Craven PC, Brown JM, et al. A cluster of Rhodococcus (Gordona) bronchialis ster-
nal wound infections after coronary-artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:104–109.
44. Heyman DL, ed. Control of Communicable Diseases Manual. 18th ed. Washington, DC: Amer-
ican Public Health Association; 2004.
45. Siegel JD, Rhinehart E, Jackson M, Chiarello L, and the Healthcare Infection Control Prac-
tices Advisory Committee; 2007 Guideline for Isolation Precautions: Preventing Transmission
of Infectious Agents in Healthcare Settings. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/pdf/
isolation2007.pdf. Accessed November 19, 2007.
46. Genne D, Siegrist HH. Tuberculosis of the thumb following a needlestick injury. Clin Infect
Dis. 1998;26:210–211.
47. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommended adult immunization schedule—
United States, October 2006–September 2007. MMWR. 2006;55:Q1-Q4. http://www.cdc
.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm5540-Immunization.pdf. Accessed November 19, 2007.
SUGGESTED READING
Abramson JH. Making Sense of Data: A Self-Instruction Manual on the Interpretation of Epidemi-
ological Data. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2001.
American Academy of Pediatrics. Red Book: 2008 Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases.
Elk Grove, Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2008.
APIC Text of Infection Control and Epidemiology. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Association for Profes-
sionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology; 2005.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Principles of Epidemiology in Public Health Practice:
An Introduction to Applied Epidemiology and Biostatistics. 3rd ed. Atlanta, GA: US Depart-
ment of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, Office of Workforce and Career Development; 2005. ttp://www2a.cdc.gov/
TCEOnline/registration/detailpage.asp?res_id=1394. Accessed May 10, 2008.
Friedman GD. Primer of Epidemiology. 4th ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill; 1994.
Heyman DL, ed. Control of Communicable Diseases Manual. 18th ed. Washington, DC: American
Public Health Association; 2004
Jarvis WB, ed. Bennett and Brachman’s Hospital Infections. 5th ed. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins; 2007.
Last JM. Public Health and Human Ecology. 2nd ed. Stamford, CT: Appleton & Lange; 1997
Lederberg J, Shope R, Oaks S, ed. Emerging Infections: Microbial Threats to Health in the United
States. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1992. http://www.nap.edu. Accessed
November 19, 2007.
Lilienfeld DE, Stolley PD. Foundations of Epidemiology. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University
Press; 1994.
Mausner JS, Kramer S. Epidemiology: An Introductory Text. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saun-
ders; 1985.
Suggested Reading 31
Mayhall CG. Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control. 3rd ed. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott,
Norman GR, Streiner DL. Biostatistics: The Bare Essentials. 3rd ed. Hamilton, Ontario: BC
Decker; 2007.
Roueche B. The Medical Detectives. Vols. I, II. New York, NY: Washington Square Press; 1986.
Roueche B. The Medical Detectives. Reprint ed. New York, NY: Plume; 1991.
Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Guyatt GH, et al. Clinical Epidemiology: A Basic Science for Clinical
Medicine. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Little Brown; 1991.
Smolinski MS, Hamburg MA, Lederberg J, eds. Committee on Emerging Microbial Threats to
Health in the 21st Century. Microbial Threats to Health: Emergence, Detection, and Response.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2003. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?
record_id=10636. Accessed March 26, 2008.
Szklo M, Nieto FJ. Epidemiology: Beyond the Basics. 2nd ed. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett;
2006.
Wallace RB. Public Health and Preventive Medicine (Maxcy-Rosenau-Last Public Health and Pre-
ventive Medicine). 15th ed. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill; 2007.
Wenzel RP, ed. Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections. 4th ed. Baltimore: Lippincott
CHAPTER 2
Surveillance Programs,
Public Health, and
Emergency Preparedness
Kathleen Meehan Arias and
Lorraine Messinger Harkavy
Surveillance is undertaken to inform disease prevention and control

measures.1
—World Health Organization
INTRODUCTION
In February of 2003 an outbreak of a mysterious atypical pneumonia that

caused much morbidity and mortality was first reported in the People’s Repub-
lic of China. The disease rapidly spread to Hong Kong, Singapore, North Vietnam,
and Canada, and nosocomial transmission between patients and healthcare
providers occurred.2 Within a few months, the illness, now known as the severe
acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, had spread to over 20 countries in Asia,
North America, Europe, and South America.3,4 News of SARS was quickly
transmitted via the Internet,4 and public health agencies worldwide rapidly
developed and distributed guidelines to prevent disease transmission.
The rapid spread, recognition, and subsequent control of SARS demon-
strates the need for both local and global disease surveillance systems. Both
infection prevention and control personnel in healthcare facilities and public
health personnel worldwide must monitor human health continually to detect
outbreaks of disease, emerging infections, bioterrorist attacks, and potential
pandemics so that control measures can quickly be implemented.
Surveillance is the foundation for an effective infection prevention and con-
trol program in the healthcare setting. A surveillance system is necessary to
identify healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and other adverse events so
that prevention measures can be identified and implemented to minimize the
risk for these events. An effective surveillance program is essential to recog-
nize unusual infections and clusters or outbreaks of disease. In this chapter,
the term disease is used to describe HAIs and other adverse events, such as
falls, that are related to health care, and the term patient is used to describe
patients in acute, subacute, long-term, and ambulatory care settings and resi-
dents in long-term care (LTC) facilities.
This chapter explains the reasons for implementing active infection surveil-
lance programs, discusses the various components of an effective surveillance
program for a healthcare setting, provides definitions for the identification of
HAIs, outlines the steps in the surveillance process, and discusses how to use
33
34 SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS, PUBLIC HEALTH, AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
surveillance data to recognize problems such as potential outbreaks in order

to identify and implement prevention and control measures. It also discusses
regulations and other requirements affecting surveillance programs in health-
care settings, national and global surveillance systems, and surveillance as it
applies to emergency preparedness activities in healthcare settings.
This chapter will only briefly address surveillance in the home care setting.
Readers who wish to obtain more information on infection surveillance, prevention,
and control in home care are referred to the text by Rhinehart and Friedman.5
SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS IN HEALTHCARE SETTINGS
In December 1970, the Hospital Infections Section of the US Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) first received reports of episodes of
nosocomial bloodstream infections (BSIs) caused by Enterobacter species.
“Between October 1970 and March 1, 1971, eight United States hospitals in
seven states experienced 150 bacteremias caused by Enterobacter cloacae or
gram-negative organisms of the Erwinia group. There were nine deaths; all
were associated with intravenous (IV) fluid therapy. The Enterobacter bac-
teremias in all hospitals were substantially increased as compared to previous
time periods. Four hospitals that isolated and identified Erwinia had not pre-
viously encountered infections with these organisms.”6(p1227) The finding that
two unusual organisms, E. cloacae and Enterobacter agglomerans, were caus-
ing BSIs at multiple hospitals pointed to the likelihood of a common source.
The nationwide Enterobacter BSI outbreak that affected these hospitals was
eventually traced to intrinsic contamination of the plastic cap liners of IV flu-
ids from a single manufacturer. This outbreak of bacteremias associated with
contaminated IV infusion fluids may not have been recognized had it not been
for the ongoing infection surveillance programs that had been established in
these hospitals. This outbreak, which was reported in the March 12, 1971,
issue of Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, “would later be recognized as
the largest and most lethal known outbreak of nosocomial infection associated
with widespread distribution of a contaminated medical product in the United
States. The report demonstrates the benefit of the emphasis that CDC had
placed on nosocomial infection surveillance and control programs starting in
the 1960s and illustrated the importance of being able to rapidly assemble
data from multiple, widely scattered sites to resolve complex outbreaks.”6(p1227)
If the nosocomial infection surveillance programs had not existed in these hos-
pitals, the detection of this outbreak would have been more difficult, and the
outbreak likely would have resulted in additional deaths. This outbreak
resulted in the development of the CDC’s Guidelines for Infection Control in
Intravenous Therapy,7 which became the first in a series of CDC guidelines on
the prevention of HAIs.
SURVEILLANCE: WHAT IS IT AND WHY DO IT?
Surveillance can be defined as ‘‘the ongoing, systematic collection, analysis,

interpretation, and dissemination of data regarding a health-related event for
use in public health action to reduce morbidity and mortality and to improve
Surveillance: What Is It and Why Do It? 35
health.”8(p2) Surveillance systems can be used to collect information about a vari-

ety of events. Although infection prevention and control professionals use surveil-
lance to focus on healthcare- and community-associated infections, a surveillance
system can also be used to detect medication errors, patient falls, sharps injuries
in healthcare personnel, and an array of other quality care issues.
Surveillance can be used to measure either outcomes, which are the result
of health care or performance (such as infections, decubitus ulcers, or patient
falls), or processes, which are the actions that are taken to achieve an outcome
(such as compliance with an established policy or protocol).9–12 Two major
goals of a surveillance program in a healthcare setting are to (1) improve the
quality of health care; and (2) identify, implement, and evaluate strategies to
prevent and control HAIs and other adverse events.
Four objectives of a surveillance program are to:
1. Provide baseline, or endemic, rates of disease
2. Identify increases in rates above the baseline, or expected, rates of
disease
3. Identify risk factors for disease
4. Evaluate the effectiveness of prevention and control measures
Surveillance Programs in Hospitals
Surveillance programs in acute care hospitals are well-established in many

countries. The Study on the Efficacy of Nosocomial Infection Control, or
SENIC project, conducted by the CDC in the mid-1970s, was a landmark
study that demonstrated the positive impact that infection control programs
had on the reduction of HAI rates in hospitals.13,14 SENIC found that hospitals
could reduce their HAI rates by approximately 32% if they implemented an
infection surveillance and control program that included certain critical com-
ponents, such as appropriate surveillance activities, vigorous control efforts,
and proper staffing.13
In 1970, the CDC established the National Nosocomial Infections Surveil-
lance (NNIS) system to create a national database of hospital-associated infec-
tions and to improve surveillance methods in acute care hospitals.15 In 2005, the
CDC combined NNIS with two other national surveillance systems, the Dialysis
Surveillance Network16 and the National Surveillance System for Health Care
Workers, to form the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN).17 The
healthcare facilities that participate in NHSN use standardized protocols and
definitions for HAI18 that are posted on the NHSN members page of the CDC
Web site (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/nhsn_members.html). Participating
organizations submit their data to the CDC for analysis and aggregation into a
national database. The aggregate NNIS/NHSN reports are periodically pub-
lished in the American Journal of Infection Control19 and are also available on
the CDC’s NHSN Web site. Data from NNIS/NHSN have been used to identify
risk factors for nosocomial infection and measures that can be used to reduce
these risks.20 Some hospitals have used NNIS data to support the implementa-
tion of infection prevention and control measures and have been able to docu-
ment a subsequent reduction in nosocomial infection rates.21,22
Additional examples of surveillance networks for HAIs include the following:

• Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program—Established in
1994 to provide rates and trends of HAIs in Canadian healthcare facili-
ties, to enable comparison of rates, and to provide data that can be used in
the development of national guidelines related to HAIs. http://www.phac-
aspc.gc.ca/nois-sinp/survprog_e.html. Accessed February 18, 2008.
• European Union’s (EU) HELICS (Hospitals in Europe Link for Infection
Control through Surveillance) network—An international network aimed
at collecting, analyzing, and disseminating data on antibiotic resistance
and the risks of HAIs in European hospitals. http://helics.univ-lyon1
.fr/index.htm. Accessed February 18, 2008.
• Victorian Hospital-Acquired Infection Surveillance System in Australia—
Established in 2002, it collects and analyses data on HAIs in acute care
public hospitals in Victoria and reports individual hospital and aggregate
data back to participants and the Department of Human Services.
http://www.vicniss.org.au. Accessed February 18, 2008.
• European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)—Estab-
lished by the European Parliament and Council in early 2004 to identify,
assess, and communicate current and emerging threats to human health
from communicable diseases. HAIs are included in the ECDC surveil-
lance system that issued its first report in 2007.23 http://ecdc.europa.eu/.
Accessed February 18, 2008.
Surveillance Programs in Healthcare Settings Other Than

Acute Care Hospitals
Many LTC facilities have HAI surveillance programs; however, these are
generally not as well established as those in the acute care setting.24–26 Little
has been published about surveillance methods in the ambulatory care16,27,28
and home care settings.5,29–33 As of early 2008, the authors were unable to find
a national surveillance system with a surveillance database for HAIs in long-
term, home care, or ambulatory care settings other than hemodialysis.16,18,34 In
2007, the NHSN included only hospitals and outpatient hemodialysis centers
but will eventually expand to other healthcare settings, including long-term,
ambulatory, and home care.17 In 2006 the EU’s HELICS conducted a survey to
study the feasibility of developing a standardized approach to HAI surveil-
lance in European nursing homes, and HELICS also plans to develop such a
system.35 In the United States, Stevenson et al. reported on a regional cohort
of 17 LTC facilities in Idaho that used standard definitions and uniform case-
finding methods and determined that a regional standardized approach to
HAI surveillance in this setting is feasible.36
SURVEILLANCE METHODS
Each organization must develop a surveillance program that will meet the
organization’s needs, support its performance improvement initiatives, and
Surveillance Methods 37
fulfill regulatory and accreditation requirements. There is no one surveil-

lance system that is appropriate for all types of settings and institutions. The
Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC)
notes that “Although there is no single or ‘right’ method of surveillance
design or implementation, sound epidemiologic principles must form the
foundation of effective systems and be understood by key participants in the
surveillance program and supported by senior management. . . . Each health-
care organization must tailor its surveillance systems to maximize resources
by focusing on population characteristics, outcome priorities, and organiza-
tional objectives.”9(p427)
Housewide (Comprehensive) Surveillance
Housewide (also known as comprehensive or total) surveillance was recom-

mended by the CDC in the early 1970s and was the most common type of sur-
veillance conducted in US hospitals throughout the 1970s. In housewide
surveillance all patients are continuously monitored for HAIs at all body
sites.37,38 A major drawback of housewide surveillance is that it is labor inten-
sive, especially if data are collected manually.38 If housewide surveillance is
conducted, an overall infection rate should not be calculated because such a rate
is too insensitive to measure the influence of exposure to significant HAI risk
factors such as urinary catheterization, mechanical ventilation, and surgical
procedures. Instead of an overall rate, population-specific or event-related
incidence rates, such as ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in an inten-
sive care unit (ICU), should be calculated.
From the early 1970s until the mid-1980s, hospitals in the NNIS system
were required to perform housewide surveillance, and the denominator used
to calculate infection rates was the number of patients discharged during the
surveillance period. In 1986 NNIS changed its focus from a hospital-wide to a
targeted approach and introduced four “surveillance components” in which
hospitals could participate: housewide, adult and pediatric ICU, high-risk
nursery, and surgical patient.15,39 The purpose of the components was to fulfill
the need for more precise measurement of HAIs and infection risk factors. In
the mid-1990s the CDC dropped the hospital-wide component of the NNIS
system.
Housewide surveillance is an ideal methodology because it can measure the
occurrence and risk of HAIs and other monitored events in the entire patient
population. However, many healthcare organizations do not have the trained
personnel and other resources, such as computerization and technical support,
needed to conduct comprehensive surveillance. In addition, many authorities
believe that comprehensive infection surveillance is not an efficient use of
resources provided an evidence-based infection prevention and control pro-
gram is implemented housewide and personnel are held accountable for
adhering to appropriate practices. Because of these reasons and the fact that
the risk of developing an HAI varies by patient population and treatment and
procedures provided, many experts recommend using targeted or focused sur-
veillance programs.39–41
Targeted (Focused) Surveillance
In targeted surveillance (also known as focused, priority-directed, or sur-

veillance by objective), selected events or populations are monitored.37,39,42 A
targeted surveillance program may focus on selected healthcare units (such as
intensive care, hemodialysis, rehabilitation, pediatrics, or bone marrow trans-
plant), specific procedures (such as surgery), infections associated with med-
ical devices (such as VAP), or organisms of epidemiologic importance (such as
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus [MRSA], Clostridium difficile, or
Mycobacterium tuberculosis). Targeted surveillance programs generally focus
on high-risk, high-volume, or high-cost HAIs that are potentially preventable.
Combining Housewide and Targeted Surveillance
Infection prevention and control personnel in many hospitals and other

healthcare settings use a combination of housewide and targeted surveillance.
For instance, a surveillance program can monitor central line-associated BSIs
in a specific area while monitoring all patients and residents housewide for
epidemiologically important organisms.
For additional information on surveillance methodologies, refer to one of
several infection control texts that are listed in the Suggested Reading section
at the end of this chapter (APIC text, Mayhall, or Wenzel) or to the CDC
NHSN Web site (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/nhsn.html).
GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPING AND EVALUATING A

SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
Developing a Surveillance Program
A well-designed surveillance program should provide for the ongoing collec-

tion, management, analysis, and dissemination of data to control and prevent
disease.
Regardless of the setting, those who are designing a surveillance program
for a healthcare setting should establish a system that can prevent the most
infections and other adverse events with the resources available. In 1984,
Robert Haley, MD, recommended a priority-directed approach to surveillance
that he termed “surveillance by objective.”42 Building on Dr. Haley’s recom-
mendations, the following guidelines can be used when designing a surveil-
lance program today.
1. Target those outcomes that will be prevented (e.g., influenza, catheter-
associated urinary tract infections, VAP, decubitus ulcers, medication
errors, and sharps injuries) and those processes that will be improved
(e.g., influenza immunization rates in healthcare providers and LTC
facility residents, and personnel compliance with hand hygiene or asep-
tic technique when inserting vascular catheters), and develop specific
indicators with objectives.
2. “Assign priorities to the specific objectives. Since there is never enough
time or resources to do everything, one must rank the objectives.”42(p88)
Guidelines for Developing and Evaluating a Surveillance Program 39
3. “Allocate time and resources commensurate with the assigned priori-

ties.”42(p88)
4. After completing the first three steps, design the surveillance, preven-
tion, and control strategies so they can support the objectives.
5. After a defined period, evaluate the surveillance, prevention, and control
program and revise it as needed.
Guidelines for developing and evaluating surveillance programs have been
published by the CDC8,18 and APIC.9,43 Based on these references, a review of
the literature,5,11,12,15,18,24,25,37,38,41,43,44 and the authors’ personal experience, the
following steps should be taken (although not necessarily all in the order
listed) when designing a surveillance system for the healthcare setting:
• Identify the surveillance methodology to be used.
• Assess and define the population(s) to be monitored, and select the events
to be studied.
• Determine the time period for observation and the data collection.
• Select surveillance criteria for defining each event.
• Determine the data-gathering process.
• Identify how to calculate rates and analyze the data.
• Determine the personnel and other resources needed to implement and
sustain the program.
• Design an interpretive surveillance report(s).
• Identify who will receive the report(s).
• Develop a written surveillance plan.
• Develop a mechanism for periodically evaluating the effectiveness of the
surveillance program.
Identify the Surveillance Methodology to Be Used

When designing a surveillance program, an organization’s management
team must decide whether to conduct housewide surveillance (i.e., identify
all HAIs in the entire population), targeted surveillance, or a combination of
the two. Because government and accrediting agencies may require house-
wide surveillance, healthcare organizations should check external require-
ments before selecting the surveillance methodology. The authors
recommend a combination housewide and targeted (or focused) approach to
surveillance that fulfills internal performance needs and external agency
requirements.
Assess and Define the Population and Select the Events to Be Monitored
Each organization must assess its patient, resident, and personnel popula-
tions and identify those who are at greatest risk for HAIs and other adverse
health outcomes. The organization must then choose the indicators or events
(outcomes, processes, and organisms) to be monitored. The surveillance events
should be selected based on the characteristics of the population(s) to be stud-
ied, identified risk factors for infection, types of treatment provided and proce-
dures performed, the level of care provided, relevant government and
accrediting agency requirements, available resources, and performance

improvement initiatives. An effective surveillance program will have a mix-
ture of outcome and process monitors and will target organisms and diseases
that have been demonstrated to cause healthcare-associated problems in the
population being studied (or in similar populations as identified by a review of
the literature). Some surveillance indicators should focus on personnel.
Acute care settings. In the acute care setting, the highest rates of HAIs
occur in ICUs. ICU patients have been shown to be at high risk of infection
due to their underlying disease and conditions, their compromised host status,
and the invasive diagnostic and therapeutic treatments they receive.45 Thus it
is not surprising that many outbreaks reported in the literature occur in criti-
cal care unit patients, as discussed in Chapter 3. Those responsible for design-
ing a surveillance program in a hospital should target their surveillance to
defined populations (such as patients in a specific ICU or patients undergoing
a specific surgical procedure) so that the number of patients in the population
under study (i.e., the population at risk) can be identified. This is necessary if
infection rates are to be calculated.18
Many infection prevention and control programs monitor device-associated
infections, such as central line-associated BSI and VAP, because medical
devices place a patient at risk for developing a nosocomial infection. Reports
have shown that hospitals that have monitored device-related infection rates
over time have been able to identify potential problem areas, implement prac-
tice changes to reduce the risk of infection, and reduce infection rates.21,22,46 In
addition, if a hospital uses NNIS/NHSN system methodology to define infec-
tions, collect data, and calculate rates, then it can use the published NNIS/
NHSN rates for comparison with other hospitals.19 Many hospital outbreaks
have been associated with the improper use and care of ventilators, as dis-
cussed in Chapter 3. Because VAP can result in significant morbidity and mor-
tality and increased patient costs and length of stay, many organizations
conduct surveillance for VAP and use their surveillance data to identify and
implement infection prevention and control measures.46
Patients who have surgery are at risk for developing surgical site infections
(SSIs), and this risk is influenced by characteristics of the patient, the surgical
procedure, personnel, and hospital.47 Because it is neither necessary nor an
efficient use of resources to monitor all surgical procedures all of the time
(unless required by an external agency), most facilities select several high-
risk, high-volume, or high-cost procedures that are performed at the facility.
The CDC has published a list of operative procedures that are included in the
NHSN.18 Personnel who are responsible for developing a surveillance program
in a hospital should consider monitoring one or more of these procedures,
using the NHSN methodology, so that external comparative data are available
(see caveats below). Much has been written about surveillance methods for
SSIs. Because a complete discussion of this topic is beyond the scope of this
chapter, the reader is referred to several references.18,27,28,47–58
Healthcare facilities should routinely conduct surveillance for epidemiologi-
cally significant organisms, such as Clostridium difficile;59,60 respiratory syn-
cytial virus (RSV);61 rotavirus;62 M. tuberculosis;63,64 and multidrug-resistant
organisms (MDROs)65 such as MRSA,66 vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus,

Acinetobacter spp., Stenotrophomonas spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Entero-
bacter spp., Klebsiella pneumoniae, Burkholderia cepacia, and Ralstonia spp.,
so that isolation precautions can be implemented as soon as possible to pre-
vent transmission to other patients.67 In addition, all healthcare organizations
should routinely monitor laboratory reports for organisms of public health
importance, such as Salmonella spp. or isolates of Staphylococcus aureus that
have intermediate susceptibility to vancomycin (VISA) or are resistant to van-
comycin (VRSA). All cases of Salmonella spp. should be reported to the local
health department, and all cases of confirmed or presumptive VISA or VRSA
should be reported immediately through local and state health departments to
the CDC. Isolates of suspected VISA/VRSA should be saved for the CDC, and
patients from whom VISA/VRSA is isolated should be placed on isolation pre-
cautions as specified by the CDC.65,67 Each institution must choose which
organisms to monitor based on the ages and the characteristics of the popula-
tion served, the incidence or presence of an organism in the facility and in the
community, and the institution’s public health responsibilities (e.g., reporting
reportable diseases). For example, pediatric units should monitor organisms
that frequently cause nosocomial infections in children, such as RSV and
rotavirus.
Healthcare providers and organizations play an integral role in recognizing
community outbreaks. For instance, the staff of a community hospital detected
a cluster of community-acquired Legionnaires’ disease and reported this to the
health department. This led to the recognition of an outbreak of legionellosis
among the passengers of a cruise ship.68
Infection prevention and control personnel should also work with the
employee health personnel to monitor and identify communicable infections in
personnel, such as tuberculosis, chickenpox, and conjunctivitis, so that appro-
priate work restrictions can be implemented.
In addition to HAI surveillance in patients and in personnel, those responsi-
ble for performance improvement programs in hospitals should have a surveil-
lance system for detecting noninfectious outcomes of care in patients, such as
medication errors, and adverse events in personnel, such as sharps injuries.
Personnel in both performance improvement and infection prevention and
control programs should select several surveillance indicators that assess
processes and activities that affect patient outcomes (such as biological moni-
toring of steam sterilizers and use of aseptic technique and barriers when
inserting central lines) and the health of personnel (such as healthcare worker
practices that result in sharps injuries and influenza immunization rates).
Ambulatory care settings. Few studies have been done on the risk factors
for infection in the ambulatory care setting.16,28,69–71 This is not surprising
because the term ambulatory care encompasses a variety of settings. “Ambula-
tory care setting” as used in this chapter refers to a hospital-based or free-
standing facility or office in which health care is provided and in which
patients reside for less than 24 hours. Examples include emergency rooms,
dialysis centers, physicians’ offices, urgent care centers, ambulatory surgery
centers, and clinics.
With the exception of patients in ambulatory surgery and dialysis centers,

it is often difficult to identify specific populations at risk of developing a HAI
that is related to health care provided in the ambulatory care setting. 28
When compared to the acute care and LTC settings, ambulatory care set-
tings have a greater challenge regarding the surveillance of HAIs. Patients
cared for in these locations are frequently seen for relatively brief periods,
often over a few hours. The patients may not be well known to the provider,
may be seen for only one encounter, and are frequently lost to follow-up once
they leave the facility. Follow-up of these patients is usually left to the pri-
mary care provider, who may have a limited working relationship with other
care providers.
Persons who are responsible for managing infection prevention and control
programs in ambulatory care settings should be familiar with the numerous
outbreaks that have occurred in these settings,69,70 which are discussed in
Chapter 5. Examples of frequently reported outbreaks in ambulatory care
facilities include the following69,70:
• BSIs and hepatitis B infections associated with improper infection control
practices in hemodialysis centers
• Tuberculosis associated with unrecognized cases of pulmonary disease or
improper isolation precautions used for patients with known pulmonary
tuberculosis
• Keratoconjunctivitis in ophthalmology clinics associated with poor infec-
tion prevention practices, such as lack of hand hygiene or improper disin-
fection of instruments.
In addition, bronchoscopy and gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures have
been associated with many outbreaks in outpatient healthcare settings.72
Infections associated with these procedures are difficult to detect unless they
occur in clusters or are caused by an unusual or uncommon pathogen.
There is little published about effective surveillance methods for ambula-
tory care settings, with the exception of SSI surveillance in ambulatory
surgery centers. Infection control professionals (ICPs) in ambulatory surgery
centers should identify the operative procedures that are most commonly per-
formed at the center and should use center-specific data and literature
reviews to identify patients that have the highest risk for infectious and non-
infectious complications.27,47 If SSI surveillance is performed, high-volume
and/or high-risk procedures should be monitored.
The NHSN includes a national surveillance system to study the incidence of
bloodstream and vascular access-site infections, hospitalizations, and antimi-
crobial use in hemodialysis patients.16,18 Hemodialysis centers should consider
participating in this program. Information on the NHSN dialysis surveillance
program can be obtained in the NHSN Patient Safety Component Protocol18
and on the NHSN Web site (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/nhsn.html).
Hemodialysis centers should routinely perform quality assurance tests on
hemodialysis water. Documentation of this testing and any actions taken
based on the test results can serve as a process monitor.
Ophthalmology offices and clinics should conduct surveillance for patients
who develop conjunctivitis following care in the office or clinic (an outcomes
indicator). These settings should also select a few process indicators and
implement a performance improvement initiative on the proper use of hand
hygiene, multidose medications, or disinfection of equipment.
Personnel who are responsible for developing an infection surveillance, pre-
vention, and control program in the ambulatory care setting should focus on
both risk reduction and infection prevention activities (i.e., process indicators)
and on outcomes measurements, such as infections. Process-oriented surveil-
lance indicators for an ambulatory care setting such as a physician’s office or a
clinic could include compliance with reporting reportable diseases, compliance
with sterility assurance protocols (i.e., biological, physical, and chemical moni-
toring) for all sterilizers used in the facility, and immunization rates for
patients and personnel. Many studies have revealed glaring deficiencies in the
processing of endoscopes, and numerous outbreaks have been associated with
the use of contaminated bronchoscopes and gastrointestinal endoscopes.72
Therefore, those who are designing a surveillance program for an endoscopy
unit should develop process monitors, such as personnel compliance with spe-
cific cleaning and disinfection/sterilization protocols for endoscopes. In this
setting, monitoring the processes used (i.e., attention to proper cleaning and
disinfection practices) will more likely lead to improved patient care than
monitoring an outcome such as infection, which is difficult to detect, especially
in an ambulatory population that is frequently lost to follow-up. Ambulatory
care facilities should also conduct surveillance for the occurrence of diseases of
epidemiologic importance, such as salmonellosis, tuberculosis, and Legion-
naires’ disease, in their patient population and should report these diseases to
the health department.
Long-Term Care Settings. Much has been published about endemic and
epidemic nosocomial infections and risk factors for infection in the LTC set-
ting.25,73–85 However, infection surveillance methodology for the LTC setting
has not been as well defined as it has been for the acute care setting, and
many facilities probably lack an effective, ongoing surveillance program.26,82
Surveillance programs in the LTC setting should be designed and imple-
mented to promote the ongoing collection, analysis, and dissemination of infor-
mation on infections in the setting. Surveillance data should be used to plan
infection prevention and control activities, including educational programs.81
Surveillance indicators should be based on those infections that commonly
occur in the setting—especially on those that are potentially preventable—
and on those processes shown to reduce the risk of HAIs in LTC facilities (e.g.,
annual influenza vaccination).25 Guidelines for developing infection surveil-
lance programs in LTC settings have been published by the APIC and the
Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA),25 Smith,24,78 the
Canadian Ministry of National Health and Welfare,84 and Rosenbaum et al.85
As in the acute care setting, targeted or focused surveillance programs are rec-
ommended because they are a more efficient use of infection prevention and
control resources and they permit the calculation of site-specific rates (such as
urinary tract infections).25 Whenever designing a surveillance program, one
has to ensure that it meets the requirements of regulatory and accrediting
agencies.
The most commonly occurring outbreaks in the LTC setting are respiratory
diseases (influenza and tuberculosis), gastrointestinal diseases, and scabies.25
Colonization and infection with MRSA occurs frequently in many LTC set-
tings. Therefore, surveillance programs must be capable of detecting these
infections. Ahlbrecht et al. were able to demonstrate positive outcomes in a
pilot study that involved infection surveillance and a team approach to infec-
tion prevention and control in a 220-bed community-based nursing home.86
They also suggested some data elements in the minimum data set from the
Health Care Financing Administration (now Centers for Medicare and Medic-
aid Services (CMS)) that may be useful in targeting surveillance in nursing
home residents.
In addition to infection surveillance, LTC settings should have a program
for monitoring noninfectious outcomes of care, such as falls, physical restraint
use, and decubiti, and processes such as influenza immunization rates in resi-
dents and personnel.12
Selecting surveillance indicators. Table 2–1 lists suggested indicators and
events for surveillance programs in a variety of healthcare settings and pro-
vides references, when available, that either explain or illustrate the use of
these indicators or can provide criteria for developing an indicator.11,18,30,32,33,
47–49,54–57,62,63,67,71,77,90–120
Determine the Time Period for Data Collection

Surveillance data should be collected on an ongoing basis in order to iden-
tify trends, detect organisms and diseases of epidemiologic importance, and
recognize clusters and outbreaks. There is no defined time period or number
of events that must be measured; however, it is difficult to interpret rates for
events that occur infrequently and for procedures that are rarely performed.
In practice, many ICPs collect data on each indicator for a defined period,
such as a month, quarter, or year, and analyze and assess the data to deter-
mine if they are useful for identifying potential problems and methods for
improvement. If the indicator does not appear to be useful, its use should be
discontinued. For example, if a facility selects noncentral line-related BSI
rates as a HAI measure on a patient care unit and discovers that these infec-
tions rarely occur, then consideration should be given to discontinuing this
particular measure.
Select Surveillance Criteria and Case Definitions

Criteria, or case definitions, are a key element of any surveillance system.
To be able to accurately analyze surveillance data over time, consistent defini-
tions must be used to determine the presence of a HAI or other health-related
event or compliance to a policy. Criteria must be used the same way and
applied consistently by all persons who collect or evaluate surveillance data to
ensure the accuracy and reproducibility of the results. If data elements are not
defined consistently, then it will not be possible to determine the presence and
the true incidence of a disease or to determine if measures implemented to
control a disease are effective.
Criteria allow all persons involved in the surveillance process (all those who
collect, analyze, evaluate, and use the data) to have a common understanding
Table 2–1 Suggested Surveillance Indicators for Various Healthcare Settings
Indicator Type(s) of Setting Type of Selected

Indicator Reference(s)
Bloodstream infections associated Acute, LTC, home Outcome 11, 18, 30, 32,
with central lines 46, 86, 120
Bloodstream infections in selected Acute, LTC, home Outcome 33, 87, 120
populations
Local site infections and/or Acute, LTC, home Outcome 88, 89
phlebitis associated with
peripheral intravascular therapy
Ventilator-associated pneumonia Acute, LTC Outcome 11, 18, 86, 90
Catheter-associated urinary Acute, LTC, home Outcome 11, 18, 30, 33
tract infections
Surgical site infections Acute, amb surgery, Outcome 18, 30, 47–49,
home 54-57
Decubitus ulcers LTC, acute Outcome 77, 91–93
Conjunctivitis Ophthalmology Outcome 94
offices and clinics
Influenza in residents and LTC Outcome 90, 95
personnel
Sharps injuries in personnel Acute, LTC, amb, Outcome 96–98
home
TST conversions in personnel Acute, LTC, amb Outcome 63, 99
TST conversions in residents LTC Outcome 63, 99
Newly diagnosed tuberculosis Acute, LTC, amb Outcome 63
cases
Infection/colonization with MRSA Acute, LTC Outcome 65, 100
or VRE
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) Pediatric Outcome 101
infection
Rotavirus infection Pediatric Outcome 62
Clostridium difficile diarrhea LTC, acute, home Outcome 59, 102
Bloodstream infections, pyrogenic Hemodialysis Outcome 16, 18
reactions, vascular access centers
infections, MRSA, or VRE in
hemodialysis patients
Resident or patient falls LTC, acute Outcome 103, 104
Medication errors Acute, LTC Outcome 105, 106
Occurrence of reportable diseases Acute, LTC, amb Outcome Local, state,
national
regulations, 107
Continued
Indicator Type(s) of Setting Type of Selected

Indicator Reference(s)
Influenza immunization rates in LTC, acute, amb, Process 90, 108, 109
personnel, patients, and residents home
Personnel adherence to standard Acute, LTC, amb Process 67, 70
precautions or isolation precautions
Personnel adherence to cleaning, Acute, LTC, amb Process 110, 111, 113
disinfection, or sterilization protocols
Adherence to performance testing/ Wherever sterilizers Process 111, 112
quality assurance program for are used
sterilizers (e.g., appropriate use
of biological indicator)
Proper functioning of isolation Acute, LTC, amb Process 63
rooms used for tuberculosis and
airborne isolation
Proper use of activated Wherever solutions Process According to
gluteraldehyde solutions are used instructions on
product label
Adherence to infection prevention Acute, LTC Process 90, 113
and control measures during
construction and renovation
Hepatitis B immunization rates in Acute, LTC, amb Process 114
personnel
Hepatitis B immunization rates in Hemodialysis Process 71
patients centers
Adherence to reportable disease Acute, LTC, amb Process 107, applicable
regulations regulations
Personnel adherence to appro- Acute, LTC, amb Process 115–118
priate hand hygiene practices
Note: LTC = long-term care; home = home care; amb = ambulatory care; MRSA = methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus, VRE = vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus; TST = tuberculin skin test
of the events that are being monitored. To be acceptable to all of the users of
the data, the criteria used in a surveillance program should reflect generally
accepted definitions of the specific disease or event being studied. For exam-
ple, if SSI surveillance is going to be performed, then the personnel from the
infection prevention and control and the surgery departments must agree
upon the criteria for defining the presence of an SSI.
Criteria frequently combine clinical findings with the results of laboratory
and other diagnostic tests. In the United States the most widely used sets of
definitions for HAIs in acute care hospitals are those developed by the CDC
for the NNIS system. These definitions have been updated for use in the
NHSN.18 Definitions for surveillance of infections in LTC facilities were pub-
lished by McGeer et al. in 1991.119 The McGeer definitions were intended “for
use in facilities that provide homes for elderly residents who require 24-hour
personal care under professional nursing supervision.”119(p1) The McGeer defi-
nitions focus on the clinical presentations of infections and minimize the need
for confirmatory diagnostic and laboratory tests that are infrequently per-
formed in the LTC setting.
Whenever possible, previously published, standardized definitions should be
used. Ambulatory surgery facilities can use the NHSN criteria when conduct-
ing SSI surveillance,19 and hemodialysis centers can use the NHSN defini-
tions for healthcare events in these centers.19
The APIC-Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committe Sur-
veillance Definitions for Home Health Care and Home Hospice Infections were
published in 2008.120
Each organization must evaluate its population, case mix of patients, and
the availability of diagnostic and laboratory facilities in order to determine
which definitions are both appropriate and applicable to its setting. Factors
that should be considered when evaluating surveillance criteria include the
sophistication of the data collector, the applicability of the particular set of
definitions to the population being surveyed, the availability and accuracy of
laboratory and other diagnostic tests performed on the population, and the
availability of laboratories that can provide needed feedback regarding speci-
men collection and analysis. Many organizations adapt available definitions
for their use; however, changing the definitions makes it impossible for the
organization to compare its performance to that of other institutions.
Some problems with current definitions. Many definitions of infections

have serious drawbacks. ICPs have long recognized the difficulty of classifying
some diseases, especially pneumonia and BSIs, when doing surveillance.
Many investigators have proposed different definitions for classifying pneu-
monia, but there is little consensus on a practical definition for this disease.121
Even though they have recently been revised, the CDC NHSN definitions for
pneumonia and BSIs are difficult to use consistently. When evaluating a
potential BSI, it is often difficult to determine if an organism isolated from a
blood culture is a true infection or a contaminant. Those using definitions
must realize that incidence rates may change when a definition is changed,
and this must be recognized when analyzing surveillance data and must be
noted when writing a surveillance report.
The characteristics of patients residing in licensed LTC facilities dramati-
cally changed in the 1990s. The McGeer119 definitions were written in 1989,
before the widespread use of IV therapy and mechanical ventilators and the
presence of patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome in many LTC
settings. Some LTC facilities, especially those that care for residents with sig-
nificant acuity (such as those who are ventilator dependent or who have a cen-
tral venous catheter), use the NNIS/NHSN definitions for use in their
setting.18
Determine the Process for Gathering Data

The processes for gathering data will depend on the surveillance indicators
that are chosen and available personnel and technical resources.9.12,18,43
Identify what data will be collected. Data collection should be limited to

the essential information (i.e., data elements) needed to determine if the crite-
ria for the disease or event being monitored are met. Although the variables to
be collected will depend on the particular event being surveyed, when moni-
toring patient outcomes the following data points should be considered:
1. For HAIs:
• Patient name, medical record or identification number, age, sex, loca-
tion in the facility (unit, room number, bed number), physician name
and service, date of admission, date of infection onset, type of infec-
tion, date of discharge, transfer, or death
• Information needed to classify the specific HAI being monitored: rele-
vant laboratory/diagnostic tests, date(s) done/results, cultures done
(including date collected, body site cultured and result), antibiotic sus-
ceptibility pattern of significant isolates, signs/symptoms specific for
the disease criteria
• Risk factors for infection: host factors (such as underlying disease),
surgical procedures (name of procedure, surgeon, American Society of
Anesthesiologists [ASA] score, duration of procedure), presence of
invasive devices (date of insertion, duration, location and types of vas-
cular access devices; use and duration of urinary catheter or mechani-
cal ventilator)
2. For noninfectious events:12 Patient name; medical record or identifica-
tion number; age; sex; location in the facility (unit, room number, bed
number); physician name and service; date of admission; date, time, and
location of the event; outcome of event; personnel involved (when rele-
vant); date of discharge, transfer, or death; and risk factors for event
(e.g., identified risk factors for falls include poor vision, preexisting neu-
rologic deficits, and medications such as psychotropic drugs)
Identify when data will be collected. The approach to collecting sur-

veillance data (i.e., concurrent and/or retrospective) depends on the event
being studied and the available resources. The advantages of conducting
concurrent surveillance (i.e., collecting data while the patient is still
under the care of the facility) include the ability to observe findings that
are not always recorded in the patient’s record (such as the presence of
drainage at a surgical incision site), to interview those caring for the
patient (direct caregivers frequently provide insight into circumstances
and factors that may influence patient outcomes), to detect clusters or
potential outbreaks in a timely manner, to institute immediate control
measures (such as isolation precautions), and to provide informal educa-
tion about infection prevention and control to caregivers, patients, resi-
dents, or family members (this is especially important in LTC facilities
that have high staff turnover rates). Some data, such as information on
falls and other accidents, should be recorded at the time of the incident so
that important information is not overlooked or forgotten. If data are col-
lected concurrently, then patient length of stay will affect the frequency of
data collection. Some experts recommend that routine infection surveil-
lance be performed at least once a week in the LTC setting.73
The disadvantages of concurrent surveillance are the time involved in locat-
ing and reviewing charts on a busy unit and the incompleteness of the
patient’s medical record if test results are not yet available when the chart is
reviewed. In some circumstances it may be more efficient to conduct retrospec-
tive or closed-record surveillance, especially if there is little or no opportunity
for intervention. Retrospective chart review allows the surveyor to review lab-
oratory and other diagnostic reports that may not be completed or placed in
the medical record until after discharge.
Identify sources of data. After deciding what data elements are needed, the
sources of the data should be identified. Sources may include the following37,43:
• Patient or resident records
• Daily microbiology reports provided by the laboratory
• Daily list of patients or residents admitted (including diagnosis) provided
by the admissions department
• Monthly report of the number of patients admitted and discharged and
the number of patient-days for each unit in the facility, as provided by the
facility’s administrative or financial department
• Interviews with caregivers
• Verbal and written reports from caregivers
• Kardex on the patient units
• Lists of patients on isolation precautions (this can sometimes be gener-
ated through the organization’s computer information system)
• Antibiotic order reports generated by the pharmacy
• Chest radiograph results from the radiology department (these are often
available through the hospital information system or through an audio
system by telephone)
• Incident reports from the risk management department
• Observations of healthcare workers’ practices
• Activity/procedure logs from the emergency room, operating room, respi-
ratory therapy department, and outpatient offices or clinics
• Other personnel who regularly review records (such as quality manage-
ment and utilization review)
• Employee health reports for needlesticks and other personnel injuries or
exposures
• The medical records department for lists of patients who were coded with
the same disease or condition.
ICPs should work with the organization’s information services department
to identify sources of data and how these data can be downloaded electroni-
cally to the infection prevention and control department.122
Identify who will collect the data. The persons who are responsible for col-
lecting HAI surveillance data must be capable of interpreting clinical notes,
collecting the data elements needed to evaluate the presence of nosocomial
infection, and using a standardized data collection tool. The availability of sur-
veillance personnel may affect the frequency and accuracy of data collection. If
the person who is responsible for data collection leaves the position or is on
extended leave of absence, then someone else should be trained and assigned
responsibility for the data collection process. If data are not collected for short
periods, it may not be of major consequence; however, if data collection is inter-
rupted for long periods, significant events such as outbreaks or clusters may
be missed.
For some HAI indicators, personnel in several departments may be given
the responsibility for collecting data. For example, respiratory therapy person-
nel can often provide the number of ventilator-days in a specific patient care
unit, and ICU personnel can collect and record each day the number of
patients with a urinary catheter or a central line. (Note: Central line must be
defined19 so that data can be consistently collected each day regardless of who
collects them.)
Design data collection tools. Standardized data collection tools must be
designed and used to collect the necessary data elements for the surveillance
indicators. Several types of data collection forms may be needed:
1. A case report form is usually used to collect surveillance data on each
patient reviewed:
• If a manual data collection and management system is used, this case
report form should be designed so it is consistent with the order in the
patient medical record so that information can be collected and
recorded efficiently. This should minimize the need to search back and
forth through the chart.
• If a computer database is used, the case report form should be
designed so its order is the same as the data entry screen on the com-
puter. Whenever possible, both the computer database and the case
report form should be set up so the information is consistent with the
order in the patient medical record.
• Case report forms may be paper based or electronic. A one-page data
collection form should be used as much as possible.
2. A line-listing form or database should be used to record data on all cases
that have a particular disease, such as all patients from whom MRSA
has been isolated or all patients with an SSI following total hip arthro-
plasty, and to visualize data, such as factors that may be common to
these patients.
3. A form should be used to record the number of patients on a specific unit
who have a central line or urinary catheter or who are on mechanical
ventilation.11,18
Examples of data collection forms can be found in several of the refer-
ences.12,18,78,84,95 Any of these forms can be used as prototypes upon which a
facility-specific form can be modeled.
Using technology to collect, store, manage, and analyze surveillance

data. Before data can be analyzed, they must be collected and organized. Data
collection and consolidation can be accomplished using either a manual or elec-
tronic/computerized system. The basic premises are the same; however, the data
can be more easily manipulated when a computer is used, so computers and
computerized databases should be used whenever possible. Unfortunately, man-
ual systems are frequently used even when computers may be readily available.
When manual data collection systems are used, the user should be able to
take information from the individual or case forms in an orderly manner and
enter it into an electronic database, such as Microsoft Excel, that is organized
to correspond to the case form. Electronic line lists can then be generated to
display data in a variety of ways (e.g., by organism, infection site, procedure,
date of event, or service).
If they are not yet doing so, those responsible for coordinating infection sur-
veillance, prevention, and control programs should learn to use computers to
collect, store, manage, and analyze surveillance data. Basic software packages,
such as Microsoft Office, contain word-processing, spreadsheet, database, and
graphics programs that are useful for infection surveillance. Data collection
forms can be designed using a word-processing program, and corresponding
line listings can be developed using a word-processing, spreadsheet, or data-
base program. Commercially available software programs designed to manage
and display nosocomial infection surveillance data are available.122 The use of
information technology in the collection, management, and analysis of surveil-
lance data is discussed in Chapter 9.
Data often are collected at the bedside or in clinical areas. Therefore, unless
portable computers, personal digital assistants, or bedside terminals are used
to collect the information, a paper form must still be used to record the data on
site. The information then must be entered into a central computer program.
Smyth et al. described the use of an automated data entry system employing
optical scanning of a specially designed form to enter surveillance data into a
computer database.123 This method reduced both the time and errors associ-
ated with manual data entry. Although widely used for other purposes (such
as grading examinations), optical scanning technology has rarely been used
for entering surveillance data in healthcare facilities.
As discussed in Chapter 9, some facilities have developed comprehensive,
hospital-wide software systems. These expert systems can merge and/or
evaluate data in existing patient information databases to identify patients
with a high probability of having a HAI. These patients can then be targeted
for chart review, antibiotic management, or infection control interven-
tion.122,124
Identify How to Calculate Rates and Analyze the Data
When designing a surveillance program, the types of measurements desired
(usually rates and proportions) must be determined prior to conducting sur-
veillance so that the appropriate data can be identified and consistently col-
lected. Ratios, rates, and proportions are explained in detail in Chapter 10.
The basic formula used to calculate rates, ratios, and proportions is:
rate, ratio, or proportion = (x/y) x 10n

where x (the numerator) is compared to y (the denominator) and 10n is used to

transform the result of the division into a uniform quantity. The value of n
depends on the type of frequency measure being computed.
A rate is used in healthcare epidemiology to measure the frequency or occur-
rence of a disease or event in a specified population over time. The formula is:
number of cases or events occurring in a specified time period

rate = ⫻ 10n
number of persons in the population at risk during the same time period
To calculate accurate rates of disease frequency, the appropriate numerators

and denominators must be used. For instance, when calculating an incidence
rate, persons who have the disease or condition being studied are called the
“cases,” and these become the numerator. The persons who are at risk of devel-
oping the disease or condition being studied are called the “population at risk,”
and these become the denominator.
Criteria or case definitions must be used to identify cases, as discussed ear-
lier in this chapter. During the course of an outbreak investigation, the case
definition may be expanded in order to identify all the persons who may be
affected and later narrowed to include only those who have been diagnosed
with the disease being studied, as explained in Chapter 8. However, when con-
ducting routine surveillance, it is imperative that a single case definition for
each disease or event be applied at all times, so that the surveyors can accu-
rately track trends (rates) over time.
The selection of an appropriate denominator is one of the most important
aspects of measuring disease frequency.18,125 It is important to ensure that the
number used closely represents the true population at risk. For example, inci-
dence rates measure the frequency with which new cases or events occur in a
defined population at risk during a specified period. The formula for calculat-
ing an incidence rate is:
number of new cases or events that occur in a defined time period

incidence rate = ⫻ 10n
number of persons in population at risk during the same period
If one wishes to measure the incidence of primary bloodstream infections

(PBSIs) in an ICU, the numerator would be the number of new PBSIs in the
ICU during a defined period, and the denominator would be the number of
patients discharged from the ICU during that period (because the number dis-
charged would be a close approximation of the population at risk). However,
because a patient’s risk of developing a PBSI is known to increase as the time
spent in the ICU increases, a more accurate measure of a patient’s risk of
developing a PBSI would be an incidence density rate. The incidence density is
a type of incidence rate that incorporates time, such as patient-days, in the
denominator. The formula is:
number of new cases that occur in a defined period

incidence density = ⫻ 10n
the time each person in population at risk is observed,
totaled for all persons
Using the above formula, one could calculate the incidence density rate of
PBSI in the ICU as follows:
ICU PBSI rate per number of new cases of PBSI in the ICU in a defined period
= ⫻ 1000
1000 patient-days total number of patient-days in the ICU in the defined period
where the denominator is the total number of days spent in the ICU by all
patients who were in the ICU during the defined period, and n = 3 to show
that rate per 1000 patient-days.
One can also calculate device-associated infection rates. One could calculate
the number of BSIs that are associated with a central line in the above ICU
population by using the steps shown in Exhibit 2–1.
Exhibit 2–1 How to Calculate a Device-Associated Infection Rate
Step 1. Decide on the time period for your analysis. It may be a month, a quarter, 6 months,
a year, or some other period.
Step 2. Select the patient population for analysis (i.e., the type of intensive care unit or
birth-weight category in a NICU).
Step 3. Select the infections to be used in the numerator. They must be site specific and
must have occurred in the selected patient population. Their date of onset must be during
the selected time period.
Step 4. Determine the number of device-days, which is used as the denominator of the
rate. Device-days are the total number of days of exposure to the device (central line,
umbilical catheter, ventilator, or urinary catheter) by all of the patients in the selected
population during the selected time period.
Example: Five patients on the first day of the month had one or more central lines in
place; five on day 2; two on day 3; five on day 4; three on day 5; four on day 6; and four on
day 7. Adding the number of patients with central lines on days 1 through 7, we would
have 5 + 5 + 2 + 5 + 3 + 4 + 4 = 28 central line-days for the first week. If we continued for
the entire month, the number of central line-days for the month is simply the sum of the
daily counts.
Step 5. Calculate the device-associated infection rate (per 1000 device-days) using the
following formula:
Number of device-associated infections for an infection site
Device-associated infection rate = ⫻ 1000
Number device-days
Example:
Number of central line-associated BSI
Central line-associated BSI rate per 1000 central line-days = ⫻ 1000
Number of central line-days
Source: Adapted from Edwards JR, Peterson KD, Andrus ML, et al. National Healthcare Safety Net-
work (NHSN) Report, data summary for 2006, issued June 2007. Am J Infect Control. 2007;35:
290–301.
Author note: report is in public domain. http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/
0196-6553/PIIS0196655307001472.pdf.
There are also many methods for calculating SSI rates.49 One can calculate
service-specific, surgeon-specific, or procedure-specific rates. In the examples
below, n = 2, and the rate is expressed as a percentage:
number SSIs in patients on cardiology service

Cardiology service-specific rate (%) = ⫻ 100
number patients on cardiology service
who had surgery
number SSIs in patients operated on by Dr. A

Surgeon-specific rate (%) = ⫻ 100
number patients operated on by Dr. A
Procedure-specific number SSIs after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery
= ⫻ 100
rate (%) number CABG procedures done
Prevalence is a measure of the frequency of the occurrence of current (i.e.,

both existing and new) cases of a disease in a specified population during a
defined time period. A prevalence rate is calculated using the formula:
all new and existing cases during a specific time period

Prevalence rate = ⫻ 10n
population at risk during same time period
Incidence versus prevalence rates. A prevalence rate differs from an inci-

dence rate in that a prevalence rate measures the occurrence of both new and
existing cases of a disease while an incidence rate measures new cases only.
For this reason, prevalence rates are generally higher than incidence rates.
Some published studies report prevalence, not incidence, rates of infection.
Therefore, one must be careful that the same types of rates are being com-
pared when comparing rates in a facility to those in another facility or to rates
published in the literature.
When developing a surveillance program, one must first identify which
rates will be calculated and then identify which numerator and denominator
will be used before any data are collected.18
Comparing rates: risk stratification, data collection, and making
comparisons. Different populations have different risks for disease or
injury. For instance, a new mother in a mother–baby unit is less likely to
develop an HAI than a critically ill patient in an ICU. A healthcare worker
who uses needles to give injections is more likely to sustain a needlestick
than a clerk in the same facility. For this reason, a risk stratification method
(a system of adjusting rates based on risk) must be incorporated into a sur-
veillance program.9,18,19,37,43,47,49
Calculating incidence rates based on patient-days or device-days is one
method of risk stratification, and this is used in the NHSN. 18,19 Surgical
wound infection rates have long been calculated using risk adjustment sys-
tems.49,18,19,126–128 The NNIS/NHSN uses a risk index based on wound classifi-
cation, duration of the operation (time of incision to time of closure), and ASA
score.18
Because a thorough discussion of risk stratification methods is beyond the

scope of this chapter, for more information refer to the references noted above
and to the review article by Gross.129 It should be noted that risk adjustment
systems must be used for measuring all outcomes of care, not only for
HAIs.130,131
Data analysis should be limited to those personnel who are trained to con-
sistently apply specific criteria for the event being monitored. Studies have
shown that even when personnel are trained to identify the presence, type,
and site of HAIs, there is variation in their ability to do so.132,133 In addition,
surveillance that is conducted prospectively (at least in part) has been shown
to be more accurate than surveillance conducted by retrospective chart
review.134
Factors that affect variations in data collection and analysis must be kept
in mind when comparing rates over time in a healthcare setting and espe-
cially when comparing rates with other institutions.135–139 Surveillance indi-
cators that are used for comparing rates with external databases should
meet the criteria delineated by SHEA and APIC.135 For comparisons to be
valid, those who are comparing their facility with another, or with a national
database such as NHSN, must ensure that the same definitions for a HAI
and the same methods for calculating rates are done in the facilities being
compared.
Many hospitals use the NNIS/NHSN data for comparing HAI rates. To com-
pare rates with NNIS/NHSN, an organization must use the NNIS/NHSN
methodology for collecting data and for calculating and analyzing rates.11,18
There is currently no similar national database for comparing or benchmark-
ing nosocomial infection rates in the LTC setting; however, several government
agencies are planning to develop one.17,35 Stevenson et al. have published sev-
eral reports of a regional data set of infection rates for LTC facilities that
demonstrates the potential for developing a pooled data set for interfacility
(among different facilities) comparison.36,140 There are few national databases
for comparing other types of events relating to health care. Although the use of
benchmarking is attractive, and comparing rates to others can lead to improve-
ment in the quality of care,21,22 healthcare organizations must be aware of the
problems inherent in comparing rates among facilities and the need for risk
stratification, validation of the data collection process, and standardization of
the methods used for analysis and interpretation of the findings.135–144 These
problems are being addressed in the United States and other countries where
government agencies are requiring reporting of HAI rates and other healthcare
quality data with the goal of improving healthcare quality.145,146
Develop an Interpretive Report
“Measurement, or surveillance, is an essential step in enabling an organiza-
tion to learn about what it produces (outcomes) and how it produces it
(process).”147(p137) Surveillance reports should be designed to provide accurate,
interpretable information and to stimulate improvement of the process or the
outcomes being measured. Methods for using visual displays (charts, graphs,
and tables) to present the findings are discussed in Chapter 12.
The content, format, and level of detail of each report will depend on the
intended audience. Reports should be designed to contain the following infor-
mation: time frame of the study, numbers of cases or events detected, number
in the population studied, the rates, the methodology that was used to collect
the data and calculate the rates, the criteria that were used to define the
numerator and denominator, any actions taken, the likely risk factors that
influenced the occurrence of the events, and any recommendations for preven-
tion and control measures.
Determine Who Should Receive the Report

Reports should be provided to those persons in the organization who can
alter the outcomes or processes (i.e., those who can develop and implement
strategies to reduce the risk factors). It is important to be expansive in deter-
mining who can alter the outcomes or processes of care. Although managers
are most often thought of as those who can influence change, there are others
on staff who also have this ability. Direct caregivers, such as nursing staff,
physicians, and therapists, should also receive reports of surveillance findings.
These personnel can make a substantial difference in preventing HAIs and
improving adherence to proper infection prevention and control practices.
Those who produce the reports should periodically meet with those who
receive the reports to discuss the findings, rates, any clusters detected, and
any recommendations for improvement.
Develop a Written Surveillance Plan

A written surveillance plan should be developed and reviewed periodically,
at least annually, to assess the usefulness of the program. The written plan
should contain the following information:
• A brief description of the organization, population(s) served, and types of
services provided
• The objectives of the surveillance program
• A brief description of the events and indicators monitored (both outcome
and process)
• The methodology for data collection (housewide or targeted)
• The methodology for calculating and analyzing rates
• A description of the surveillance criteria used, such as NHSN18 or
McGeer119
• Delineation of who is responsible for collecting, managing, and analyzing
data and preparing reports
• The types of reports provided and persons to whom they are provided
• The process for evaluating the program
Evaluating a Surveillance Program
Each surveillance program should be periodically assessed to evaluate its

usefulness. Guidelines for evaluating surveillance systems have been pub-
Regulations and Requirements Affecting Surveillance Programs 57
lished by the CDC.8 A surveillance system is considered useful if it contributes

to the prevention and control of adverse health events.
When assessing the usefulness of the program, one should begin with a
review of the program’s objectives. “Depending on the objectives of a particular
surveillance system, the system might be considered useful if it satisfactorily
addresses at least one of the following questions. Does the system:
• Detect diseases, injuries, or adverse or protective exposures of public
importance in a timely way to permit accurate diagnosis or identification,
prevention or treatment, and handling of contacts when appropriate?
• Provide estimates of the magnitude of morbidity and mortality related to
the health-related event under surveillance, including the identification
of factors associated with the event?
• Detect trends that signal changes in the occurrence of disease, injury, or
adverse or protective exposure, including detection of epidemics (or out-
breaks)?
• Permit assessment of the effect of prevention and control programs?
• Lead to improved clinical, behavioral, social, policy, or environmental
practices?
• Stimulate research intended to lead to prevention or control?”8(p14)
REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING

SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS IN HEALTHCARE SETTINGS
Many countries, including the United States and Canada, have state,
regional or national requirements that healthcare facilities, such as hospitals
and nursing homes, implement infection surveillance, prevention, and control
measures or programs.25,85,148–152 The CMS mandates the collection and analy-
sis of data on outcomes and adverse events in facilities that receive Medicare
and Medicaid payments. For example, the CMS Conditions of Participation for
hospitals require a hospital to have a program for identifying, reporting, inves-
tigating, and controlling infections and communicable diseases in patients and
personnel and to maintain a record of incidents and corrective actions related
to infections.152 CMS also requires LTC facilities to have an infection control
program (CMS 42 CFR Part 83, Subpart B—Requirements for Long-Term Care
Facilities).
In addition to government mandates, healthcare facilities are also subject to
requirements of accrediting agencies, such as the Joint Commission and the
Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF). The Joint
Commission requires the healthcare organizations that it accredits (e.g., hos-
pitals, LTC facilities, and ambulatory care facilities) to have infection surveil-
lance, prevention, and control programs that include the ongoing review and
analysis of data on HAIs.153 The Joint Commission specifies that each health-
care organization must design and implement a surveillance program that is
appropriate for its population and environment. Organizations that are
accredited by CARF must have an infection prevention and control program
that addresses infections acquired in the community, infections acquired in
the facility, and trends.154 Although the expectations of the various govern-
ment, regulatory, and accrediting agencies regarding the methodology and
type of data collected varies, there is consensus that a healthcare organization
must collect data on HAIs, analyze the data to determine the significance of
the findings, and implement programs and practices that will reduce the risk
of HAIs.
Public health agencies worldwide have disease surveillance programs and
requirements for reporting certain diseases and conditions to a local or
national health department. All states and territories in the United States
and many local municipalities mandate reporting of specific notifiable dis-
eases by healthcare providers and laboratories.155 Each year, the CDC pub-
lishes a list of nationally notifiable infectious diseases that should be
reported to the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System107; how-
ever, state and local laws governing reporting vary for the diseases or condi-
tions that must be reported by healthcare providers to the local health
department.155 The 2008 list of US nationally notifiable diseases is provided
in Exhibit 2–2.
THE HEALTHCARE PROVIDER’S ROLE IN PUBLIC HEALTH

SURVEILLANCE
Healthcare providers play a critical role in the identification, surveillance,

and reporting of communicable diseases and in the early recognition of com-
munity outbreaks.68 Even though it may not seem important to report one
case of a notifiable disease, that case may be part of a larger outbreak that
would not be recognized unless each healthcare provider reported each case
diagnosed.
Outbreaks of infectious diseases are frequently first detected by healthcare
providers when several patients present with the same symptoms within a
short period of time. Healthcare providers and organizations should have a
mechanism for routinely reporting suspected outbreaks of infectious and non-
infectious diseases. For example, a few years ago a patient was admitted to a
community hospital with dehydration and gastroenteritis. The patient told
her attending physician that several of her friends, all of whom had attended
the same wedding reception, were also ill and another had just been admitted
to the same hospital with similar symptoms. The physician reported this to
the infection control staff who interviewed both patients, confirmed the report,
and called the local health department. The health department investigated
the cases and uncovered an outbreak of Salmonella enteritidis food poisoning
among the attendees of the wedding. The source of the Salmonella was even-
tually found to be a contaminated commercially packaged meat product. Con-
tamination of the meat product may not have been recognized, and many more
people may have become ill if this cluster of cases had not been promptly rec-
ognized, investigated, and reported.
GLOBAL SURVEILLANCE AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
In 2007 the World Health Organization (WHO) published its World

Health Report 2007, A Safer Future: Global Public Health Security in the
Global Surveillance and Emergency Preparedness 59
Exhibit 2–2 Nationally Notifiable Infectious Diseases, United States, 2008
Acquired immunodeficiency Hepatitis, viral, acute Shiga toxin-producing

syndrome (AIDS) • Hepatitis A, acute Escherichia coli (STEC)
Anthrax • Hepatitis B, acute Shigellosis
Arboviral neuroinvasive and • Hepatitis B virus, Smallpox
nonneuroinvasive perinatal infection Streptococcal disease,
diseases • Hepatitis, C, acute invasive, group A
• California serogroup Hepatitis, viral, chronic Streptococcal toxic-shock
virus disease • Chronic hepatitis B syndrome
• Eastern equine • Hepatitis C virus Infection Streptococcus pneumoniae,
encephalitis virus (past or present) drug resistant, invasive
disease HIV infection disease
• Powassan virus disease HIV infection, adult Streptococcus pneumoniae,
• St. Louis encephalitis (> =13 years) invasive disease
virus disease HIV infection, pediatric non-drug-resistant, in
• West Nile virus disease (<13 years) children less than
• Western equine Influenza-associated 5 years of age
encephalitis virus pediatric mortality Syphilis
disease Legionellosis • Syphilis, primary
Botulism Listeriosis • Syphilis, secondary
Botulism, food-borne Lyme disease • Syphilis, latent
Botulism, infant Malaria • Syphilis, early latent
Botulism, other (wound and Measles • Syphilis, late latent
unspecified) Meningococcal disease • Syphilis, latent, unknown
Brucellosis Mumps duration
Chancroid Novel influenza A virus • Neurosyphilis
Chlamydia trachomatis, infections • Syphilis, late,
genital infections Pertussis nonneurological
Cholera Plague • Syphilitic stillbirth
Coccidioidomycosis Poliomyelitis, paralytic • Syphilis, congenital
Cryptosporidiosis Poliovirus infection, Tetanus
Cyclosporiasis nonparalytic Toxic-shock syndrome (other
Diphtheria Psittacosis than streptococcal)
Ehrlichiosis/Anaplasmosis Q fever Trichinellosis (Trichinosis)
Ehrlichia chaffeensis Rabies Tuberculosis
Ehrlichia ewingii Anaplasma • Rabies, animal Tularemia
phagocytophilum • Rabies, human Typhoid fever
Undetermined Rocky Mountain spotted Vancomycin-intermediate
Giardiasis fever Staphylococcus aureus
Gonorrhea Rubella (VISA)
Haemophilus influenzae, Rubella, congenital Vancomycin-resistant
invasive disease syndrome Staphylococcus aureus
Hansen disease (leprosy) Salmonellosis (VRSA)
Hantavirus pulmonary Severe acute respiratory Varicella (morbidity)
syndrome syndrome-associated Varicella (deaths only)
Hemolytic uremic coronavirus (SARS-CoV) Vibriosis
syndrome, postdiarrheal disease Yellow fever
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance
System. http://www.cdc.gov/ncphi/disss/nndss/phs/infdis.htm
21st Century.156 The report notes that 39 new diseases have emerged in the
world since the 1970s. The need for a global surveillance system for infectious
diseases is highlighted not only by the WHO report but also by the Forum on
Microbial Threats157 and events that have occurred since 2000: the rapid
spread of SARS to several continents, a bioterrorist attack with Bacillus
anthracis, the ongoing spread of avian influenza and the potential for an
influenza pandemic, and the international spread of hypervirulent strains of
Clostridium difficile and antimicrobial-resistant microorganisms.
In 2005 revised International Health Regulations, known as the IHR, were
released to address issues that affect the health of people worldwide, such as
infectious disease outbreaks, pandemics, and other events that may consti-
tute a public health emergency of international concern.158 The WHO is work-
ing to promote the IHR and the need for international efforts to identify and
control emerging diseases; global collaboration in surveillance and outbreak
alerts and response; and increased national and international resources for
training, surveillance, laboratory capacity, response networks, and prevention
efforts.
ICPs, healthcare epidemiologists, and healthcare providers play a critical
role in detecting and reporting diseases and events of public health signifi-
cance, such as emerging infections and potential outbreaks, so that preven-
tion and control measures can be quickly implemented. They also play an
important part in ensuring that their healthcare organizations have emer-
gency plans in place to reduce the adverse impacts these events have on
healthcare settings.159 These plans should be developed by a multidiscipli-
nary task force composed of personnel from the healthcare organization
developing its plan and personnel from surrounding healthcare organiza-
tions, public health agencies, emergency responders, and other stakeholders.
A discussion of emergency preparedness planning is beyond the scope of this
text; however, there are many resources on the Internet for information on
emergency preparedness planning. Public health agencies worldwide, such as
the CDC, have developed and posted emergency preparedness plans on their
Web sites.
SUMMARY
Routine surveillance programs should be implemented in healthcare set-

tings to measure outcomes and processes related to health care. An effective
surveillance program should be able to detect and quantify the occurrence of
diseases of local and public health importance and of adverse events such as
HAIs. Major objectives of a surveillance program are to improve the quality of
health care and to identify clusters and outbreaks of disease so that measures
can be implemented to prevent new cases from occurring. ICPs play a critical
role in recognizing and preventing the spread of disease both in healthcare
settings and in their community and in preparing and implementing their
organization’s response to public health emergencies.
References 61
REFERENCES
1. World Health Organization. Public health surveillance. http://www.who.int/immunization_

monitoring/burden/routine_surveillance/en/. Accessed February 16, 2008.
2. Reynolds MG, Huy Anh B, Hoang Thu V, et al. Factors associated with nosocomial SARS-
CoV transmission among healthcare workers in Hanoi, Vietnam; 2003. BMC Public
Health. 2006;6:207. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471–2458/6/207. Accessed February
17, 2008.
3. Outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome-worldwide; 2003. MMWR. 2003;52:226–228.
[Erratum, MMWR. 2003;52:284].
4. ProMED-mail. Pneumonia—China (Guangdong). ProMed mail 2002; 11 February:
20030211.0369. http://www.promedmail.org. Accessed March 29, 2008.
5. Rhinehart E, Friedman MM. Infection Control in Home Care and Hospice. 2nd ed. Sudbury,
MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers; 2005.
6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nosocomial bacteremias associated with intra-
venous fluid therapy—USA. MMWR. 1997;46:1227–1233.
7. Goldmann DA, Maki DG, Rhame FS, Kaiser AB, Tenney JH, Bennett JV. Guidelines for infec-
tion control in intravenous therapy. Ann Intern Med. 1973;79:848–850.
8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated guidelines for evaluating public health
surveillance systems: recommendations from the guidelines working group. MMWR.
2001;50:1–35.
9. Lee TB, Montgomery OG, Marx J, Olmsted RN, Scheckler WE. Recommended practices for
surveillance: Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), Inc.
Am J Infect Control. 2007;35:427–440. http://www.apic.org/Content/NavigationMenu/
PracticeGuidance/SurveillanceDefinitionsReportsandRecommendations/AJIC_Surveillance
_2007.pdf. Accessed February 21, 2008.
10. Baker OG. Process surveillance: an epidemiologic challenge for all health care organizations.
Am J Infect Control. 1997;25:96–101.
11. Lee TB. Surveillance in acute care and nonacute care settings: current issues and concepts.
12. Massanari RM, Wilkerson K, Swartzendruber S. Designing surveillance for noninfectious
outcomes of medical care. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1995;16:419–426.
13. Haley RW, Culver DH, White JW, et al. The efficacy of infection surveillance and control pro-
grams in preventing nosocomial infections in U.S. hospitals. Am J Epidemiol. 1985;121:
182–205.
14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Public health focus: surveillance, prevention
and control of nosocomial infections. MMWR. 1992;41:783–787.
15. Emori TG, Culver DH, Horan TC, et al. National nosocomial infections surveillance system
(NNIS): description of surveillance methods. Am J Infect Control. 1991;19:19–35.
16. Tokars JT, Miller ER, Stein G. A new national surveillance system for hemodialysis-associated
infections: initial results. Am J Infect Control. 2002;30:288–295.
17. Tokars JI, Richards C, Andrus M, et al. The changing face of surveillance for health care-
associated infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39:1347–1352.
18. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The National Healthcare Safety Network
(NHSN) Manual. Patient Safety Component Protocol. Division of Healthcare Quality Promo-
tion, Atlanta, GA; 2008. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/nhsn_members.html. Accessed Feb-
ruary 9, 2008.
19. Edwards JR, Peterson KD, Andrus ML, et al. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN)
Report. Am J Infect Control. 2007;35:290–301.
20. Gaynes RP, Culver DH, Emori TG, et al. The national nosocomial infections surveillance sys-
tem: plans for the 1990s and beyond. Am J Med. 1991;91(Suppl 3B):3B-116S-3B-120S.
21. Gaynes RP, Solomon S. Improving hospital-acquired infection rates: the CDC experience.
J Qual Improve. 1996;22:457–467.
22. Richards C, Emori TG, Peavey G, Gaynes R. Promoting quality through measurement of per-
formance and response: prevention success stories. Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7:299–301.
23. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Annual epidemiological report on com-
municable diseases in Europe: report on the status of communicable diseases in the EU and
EEA/EFTA countries. Stockholm; 7 June 2007. http://ecdc.europa.eu/pdf/ECDC_epi_report
_2007.pdf. Accessed February 18, 2008.
24. Smith PW. Infection surveillance in long-term care facilities. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1991;12:55–58.
25. Smith P, Rusnack P. Infection prevention and control in the long-term-care facility. Am J
Infect Control. 1997;25:488–512.
26. Goldrick BA. Infection control programs in long-term-care facilities: structure and process.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20:764–769.
27. Manian FA. Surveillance of surgical site infections in alternative settings: exploring the cur-
rent options. Am J Infect Control. 1997;25:102–105.
28. Nafziger DA, Lundstrom T, Chandra S, Massanari RM. Infection control in ambulatory care.
Infect Dis Clin North Am. 1997;11:279–296.
29. Rhinehart E. Infection control in home care. Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7:208–211.
30. Luehm D, Fauerbach L. Task force studies infection rates, surgical site management and
Foley catheter infections. Caring. 1999;18:30–34.
31. Woomer N, Long C, Anderson CO, Greenberg EA. Benchmarking in home health care: a col-
laborative approach. Caring. 1999;18:22–28.
32. APIC Home Care Membership Section. Draft definitions for surveillance of infections in
home health care. Am J Infect Control. 2000;28:449–453.
33. Rosenheimer L, Embry FC, Sanford J, Silver SR. Infection surveillance in home care: device-
related incidence rates. Am J Infect Control. 1998;Jun26(3):359–363.
34. Manangan LP, Pearson M L, Tokars JL, Miller E, Jarvis WR. Feasibility of national surveil-
lance of health-care-associated infections in home-care settings. Emerg Infect Dis. 2002;8:
233–236.
35. HELICS Improving Patient Safety in Europe. IPSE Annual Report, 2006. http://helics
.univ-lyon1.fr/Documents/IPSE_Annual_Report_2006.pdf. Accessed February 18, 2008.
36. Stevenson KB, Moore J, Colwell H, Sleeper B. Standardized infection surveillance in long-
term care: interfacility comparisons from a regional cohort of facilities. Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol. 2005;26:231–238.
37. Centers for Disease Control. Outline for Healthcare-Associated Infections Surveillance. 2006.
Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control; 2006. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/pdf /nhsn/
OutlineForHAISurveillance.pdf. Accessed February 18, 2008.
38. Pottinger JM, Herwaldt LA, Perl TM. Basics of surveillance—an overview. Infect Control
Hosp Epidemiol. 1997;18:513–527.
39. Scheckler WE. Surveillance, foundation for the future: a historical overview and evolution of
methodologies. Am J Infect Control. 1997;25:106–111.
40. Tousey PM. Epidemiologic methods for selective surveillance. Am J Infect Control. 1987;15:
148–158.
41. Perl TM. Surveillance, reporting, and the use of computers. In: Wenzel RP, ed. Prevention
and Control of Nosocomial Infections. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins;
1993:139–176.
42. Haley RW. Surveillance by objective: a new priority-directed approach to the control of noso-
comial infections. Am J Infect Control. 1985;13:78–89.
43. Arias KM. Surveillance. In: APIC Text of Infection Control and Epidemiology. 2nd ed. Wash-
ington, DC: Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology; 2005;
3.1–3.18.
44. Gaynes RP, Horan TC. Surveillance of nosocomial infections. In: Mayhall CG, ed. Hospital
Epidemiology and Infection Control. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1996:1017–1031,
App. A–App. C.
References 63
45. Wenzel RP, Thompson RL, Landry SM, et al. Hospital-acquired infections in intensive care
unit patients: an overview with emphasis on epidemics. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1983;4:371–375.
46. Pronovost P, Needham D, Berenholtz S, et al. An intervention to decrease catheter-related
bloodstream infections in the ICU. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2725–2732.
47. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR, and the Hospital Infection Con-
trol Practices Advisory Committee. Guideline for the prevention of surgical site infection;
1999. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20:247–280.
48. Platt R, Yokoe DS, Sands KE. Automated methods for surveillance of surgical site infections.
Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7:212–216.
49. Roy MC, Perl TM. Basics of surgical-site surveillance. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1997;
18:659–668.
50. Roberts FJ, Walsh A, Wing P, Dvorek M, Schweigel J. The influence of surveillance methods
on surgical wound infection rates in a tertiary care spinal surgery service. Spine. 1998;23:
366–370.
51. Fields CL. Outcomes of a postdischarge surveillance system for surgical site infections at a
Midwestern regional referral center hospital. Am J Infect Control. 1999;27:158–164.
52. Lee JT. Wound infection surveillance. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 1992;6:643–656.
53. Cardo DM, Falk PS, Mayhall CG. Validation of surgical wound surveillance. Infect Control
54. Yokoe DS, Noskin GA, Cunningham SM, et al. Enhanced identification of postoperative infec-
tions among inpatients. Emer Infect Dis. 2004;10:1924–1930.
55. Miner AL, Sands KE, Yokoe DS, et al. Enhanced identification of postoperative infections
among outpatients. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004;10:1931–1937.
56. Noy D, Creedy D. Postdischarge surveillance of surgical site infections: a multi-method
approach to data collection. Am J Infect Control. 2002;30:417–424.
57. Petherick ES, Dalton JE, Moore PJ, Cullum N. Methods for identifying surgical wound infec-
tion after discharge from hospital: a systematic review. BMC Infect Dis. 2006;6:170.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471–2334/6/170. Accessed February 19, 2008.
58. Schneeberger PM, Smits MHW, Zick REF, Wille JC. Surveillance as a starting point to reduce
surgical-site infection rates in elective orthopaedic surgery. J Hosp Infect. 2002;51:
179–184.
59. Mylotte JM. Laboratory surveillance method for nosocomial Clostridium difficile diarrhea.
60. McFarland LV, Beneda HW, Clarridge JE, Raugi GJ. Implications of the changing face of
Clostridium difficile disease for health care practitioners. Am J Infect Control. 2007;35:
237–253.
61. Halasa NB, Williams JV, Wilson GJ, Walsh WF, Schaffner W, Wright PF. Medical and eco-
nomic impact of a respiratory syncytial virus outbreak in a neonatal intensive care unit.
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2005;24(12):1040–1044.
62. Bernstein DI, Ward RL. Rotaviruses. In: Feigin RD, Cherry JD, eds. Textbook of Pediatric
Infectious Diseases. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders Company; 1998:1901–1922.
Mycobacterium tuberculosis in health-care settings; 2005. MMWR. 2005;54(RR-17):1–142.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/index.html. Accessed February 15, 2008.
64. Tuberculosis Coalition for Technical Assistance. International Standards for Tuberculosis
Care (ISTC). The Hague: Tuberculosis Coalition for Technical Assistance; 2006. http://www
.nationaltbcenter.edu/international. Accessed February 15, 2008.
65. Siegel, JD, Rhinehart E, Jackson M, Chiarello L, and the Healthcare Infection Control Prac-
tices Advisory Committee. Management of multidrug-resistant organisms in healthcare set-
tings; 2006. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/index.html.
66. Klevens RM, Morison MA, Nadle J, et al. Invasive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus infections in the United States. JAMA. 2007;298(15):1763–1771.
tices Advisory Committee; 2007. Guideline for isolation precautions: preventing transmission
of infectious agents in healthcare settings; June 2007. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/pdf/
isolation2007.pdf. Accessed February 15, 2008.
68. Guerrero JC, Filippone C. A cluster of Legionnaire’s disease in a community hospital—a clue
to a larger epidemic. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;17:177–178.
69. Goodman RA, Solomon SL. Transmission of infectious diseases in outpatient health care set-
tings. JAMA. 1991;265:2377–2380.
70. Herwaldt LA, Smith SD, Carter CD. Infection control in the outpatient setting. Infect Control
71. Tokars JI, Miller ER, Alter MJ, Arduino MJ. National Surveillance of Dialysis-Associated
Diseases in the United States; 1997. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Infectious Diseases,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Service, Department of Health
and Human Services; 1999.
72. Kaczmarek RG, Moore RM, McCrohan J, et al. Multi-state investigation of the actual disin-
fection/sterilization of endoscopes in health care facilities. Am J Med. 1992;92:257–261.
73. Smith PW. Consensus conference on nosocomial infections in long-term care facilities. Am J
74. Jackson MM, Fierer J. Infections and infection risk in residents of long-term care facilities:
a review of the literature; 1970–1984. Am J Infect Control. 1985;13:63–77.
75. Jacobson C, Strausbaugh LJ. Incidence and impact of infection in nursing home care unit.
76. Vermaat JH, Rosebrugh E, Ford-Jones EL, Ciano J, Kobayashi J, Miller G. An epidemiologic
study of nosocomial infections in a pediatric long-term care facility. Am J Infect Control.
1993;21:183–188.
77. Garibaldi RA, Brodine S, Matsumiya S. Infections among patients in nursing homes: policies,
prevalence and problems. N Engl J Med. 1981;305:731–735.
78. Smith PW, ed. Infection Control in Long-Term Care Facilities. 2nd ed. Albany, NY: Delmar
Publishers; 1994.
79. Jackson MM, Fierer J, Barrett-Connor E, et al. Intensive surveillance for infections in a
three-year study of nursing home patients. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;135:685–696.
80. Darnowski SB, Gordon M, Simor AE. Two years of infection surveillance in a geriatric long-
term care facility. Am J Infect Control. 1991;19:185–190.
81. Vlahov D, Tenney JH, Cervino KW, Shamer DK. Routine surveillance for infections in nurs-
ing homes: experience at two facilities. Am J Infect Control. 1987;15:47–53.
82. Goldrick BA. Infection control programs in skilled nursing long-term care facilities: an
assessment; 1995. Am J Infect Control. 1999;27:4–9.
83. Nicolle LE, Garibaldi RA. Infection control in long-term care facilities. Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol. 1995;16:348–353.
84. Ministry of National Health and Welfare. Canadian Infection Control Guidelines for Long
Term Care Facilities. Ottawa, Canada: Ministry of National Health and Welfare; 1994.
85. Rosenbaum P, Zeller J, Franck J, Pass MA. Long-term care. In: APIC Text of Infection Control
and Epidemiology. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Association for Professionals in Infection Control
and Epidemiology. 2005;53.1–53.15.
86. Ahlbrecht H, Shearen C, Degelau J, Guay DRP. Team approach to infection prevention and
control in the nursing home setting. Am J Infect Control. 1999;27:64–70.
87. Sheretz RJ. Surveillance for infections associated with vascular catheters. Infect Control
88. Yokoe DS, Anderson J, Chambers R, et al. Simplified surveillance for nosocomial bloodstream
infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1998;19:657–660.
89. Infusion Nurses Society. The Infusion Nursing Standards of Practice. Philadelphia, PA: Lip-
pincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2006.
References 65
90. Tablan OC, Anderson LJ, Besser R, et al. and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices
Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preventing health-care-associated pneumonia; 2003.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/index.html. Accessed February 19, 2008.
91. Berlowitz DR, Halpern J. Evaluating and improving pressure ulcer care: the VA experience
with administrative data. Joint Comm J Qual Improv. 1997;23:424–433.
92. Panel for the Prediction and Prevention of Pressure Ulcers in Adults. Pressure Ulcers in
Adults: Prediction and Prevention. Clinical Practice Guideline, Number 3, Rockville, MD:
AHCPR; 1992. AHCPR Publication No. 92–0047.
93. Wipke-Tevis DD, Williams DA, Rantz MJ, et al. Nursing home quality and pressure ulcer pre-
vention and management practices. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52(4):583–588.
94. Gottsch JD. Surveillance and control of epidemic keratoconjunctivitis. Trans Am Ophthalmol
Soc. 1996;94:539–587.
95. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH). Guidelines for the Prevention
and Control of Upper and Lower Acute Respiratory Illnesses (Including Influenza and Pneu-
monia) in Long Term Care Facilities; 2000. Baltimore, MD: Maryland DHMH, Epidemiology
and Disease Control Program; 2000. http://www.cha.state.md.us /edcp/guidelines/resp97
.html. Accessed February 21, 2008.
96. Patel N, Tignor GH. Device-specific sharps injury and usage rates: an analysis by hospital
department. Am J Infect Control. 1997;25:77–84.
97. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Workbook for designing, implementing, and
evaluating a sharps injury prevention program. http://www.cdc.gov/sharpssafety/index.html
98. World Health Organization. Sharps injuries: global burden of disease from sharps injuries to
health-care workers. Geneva; 2003. http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/publications/
en/sharps.pdf. Accessed February 19, 2008.
99. Centers for Disease Control. Prevention and control of tuberculosis in facilities providing
long-term care to the elderly: recommendations of the advisory committee for the elimination
of tuberculosis. MMWR. 1990;39(RR-10).
100. Pittet D, Safran E, Harbarth S, et al. Automatic alerts for methicillin-resistant Staphylococ-
cus aureus surveillance and control: role of a hospital information system. Infect Control
101. Filippell MB, Rearick T. Respiratory syncytial virus. Nurs Clin North Am. 1993;28:651–671.
102. McDonald LC, Coignard B, Dunnerke E, et al. and the Ad Hoc Clostridium difficile Surveil-
lance Working Group. Recommendations for surveillance of Clostridium difficile–associated
disease. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007; 28:140–145.
103. Mitchell A, Jones N. Striving to prevent falls in an acute care setting—action to enhance
quality. J Clin Nurs. 1996;5:213–220.
104. Welton JM, Jarr S. Automating and improving the data quality of a nursing department
quality management program at a university hospital. Joint Comm J Qual Improv.
1997;23:623–635.
105. Lesar TS, Briceland L, Stein DS. Factors related to errors in medication prescribing. JAMA.
1997;277:312–317.
106. Mohseni IE, Wong DH. Medication errors analysis is an opportunity to improve practice. Am
J Surg. 1998;175:4–9.
107. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National notifiable diseases surveillance sys-
tem. http://www.cdc.gov/ncphi/disss/nndss/nndsshis.htm. Accessed February 16, 2008.
108. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevention and control of influenza: recommen-
dations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP); 2007. MMWR.
2007;56(RR-6):1–56. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5606a1.htm. Accessed
February 21, 2008.
109. Bradley SF. Prevention of influenza in long-term-care facilities. Long-Term-Care Committee
of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1999;20:629–637.
110. Rutala WA, and the APIC Guidelines Committee. APIC guideline for selection and use of dis-
infectants. Am J Infect Control. 1996;24:313–342.
111. Association of periOperative Registered Nurses. 2007 Standards and Recommended Prac-
tices. Denver, CO: Association of periOperative Registered Nurses; 2007.
112. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. Comprehensive Guide to
Steam Sterilization and Sterility Assurance in Health Care Facilities. Arlington, VA: Associa-
tion for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation; 2006.
113. Sehulster LM, Chinn RYW, Arduino MJ, et al. Guidelines for environmental infection control
in health-care facilities. Recommendations from CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control
Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC); 2003. MMWR. 2003;52(No RR-10):1–44. http://www
.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/gl_environinfection.html. Accessed February 19, 2008.
114. Doebbling BN, Ferguson KJ, Kohout FJ. Predictors of hepatitis B vaccine acceptance in
health care workers. Med Care. 1996;34:58–72.
115. Larson E, Kretzer EK. Compliance with handwashing and barrier precautions. J Hosp Infect.
1995;30(Suppl):88–106.
116. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. How-to Guide: Improving Hand Hygiene—A Guide
for Improving Practices among Health Care Workers. http://www.ihi.org. Accessed February
19, 2008.
117. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guideline for hand hygiene in health-care set-
tings: recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee
and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. MMWR. 2002;51(RR16):
1–45. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/gl_handhygiene.html. Accessed February 19, 2008.
118. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Handwashing and glove use in a long-term care
facility—Maryland; 1992. MMWR. 1993;42:672–675.
119. McGeer A, Campbell B, Emori TG, et al. Definitions of infection for surveillance in long-term
care facilities. Am J Infect Control. 1991;19:1–7.
120. APIC-HICPAC. Surveillance definitions for home health care and home hospice infections.
February 2008. http://www.apic.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Search&section=Surveillance
_Definitions&template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentFileID=9898. Accessed May 10,
2008.
121. Goldmann D. Contemporary challenges for hospital epidemiology. Am J Med. 1991;91
(Suppl 3B):8S–15S.
122. Reagan DR. Microcomputers in hospital epidemiology. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1997;18:440–448.
123. Smyth ET, McIlvenny G, Barr JG, Dickson LM, Thompson IM. Automated entry of hospital
infection surveillance data. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1997;18:486–491.
124. Carr JR, Fitzpatrick P, Izzo JL, et al. Changing the infection control paradigm from off-line to
real time: the experience at Millard Fillmore Health System. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1997;18:255–259.
125. Victora CG. What’s the denominator? Lancet. 1993;342:97–99.
126. Haley RW, Culver DH, Morgan WM, White JW, Emori TG, Hooton TM. Identifying patients at
high risk of surgical wound infection: a simple multivariate index of patient susceptibility
and wound contamination. Am J Epidemiol. 1985;121:206–215.
127. Haley RW. Nosocomial infections in surgical patients: developing valid measures of intrinsic
patient risk. Am J Med. 1991;91(Suppl 3B):145S–151S.
128. Culver DH, Horan TC, Gaynes RP, et al. Surgical wound infection rates by wound class, oper-
ative procedure, and patient risk index. Am J Med. 1991;91(Suppl 3B):152S–157S.
129. Gross PA. Basics of stratifying for severity of illness. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1996;17:675–686.
130. Bailit JL, Dooley SL, Peaceman AN. Risk adjustment for interhospital comparison of primary
cesarean rates. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;93:1025–1030.
131. Zinn JS, Aaronson WE, Rosko MD. The use of standardized indicators as quality improve-
ment tools: an application in Pennsylvania nursing homes. Am J Med Qual. 1993;8:72–78.
References 67
132. Simonds DN, Horan TC, Kelley R, Jarvis WR. Detecting pediatric nosocomial infections: how
do infection control and quality assurance personnel compare? Am J Infect Control. 1997;25:
202–208.
133. Larson E, Horan T, Cooper B, et al. Study of the definition of nosocomial infections (SDNI).
134. Haley RW, Schaberg DR, McClish DK, et al. The accuracy of retrospective chart review in
measuring nosocomial infection rates. Am J Epidemiol. 1980;111:516–533.
135. Scheckler WE, Brimhall D, Buck AS, et al. Requirements for infrastructure and essential
activities of infection control and epidemiology in hospitals: a consensus panel report. Am J
Infect Control. 1998;26:47–60. http://www.apic.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Guidelines&
CONTENTID=1090&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm. Accessed February 21, 2008.
136. Friedman C, Barnette M, Buck AS, et al. Requirements for infrastructure and essential activ-
ities of infection control and epidemiology in out-of-hospital settings: a consensus panel
report. Am J Infect Control. 1999;27:418–430. http://www.apic.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section
=Guidelines&CONTENTID=1082&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm. Accessed Febru-
ary 21, 2008.
137. National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance System. Nosocomial infection rates for interhos-
pital comparison: limitations and possible solutions. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1991;12:609–621.
138. The Quality Indicator Study Group. An approach to the evaluation of quality indicators of
outcome of care in hospitalized patients, with a focus on nosocomial infection indicators.
139. Keita-Perse O, Gaynes RP. Severity of illness scoring systems to adjust nosocomial infection
rates: a review and commentary. Am J Infect Control. 1996;24:429–434.
140. Stevenson KB. Regional data set of infection rates for long-term care facilities: description of
a valuable benchmarking tool. Am J Infect Control. 1999;27:20–26.
141. Cleves MA, Weiner JP, Cohen W, et al. Assessing HCFA’s Health Care Quality Improvement
Program. Joint Comm J Qual Improv. 1997;23:550–560.
142. Hofer TP, Bernstein SJ, Hayward RA, DeMonner S. Validating quality indicators for hospital
care. Joint Comm J Qual Improv. 1997;23:455–467.
143. Phillips CD, Zimmerman D, Bernabei R, Jonsson PV. Using the resident assessment instru-
ment for quality enhancement in nursing homes. Age Ageing. 1997;26(Suppl 2):77–81.
144. Morris JN, Hawes C, Fries BE, et al. Designing the national resident assessment instrument
for nursing homes. Gerontologist. 1990;30:293–307.
145. Steinbrook R. Public report cards—cardiac surgery and beyond. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:
1847–1849.
146. Leape LL. Reporting of adverse events. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1633–1638.
147. Lovett LL, Massanari MM. Role of surveillance in emerging health systems: measurement is
essential but not sufficient. Am J Infect Control. 1999;27:135–140.
148. Bobinski MA. Legal issues in hospital epidemiology and infection control. In: Mayhall CG, ed.
Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1996:
1138–1145.
149. Bartley J. Accrediting and regulatory agencies. In: APIC Text of Infection Control and Epi-
demiology. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Association for Professionals in Infection Control and
Epidemiology; 2005;10-1-10-12.
150. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Directive - CPL 02-00-106 - CPL 2.106—
enforcement procedures and scheduling for occupational exposure to tuberculosis. Occupa-
tional Safety and Health Administration; 1996. http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp
.show_document?p_table=DIRECTIVES&p_id=1586. Accessed February 21, 2008.
151. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Occupational exposure to bloodborne
pathogens: final rule. Federal Register. December 6, 1991;56(235):64004–64182. http://
www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id
=13197. Accessed February 21, 2008.
152. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S. Department of Health and Human Ser-
vices. Part 482—Conditions of Participation for Hospitals: 42CFR 482.42. October 1, 2002.
153. The Joint Commission. Surveillance, prevention, and control of infection. In: 2008 Compre-
hensive Accreditation Manual for Hospitals. Chicago, IL: The Joint Commission; 2008.
154. Committee on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities. Medical Rehabilitation Standards
Manual. Tucson, AZ: CARF International; 2008.
155. Roush S, Birkhead G, Koo D, Cobb A, Fleming D. Mandatory reporting of diseases and condi-
tions by health care professionals and laboratories. JAMA. 1999;282:164–170.
156. World Health Organization. World Health Report 2007: A Safer Future: Global Public Health
Security in the 21st Century. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2007. http://www.who
.int/whr/2007/whr07_en.pdf. Accessed February 18, 2008.
157. Lemon SM, Hamburg MA, Sparling PF, Choffnes ER, Mack A, and the Forum on Microbial
Threats. Global Infectious Disease Surveillance and Detection: Assessing the Challenges-
Finding Solutions, Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2007.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11996. Accessed February 17, 2008.
158. International health regulations (2005). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization;
2006. http://www.who.int/csr/ihr. Accessed February 21, 2008.
159. Petrosillo N, Puro V, DiCarlo A, Ippolito G. The initial hospital response to an epidemic. Arch
Med Res. 2005;36(6):706–712.
SUGGESTED READINGS AND RESOURCES
Readings
APIC Text of Infection Control and Epidemiology. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Association for Profes-
sionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology; 2005.
CDC. Public health focus: surveillance, prevention, and control of nosocomial infections. MMWR.
1992;41:783–787.
Dato V, Wagner MM, Fapohunda A. How outbreaks are detected: a review of surveillance systems
and outbreaks. Pub Health Report. 2004;119:464–471. http://www.publichealthreports.org/
userfiles/119_5/119464.pdf. Accessed May 10, 2008.
Davis JR, Lederberg J, eds. Forum on emerging infections, board on global health. Emerging Infec-
tious Diseases from the Global to the Local Perspective: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press; 2001. http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10084. Accessed
February 17, 2008.
Haley RW, Culver DH, White JW, et al. The efficacy of infection surveillance and control programs
in preventing nosocomial infections in U.S. hospitals. Am J Epidemiol. 1985;121:182–205.
Jarvis WR, ed. Bennett and Brachman’s Hospital Infections. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott
Lee TB, Montgomery OG, Marx J, Olmsted RN, Scheckler WE. Recommended practices for surveil-
lance: Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), Inc. Am J
Infect Control. 2007;35:427–440. http://www.apic.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PracticeGuidance/
SurveillanceDefinitionsReportsandRecommendations/AJIC_Surveillance_2007.pdf. Accessed
February 21, 2008.
Massanari RM, Wilkerson K, Swartzendruber S. Designing surveillance for noninfectious out-
comes of medical care. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1995;16:419–426.
Mayhall CG. Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control. 3rd ed. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott,
Roy MC, Perl TM. Basics of surgical-site infection surveillance. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1997;18:659–668.
Smith PW, ed. Infection Control in Long-Term Care Facilities. 2nd ed. Albany, NY: Delmar
Publishers; 1994.
Suggested Readings and Resources 69
Smith P, Rusnack P. Infection prevention and control in the long-term-care facility. Am J Infect
Control. 1997;25:488–512.
Wenzel RP, ed. Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections. 4th ed. Baltimore: Lippincott
Resources
World Health Organization. International health regulations (2005). Geneva, Switzerland: World
Health Organization; 2005. http://www.who.int/csr/ihr. Accessed May 10, 2008.
Surgical Care Improvement Project. http://www.medqic.org/dcs /ContentServer?cid=1122904930422
&pagename=Medqic%2FContent%2FParentShellTemplate&parentName=Topic&c=MQParents.
CDC National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN). http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/nhsn.html.
Resources for information on emerging infections and emergency planning include the CDC’s
Emergency Preparedness and Response Web site (http://www.bt.cdc.gov/planning/), the
online journal Emerging Infectious Diseases (http://www.cdc.gov/nciod/EID), the World
Health Organization (http://www.who.int/en/), and the Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality, Public Health Emergency Preparedness (http://www.ahrq.gov/prep/). Accessed
March 26, 2008.
CHAPTER 3
Outbreaks Reported in
Acute Care Settings
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

—Benjamin Franklin
INTRODUCTION
Outbreaks of infectious diseases in hospitals have long been recognized. A

study of the nosocomial transmission of epidemic louse-borne typhus fever
was published in England in 18641 and “hospital fever” is one of the many
names given to this disease. In the mid-1800s, Ignaz Semmelweis recom-
mended hand washing to prevent the spread of puerperal fever, and Florence
Nightingale promoted isolation of infected patients, a clean environment, and
hygienic handling of food and water to prevent the spread of disease. Despite
the advances of modern medicine, outbreaks continue to occur as a result of
health care provided in a variety of settings.2–9 The hospital outbreaks of
typhus and puerperal fevers that occurred in the 1800s were replaced in the
late 1900s by outbreaks of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
(MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE). However, the primary
control measures used to prevent the spread of infectious agents remain the
same: hand hygiene, isolation of infected persons, environmental cleanliness,
and safe handling of food and water.
Personnel responsible for managing infection prevention and control and
performance improvement programs in healthcare settings should study
reports of outbreak investigations to expand their knowledge of the epidemiol-
ogy of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and other iatrogenic events. By
reviewing the findings of these investigations, it is possible to identify the fol-
lowing:
• Factors contributing to outbreaks, such as etiologic agents, common sources
and reservoirs, and modes of transmission; devices, products, and other
vehicles; and procedures, practices, and technical errors
• Measures for controlling or preventing a similar outbreak
If an outbreak is suspected in a healthcare setting, a literature search
should be conducted to identify relevant articles, as discussed in Chapter 9.
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss outbreaks that have been reported
in acute care facilities. It is not intended to be an exhaustive review of out-
breaks that have occurred in hospitals. Rather, its purpose is to provide an
overview of the wide variety of organisms, diseases, and conditions that have
71
72 OUTBREAKS REPORTED IN ACUTE CARE SETTINGS
been responsible for epidemics in the acute care setting. Information on the
agents, reservoirs, and modes of transmission is included, along with the con-
trol measures that were used to interrupt the outbreak. The outbreak reports
discussed in this chapter were identified by conducting electronic literature
searches of the PubMed databases from 1985 through March 2008, by review-
ing the table of contents of selected journals and the references in relevant
articles, and by performing targeted searches of the Internet. The reports of
these outbreak investigations highlight the importance of maintaining an
active surveillance program in all healthcare settings in order to identify an
outbreak or a cluster of events so that control measures can be implemented
as soon as possible.
Most of the outbreaks discussed in this text have been grouped into the set-
tings in which they occurred. However, infection control professionals (ICPs)
should be familiar with outbreaks that have been reported in all types of
healthcare settings because procedures, practices, products, and devices may
be used in more than one setting. The outbreaks discussed in this chapter
occurred primarily in hospitals, although similar outbreaks may occur in other
healthcare settings. Outbreaks caused by MRSA, VRE, Mycobacterium tubercu-
losis, Sarcoptes scabiei, Clostridium difficile, noroviruses, and the influenza
virus occur in both acute care and long-term care settings and are discussed in
Chapter 7 along with gastrointestinal and food-borne outbreaks. Although the
terms outbreak and epidemic are most commonly used in reference to infec-
tious diseases, they are also used to describe the sudden occurrence or increase
of noninfectious diseases and conditions; therefore, examples of outbreaks
caused by noninfectious agents are also included.
ENDEMIC VS. EPIDEMIC INFECTIONS
Most hospital-associated infections occur endemically; only a small propor-

tion occur as part of an outbreak.2 Results of one study showed that patients
involved in epidemics accounted for 3.7% of all nosocomial infections detected
over a 5-year period.10 In another study it was estimated that true outbreaks
involved approximately 2% of all patients who contracted a HAI.3 Among
infections reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance system, approximately 5%
occurred in epidemics.5 Although these numbers are small, they are important
because these infections (1) result in significant morbidity and mortality,
(2) may cause disruption of services, (3) may be difficult to investigate and con-
trol, and (4) are potentially preventable.
ORGANISMS RESPONSIBLE FOR HOSPITAL-ASSOCIATED

OUTBREAKS
The organisms responsible for the majority of endemic and epidemic infections
in hospitals change over time. In the 1950s and 1960s, a pandemic of S. aureus
Organisms Responsible for Hospital-Associated Outbreaks 73
caused major outbreaks in communities and hospitals. In the 1970s, gram-

negative organisms, such as the Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa,
emerged as major nosocomial pathogens. Throughout the 1980s, MRSA
became established in many hospitals, and in the late 1980s and early 1990s
multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MDR-TB) caused multiple
outbreaks in healthcare facilities, affecting both patients and personnel. A
major concern in the 1990s was the evolution and nosocomial spread of antibi-
otic-resistant organisms such as the Enterobacteriaceae, MDR-TB, and VRE,
and the anticipated emergence of vancomycin-resistant S. aureus.11–13 In the
early 2000s, novel virulent strains of Clostridium difficile, a well-known
pathogen, caused hospital outbreaks that resulted in significant morbidity and
mortality in several countries.14 Antimicrobial-resistant organisms have continued
to evolve and spread globally, and multidrug-resistant strains of Pseudomonas,
Acinetobacter, Klebsiella, and Enterobacter have caused hospital-associated out-
breaks worldwide.15–17
Infection prevention and control personnel and healthcare providers must
be aware of both newly recognized infectious agents and reemerging patho-
gens that have the potential for causing endemic and epidemic HAI.18–20 Since
the 1970s over 35 new human pathogens have been identified, and many
known pathogens have emerged or reemerged. New and reemerging pathogens
that have caused outbreaks in hospitals include bacteria such as Clostridium
difficile, Legionella pneumophila, Mycobacterium tuberculosis (especially mul-
tidrug- and extensively multidrug-resistant strains), MRSA, VRE, and Strep-
tococcus pyogenes (group A streptococcus), and viruses such as adenovirus,
Ebola, hepatitis B and C, norovirus, rotavirus, and the severe acute respiratory
syndrome coronavirus.14,18,20–23
When the site of infection and the organism causing a suspected outbreak is
known, it is possible to use the knowledge gained from published reports of
outbreaks to develop hypotheses on the likely modes of transmission and
potential sources and reservoirs. Four major modes of transmission are com-
monly involved in healthcare-associated outbreaks: contact, vehicle (common
source), droplet spread, and airborne. Outbreaks caused by S. aureus are asso-
ciated with human reservoirs, and this organism is transmitted directly by
person-to-person contact, indirectly from patient to patient on the hands of
personnel, or by a human disseminator, such as a nasal carrier. Organisms
such as Pseudomonas, Flavobacterium, Mycobacterium gordonae and M. chelonae,
and gram-negative bacteria such as Klebsiella, Enterobacter, and Serratia
readily grow in fluids and are frequently associated with common-source out-
breaks involving contaminated solutions. Aspergillus and Legionella are
spread by airborne transmission. Epidemics caused by these two organisms
usually involve environmental sources, such as cooling towers or contami-
nated potable water for Legionella, and construction or some disruption in the
physical plant for Aspergillus. Many organisms have more than one mode of
transmission and may have several potential sources or reservoirs in the
healthcare setting, as shown in Table 3–1.24–27
Table 3–1 Organisms Associated with Outbreaks in the Healthcare Setting, Their Likely
Modes of Transmission, and Potential Sources
Likely Mode(s) of Potential Sources/

Organism Site of Infection Transmission Reservoirs
Clostridium difficile Gastrointestinal Contact/cross- Infected patients
infection via hands
Vehicle/common Contaminated
source equipment
Enterococcus Genitourinary, Contact/cross- Infected or colonized
species Surgical wound infection via hands patients
source equipment
Group A Surgical wound Contact Infected personnel
streptococcus
Pharyngitis Vehicle/common Food contaminated by
source infected person
Hepatitis A Hepatitis Vehicle/common Food contaminated by
Contact/cross- Infected patients
infection via hands and personnel
Influenza Respiratory Droplet Infected patients,
personnel, and visitors
Legionella Respiratory Airborne Contaminated water
Vehicle/common Contaminated water
source/contact of
mucosal surfaces
with water
Mycobacterium Respiratory Vehicle/common Contaminated
species, not source bronchoscope
tuberculosis
Mycobacterium Respiratory Airborne Infected patients
tuberculosis or personnel
source bronchoscope
Pseudomonas, Blood, Vehicle/common Contaminated fluids;
Burkholderia, and Respiratory source devices and equipment
Ralstonia species with aqueous reservoirs
Contact/cross- Infected and
infection via hands colonized patients
Outbreaks Associated with Products, Devices, and Procedures 75
Likely Mode(s) of Potential Sources/

Organism Site of Infection Transmission Reservoirs
Salmonella species Gastrointestinal Vehicle/common Food contaminated by
source improper handling or
by personnel carrier
Contact/cross- Infected patients
infection via hands
Staphylococcus Surgical wound Contact Personnel carrier
aureus
Skin, respiratory, Contact/cross- Infected and
blood infection via hands colonized patients
Gastrointestinal Vehicle/common Food contaminated by
OUTBREAKS ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCTS, DEVICES, AND

PROCEDURES (COMMON SOURCE OUTBREAKS)
Because some products, devices, and procedures are repeatedly associated

with hospital epidemics, it is useful to study published reports of these out-
breaks so that preventive measures can be identified and implemented. The
Hospital Infections Program of the CDC conducted investigations of 125
healthcare-associated outbreaks occurring from January 1980 to July 1990
and reported the following.4
1. Products, procedures, or devices were involved in 46% of the outbreaks:
22% were product related, 13% were procedure related, and 11% were
device related.
2. Bacterial pathogens caused 62% of the outbreaks, fungi caused 9%,
viruses caused 8%, mycobacteria caused 4%, and toxins or other organ-
isms caused 18%.
3. The proportion of outbreaks caused by products, devices, and procedures
increased from 47% in the first half of the decade to 67% between 1986
and July 1990.
Outbreaks Associated with Products
Multiple outbreaks of infection and colonization, illnesses, or adverse reactions

associated with the use of products have been reported.28–65 Many of these out-
breaks involved products that were intrinsically or extrinsically contaminated
by microbial agents or their toxins; however, several outbreaks did not have an
infectious etiology. ICPs in all healthcare settings should be familiar with the
types of products associated with outbreaks because these products may be
used not only in acute care facilities, but also in the long-term care and ambu-
latory care settings.38,40,41,64,66
Intrinsic Contamination of Products

As used here, the term intrinsic refers to contamination that occurs before a
product’s arrival at a healthcare facility, such as a product contaminated dur-
ing manufacture. These products may cause widespread outbreaks in multiple
facilities before they are recognized.39,67–69 A variety of intrinsically contami-
nated products have caused outbreaks in hospitals: intravenous fluids, povidone-
iodine solution, packed red blood cells, fresh-frozen plasma, intravenous
immunoglobulin, gauze, skin lotion, polygeline plasma extender, powdered
infant formula, saline solutions including prefilled saline syringes, alcohol-free
mouthwash, fruit salads, a pediatric oxygen-delivery device, heparin solution,
nebulized sulbutamol, ultrasound gel, lyophilized enteral nutrition, injectable
steroids, and peritoneal dialysis fluid.28-30,33,34,38,39,49,52,55,56,59–65,67–82 Examples
of outbreaks caused by intrinsically contaminated products are shown in
Table 3–2.
The use of pharmaceutical compounding has increased substantially in the
past decade, and several outbreaks have been caused by contaminated prod-
ucts that were prepared at off-site compounding pharmacies.74–76,83 Some of
these contaminated medications resulted in meningitis and bloodstream infec-
tions and substantial morbidity and mortality.83 Deficiencies that led to the
contamination of the products included inadequate training of personnel,
improper aseptic technique, incorrect autoclaving practices, and lack of end-
product sterility testing.
If a product that is associated with a cluster of infections is believed to be
intrinsically contaminated, hospital personnel should notify the manufac-
turer, the local health department, and the appropriate government agency. In
the United States, if antiseptics, medications, or medical devices are believed
to be intrinsically contaminated, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
should be notified through the FDA MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting Sys-
tem (http://www.fda.gov/medwatch). In addition, healthcare providers using
the item should immediately be notified of the suspected contamination and
should be instructed to remove all of the implicated product from stock and
save it for further study. Although healthcare facilities may not be able to pre-
vent all infections associated with an intrinsically contaminated product, ICPs
should be alert to clusters or increasing numbers of isolates of unusual organ-
isms, because these may possibly be associated with contaminated products or
medications. Active surveillance programs are necessary to recognize promptly
any product-associated outbreaks so that measures can be taken to identify
the implicated product and to prevent its continued use.30
Extrinsic Contamination of Products

Extrinsic contamination occurs during the use of a product. Extrinsically
contaminated products associated with outbreaks include antimicrobial soap,
Table 3–2 Outbreaks Involving Intrinsically Contaminated Products
Year(s)
Reported/
Outbreak Reference No. Product Comments
Enterobacter cloacae 1976 (28, 29) Intravenous fluid 1971—Nationwide
and Enterobacter 1978 (30) outbreak of septicemia
agglomerans (reference 29 is reprint
septicemia of original report with a
discussion of the outbreak)
Pseudomonas 1981 (33) Povidone iodine 1981—First report of
(currently 1992 (34) nosocomial infections
Burkholderia) cepacia caused by intrinsically
peritonitis and contaminated povidone
pseudobacteremia iodine
Pseudomonas 1982 (38) Poloxamer-iodine Occurred in outpatients on
aeruginosa peritonitis solution chronic peritoneal dialysis
and wound infection
Hepatitis C infection 1994 (49) Intravenous Worldwide outbreak; first
immunoglobulin recognized outbreak of
blood-borne pathogens
associated with immune
globulin product licensed
in the United States
Fever and hypotension 1995 (52) Polygeline Product intrinsically
after cardiac surgery plasma extender contaminated by cell wall
products of Bacillus
stearothermophilus
Primary cutaneous 1996 (55) Contaminated Gauze showed evidence
Aspergillosis gauze (one case of water exposure;
prompted an contamination probably
investigation) occurred prior to
arrival at hospital
Cutaneous lesions 1996 (56) Skin lotion Lesions occurred in
caused by immunocompromised
Paecilomyces lilacinus patients; two patients
died; product recalled
Burkholderia (currently 1997 (59) Saline solution Saline used to flush
Ralstonia) pickettii indwelling intravascular
bacteremia devices
Sterile peritonitis 1997 (60) Peritoneal dialysis Nationwide outbreak
following continuous fluid resulted in recall of product;
cycling peritoneal contaminated by endotoxin
dialysis
Continued
Year(s)
Reported/
Outbreak Reference No. Product Comments
Ralstonia pickettii 1998 (62) 0.9% saline R. pickettii has been
respiratory tract solution used isolated from several
colonization for respiratory products marketed as
therapy sterile
Pyrogenic reactions 1998 (63) Intravenous Associated with once-daily
2000 (70) gentamicin dosing of gentamicin
received from one
manufacturer; led to
nationwide recall of product
Enterobacter cloacae 1998 (64) Prefilled saline Occurred in outpatient
bloodstream infections syringes hematology/oncology
service at a hospital
Burkholderia cepacia 1998 (65) Alcohol-free Product used for routine
respiratory tract 2000 (67) mouthwash oral care of ventilated
infection and patients
colonization in
intensive care units
Pseudomonas 2005 (71) Heparin/saline Infections in four states
fluorescens and flush solution in led to nationwide recall
Pseudomonas sp. preloaded of product from one
bloodstream infections syringe manufacturer
Invasive Enterobacter 2006 (72) Powdered infant Multiple cases reported
sakazakii disease in formula from North America,
infants Europe, and the
Middle East
Infection and 2007 (73) Pediatric oxygen- Ralstonia spp. isolated from
colonization with delivery device patients in 12 states led
Ralstonia species to national recall of device
Salmonella 2007 (68) Fruit salads Infections diagnosed in
oranienburg infections served at persons in 10 northeastern
healthcare US states and one Canadian
facilities province; fruit salads were
produced by one processing
plant; source of contamina-
tion was not determined
Pseudomonas putida 2008 (74) Heparin catheter- Solution purchased by
and Stenotrophomonas lock solution hospital from a
maltophilia infections compounding pharmacy
benzalkonium chloride antiseptic, disinfectant solutions, saline solution,

gauze dressings, gentian violet dye, albuterol, trypan blue solution, ultra-
sonography coupling gel, total parenteral nutrition (TPN) solution, radiopaque
contrast medium, propofol, and dextrose solution.31,35–37,40,41,45–48,50–53,58,61,84–88
Table 3–3 contains examples of outbreaks caused by in-use, or extrinsic, con-
tamination of a product.
Some products, such as benzalkonium chloride solution, have been associ-
ated with multiple outbreaks and are no longer recommended for use in the
healthcare setting because of the ease with which they can become contami-
nated.66,89–91 In 1976 the CDC recommended the elimination of benzalkonium
chloride solution as an antiseptic; however, a study reported in 1991 that
many healthcare facilities were still using this product.91 Personnel who are
using benzalkonium chloride for skin antisepsis should be instructed to use an
alternative product. Other products, such as the anesthetic agent propofol,
have been associated with multiple outbreaks but are still widely used.45–47
Healthcare personnel who use propofol should be made aware of the hazards
associated with it and should be instructed to adhere to the manufacturer’s
instructions for preventing contamination.
Since many types of solutions have the potential to become contaminated
during use, healthcare personnel should be educated on the proper handling of
fluids and the use of aseptic technique. Even hand care products, such as
lotions92–94 and plain and antimicrobial soap,58,95 can become contaminated
during use and can serve as reservoirs for infectious agents.
Measures to prevent in-use contamination of products include the following:
• Education and competency testing of personnel on aseptic technique
when preparing, handling, and administering fluids such as intravenous
solutions and nutritional products
• Use of proper hand hygiene practices
• Protocols for proper use of multidose and single-dose vials and enforce-
ment of these protocols
• Storage of medications and supplies in clean areas where they are pro-
tected against dust and water
• Adherence to proper protocols and quality assurance measures when
compounding pharmaceuticals83
Noninfectious Adverse Events Related to Products

Clinicians also need to maintain surveillance for noninfectious adverse
reactions due to procedures and therapeutic agents. Products that have
resulted in clusters of illness, deaths, and injury in hospitals include disinfec-
tants, intravenous additives, fiberboard infectious waste containers, transfu-
sions with leukoreduced red blood cells, and contaminated heparin products
as shown in Table 3–4.32,39,54,57,77,82,96 If a therapeutic agent is associated with a
cluster of adverse reactions, healthcare providers should notify the facility’s
pharmacy, the manufacturer, and the FDA (if the occurrence is in the United
States).
Table 3–3 Outbreaks Involving Extrinsically Contaminated Products
Year(s) Comments; Reason for

Reported/ Extrinsic Contamination,
Outbreak Reference No. Product When Applicable
Pseudobacteremia 1976 (31) Contaminated Antiseptic used to prepare
due to Pseudomonas benzalkonium skin prior to venipuncture;
(currently Burkholderia) chloride several patients may have
cepacia and/or antiseptic become bacteremic
Enterobacter species
Endotoxemia following 1980 (35) Possible Source not determined but
computerized axial contamination of contaminated hot water
tomography radiopaque bath had been used to
contrast medium warm contrast medium
and glucagon prior to infusion
Serratia marcescens 1981 (36) Heparinized Saline may have become
bacteremia saline irrigation contaminated when first
fluid likely mixed
Cutaneous 1996 (37) Outside Outside of packages
Aspergillosis packaging of contaminated by spores
dressing supplies and dust during
construction in central
inventory supply area
Mycobacterium 1987 (40) Gentian violet Gentian violet used to
chelonae surgical skin-marking mark incision site prior to
wound infections solution plastic surgery was
contaminated with
M. chelonae; occurred in a
surgeon’s office
Serratia marcescens 1987 (41) Benzalkonium Occurred in orthopedic
septic arthritis chloride antiseptic surgeons’ office among
solution patients who had received
injections of methylpred-
nisolone; likely reservoir
was canister of cotton balls
soaking in benzalkonium
chloride solution;
S. marcescens was isolated
from canister and office
used multidose vials instead
Postoperative febrile 1990 (45) Propofol Multiple outbreaks have
episodes and 1995 (46) resulted from lack of
bloodstream and 1997 (47) aseptic technique; this
surgical site infections lipid-based medication is
easily contaminated
Year(s) Comments; Reason for

Reported/ Extrinsic Contamination,
Outbreak Reference No. Product When Applicable
Pseudomonas 1991 (48) Fentanyl citrate Narcotic theft by employee
(currently Ralstonia) who replaced fentanyl with
pickettii bacteremia contaminated distilled water
Burkholderia cepacia 1995 (50) Albuterol Lack of aseptic technique
respiratory tract infection 1996 (51) multidose vial by respiratory therapy and
and colonization in intensive care unit person-
mechanically ventilated nel; respiratory therapy
patients personnel carried multi-
dose vials in their pockets
Pseudomonas 1995 (53) Food coloring P. aeruginosa isolated from
aeruginosa ventilator- dye added to 32 oz bottles of food
associated respiratory nasogastric coloring dye; multiple-use
tract infections and tube feedings bottles were replaced by
colonization single-use vials
Neonatal infection and 1997 (58) 1% chlorxylenol Nursing staff used
colonization with antiseptic hand personal bottles of soap
Serratia marcescens soap that became contaminated
during use
Burkholderia cepacia 1998 (61) 5% dextrose One-liter bag of solution
septicemia in cardiac solution used to used to dilute heparin for
patients dilute heparin multiple patients on
cardiology ward
Pyoderma in neonates 2000 (84) Ultrasound Common container of
coupling gel sonography gel was used
and applied with a wooden
spatula that was reused for
multiple infants
Serratia marcescens 2006 (85) Total parenteral Investigators observed
bloodstream infections nutrition (TPN) incorrect use of single-
on a surgical ward solution dose and multidose vials
and very low adherence to
hand hygiene; single-dose
vials used for multiple
doses; TPN solution likely
contaminated when nurses
on unit added medications
to the TPN bags
Table 3–4 Products Associated with Noninfectious Adverse Events
Year(s)
Reported/
Outbreak Reference Product Comments
Neonatal 1978 (32) Phenolic Hyperbilirubinemia
hyperbilirubinemia disinfectant developed in infants
detergent exposed to a phenol
solution used for dis-
infecting nursery surfaces
Cluster of unusual 1986 (39) Commercially Product was newly
illness and deaths available marketed; precise consti-
in neonates intravenous tuents in E-ferol that caused
vitamin E illness and death were not
preparation able to be determined
Needlestick injuries 1995 (54) Fiberboard Hospital changed product;
in hospital employees infectious waste injuries occurred when
containers needles pierced walls of
new container
Illness and sudden 1997 (57) Commercially Additive caused precipitate
deaths in adult patients available amino in the PPN
acid additive used
for peripheral
parenteral
nutrition (PPN)
Adverse ocular 1998 (82) Leucocyte- Nationwide outbreak of red
reactions (“red eye”) 2006 (96) reduced red eye syndrome associated
blood cell product with transfusion of specific
lots of leukoreduced red
blood cell units led to recall
of product
Acute allergic-type 2008 (77) Intravenous Solution contaminated
reactions among heparin solution during manufacture with
patients undergoing heparin-like product; led to
hemodialysis nationwide recall
For additional information on outbreaks of hospital-associated infections

related to contaminated substances, the reader is referred to the excellent
review by Vonberg and Gastmeier.97
Outbreaks Associated with Devices
Devices used for therapeutic and diagnostic procedures have long been asso-
ciated with outbreaks in the acute care and ambulatory care settings.98–135
When invasive devices are used, the risk of infection and of outbreaks
increases. Outbreaks have been traced to contaminated endoscopes used for
endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography 98–101 and upper gastroin-
testinal procedures,98,100,102–105 bronchoscopes,98,106–112 automated endoscope
washers,100,105,108,109 respiratory therapy devices and equipment,73,113,114 hemo-
dynamic monitoring systems,115–118 jet gun injectors,119 reusable fingerstick
blood-sampling devices,120–121 urologic apparatus,122–125 electronic thermome-
ters,126,127 hemodialysis equipment,128 needleless valves used for intravascular
access,129,130 biopsy devices,124,131 balloons used in manual ventilation,132 and
external ventricular catheters.133 In addition, adverse reactions in patients
have resulted from residual gluteraldehyde on devices that were not thor-
oughly rinsed after soaking in a gluteraldehyde solution.134,135
Table 3-5 lists examples of device-related outbreaks and the infection con-
trol and technical errors associated with their occurrence. The major reasons for
these epidemics were (1) improper cleaning and disinfection procedures, (2) con-
tamination of endoscopes by automatic washers/disinfectors, (3) improper
handling of sterile fluids and equipment, and (4) lack of adherence to aseptic
technique.
Measures used to prevent these types of outbreaks include the following:
• Careful attention to cleaning and disinfection protocols for endoscopes
and bronchoscopes
• Careful maintenance and quality control of automated endoscope wash-
ing and disinfection machines
• Careful attention to cleaning and disinfection protocols for respiratory
therapy equipment
• Proper use and dilution of disinfectant solutions
• Consistent use of disposable single-patient use equipment for hemody-
namic monitoring and urodynamic testing
• Strict adherence to sterile technique when handling sterile supplies
• Correct use and cleaning of devices in accordance with manufacturers’
instructions
Outbreaks Associated with Procedures
Many diagnostic and therapeutic procedures place a patient at risk for

developing a HAI or other iatrogenic event, such as injury or allergic reaction.
Most procedure-related infections are not associated with outbreaks and are
usually thought to be a result of host factors such as impaired or disrupted host
defenses, immunosuppression, colonization with healthcare-associated organ-
isms, and underlying diseases. However, outbreaks have been associated with
procedures such as gastrointestinal endoscopy, 98,100,102–105 bronchoscopy,98,106–112
hemodialysis,128,136–139 peritoneal dialysis,140,141 hemodynamic pressure moni-
toring,117–118 cystoscopy and transurethral resection of the prostate,142,143 organ
transplants,144,145 pulsatile lavage for debridement,146 ultrasonography,147 and
various surgical procedures.148,149
Table 3–5 Examples of Device-Related Outbreaks and Associated Infection Control or

Technical Errors
Year
Reported/ Infection Control or
Outbreak Reference No. Device Technical Error
Hepatitis B infection 1986 (119) Jet gun injector Nozzle tip contaminated
with blood; was not
properly disinfected
Mycobacterium 1989 (107) Bronchoscope Suction valve of
tuberculosis bronchoscope not
disinfected despite
rigorous cleaning and
disinfection
Pseudomonas 1991 (100) UGI endoscope Flawed automatic
aeruginosa infection disinfector
and colonization
post-UGI endoscopy
Bloody diarrhea 1992 (134) Endoscope Residual gluteraldehyde in
associated with improperly rinsed
endoscopy endoscope
Proctitis following 1993 (135) Endoscope Residual gluteraldehyde in
endorectal ultrasound improperly rinsed
examination endoscope
Pseudomonas 1993 (99) Endoscope Flawed automatic
aeruginosa and disinfector
Enterobacteriaceae
bacteremia post-ERCP
Pseudomonas cepacia 1993 (113) Reusable Improper disinfection
respiratory tract electronic solution used
colonization/ infection ventilator
and bacteremia probes
Gram-negative 1996 (115) Hemodynamic Pressure monitoring
bacteremia in cardiac pressure equipment left uncovered
surgery patients monitoring overnight in the operating
equipment room
Hepatitis C infection 1997 (104) Colonoscope Improper cleaning and
disinfection of colonoscope
Multidrug-resistant 1997 (110) Bronchoscope Inadequate cleaning and
Mycobacterium disinfection of
tuberculosis bronchoscope
Multidrug-resistant 1997 (123) Urodynamic Improperly processed
Pseudomonas transducer transducer used for
aeruginosa urinary urodynamic testing
tract infection and
urosepsis
Year
Reported/ Infection Control or
Outbreak Reference No. Device Technical Error
Hepatitis B infection in 1997 (121) Fingerstick blood Disposable component of
a hospital and a sampling devices device became
nursing home contaminated with blood
and was not routinely
changed between patients
Bloodstream infections 1998 (128) Hemodialysis Newly installed attachment
(BSIs) caused by equipment used to drain spent
multiple pathogens priming saline became
contaminated
Bacillus cereus 2000 (132) Balloons used The exteriors of the
systemic infections in manual balloons were cleaned
and colonization in a ventilation with detergent that did
neonatal intensive not reach the interior of
care unit balloon and was not
sufficient to kill B. cereus
spores; outbreak ended
when balloons were
sterilized by autoclaving
Pseudomonas 2001 (125) Pressure The cover was labeled as
aeruginosa urinary transducer cover a single-use device,
tract infections following for urodynamic but it was used on
urodynamic studies system for multiple patients
measuring
bladder pressure
Burkholderia cepacia 2003 (114) Mechanical Ventilator disinfection
colonization and ventilator procedures not followed;
infection in two poor separation of clean
pediatric units and dirty items
Increased incidence 2006 (129) Positive pressure Increased bloodstream
of catheter-related 2007 (130) needleless valve infections noted after
bloodstream infections used for introduction of a new
intravascular needleless valve intravenous
access access port reported
by several investigators
Pseudomonas 2007 (124) Steel biopsy Inadequate reprocessing
aeruginosa infections needle guide procedures; device was
after transurethral disinfected with high-level
resection of the disinfectant and then rinsed
prostate (TURP) with tap water rather than
sterilized as recommended
by manufacturer
UGI = upper gastrointestinal; ERCP = endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and Bronchoscopy

Numerous outbreaks and pseudo-outbreaks related to gastrointestinal
endoscopy and bronchoscopy procedures have been reported in both the inpa-
tient and outpatient settings.9,98,150 Despite the fact that the risk of infection
associated with these devices is well known, some personnel in endoscopy
suites do not follow appropriate protocols for reprocessing scopes.151–154
Because endoscopes are complex instruments that are difficult to clean and
disinfect, staff responsible for processing them must be instructed to follow
meticulously the proper protocols for cleaning, disinfecting, and sterilization of
the endoscopes and their related parts. If automatic endoscope reprocessors
are used, personnel must be instructed in their use.
A multisociety guideline for reprocessing gastrointestinal endoscopes was
published in 2003 by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
(ASGE) and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA).153
The ASGE has published a variety of guidelines, including one on infection
control during gastrointestinal endoscopy.155 Culver et al. provide recommen-
dations for bronchoscope reprocessing based on their review of outbreaks
related to bronchoscopy.156
Measures to prevent infections and outbreaks related to endoscopy proce-
dures include the following153,155,156:
• Implementation of an infection surveillance, prevention, and control pro-
gram based on recognized standards and guidelines
• Establishment of an initial and ongoing training program for personnel
who process endoscopes
• A mechanism to ensure that personnel adhere to protocols for cleaning
and disinfection or sterilization of endoscopes and related accessories
• Following disinfection, use of either a sterile water rinse followed by
forced-air drying or a tap water rinse followed by forced air drying and a
70% alcohol rinse
• Adherence to protocols for proper handling and storage of endoscopes
after processing to prevent recontamination
• Rigorous adherence to established protocols and the manufacturer’s
instructions for the use of automatic endoscope reprocessors
• A quality assurance program to monitor the effectiveness of the disinfec-
tion and sterilization processes and the competency of the personnel who
reprocess endoscopes and related accessories.
In 2001 and 2002, several hospitals in the United States and Europe re-
ported HAIs related to bronchoscopy that were traced to a loose port on the
bronchoscope.111,112 The outbreaks resulted in a recall of several bronchoscope
models.
Several outbreaks related to gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy
procedures are noted in Table 3-5. For additional information on outbreaks
and pseudo-outbreaks associated with bronchoscopy, the reader is referred to
the editorial by Weber and Rutala150 and the review by Culver et al.156
Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis

HAIs are well-recognized complications of hemodialysis. Outbreaks in hemo-
dialysis centers have occurred as a result of improper handling or inadequate
cleaning and disinfection of reusable dialysers136–138; cross-contamination of
blood tubing by ultrafiltrate waste128; sharing of staff, equipment, supplies,
and medications between patients139; failure to isolate patients with chronic
hepatitis B virus (HBV)139; and failure to vaccinate susceptible hemodialysis
patients against HBV.139
Care must be taken to ensure that hemodialysis personnel are familiar with
the proper use and disinfection of the equipment they are using. One outbreak
of bloodstream infections occurred in two outpatient hemodialysis centers
affiliated with a hospital; it was associated with a change in the setup of the
hemodialysis system. The reservoir was a newly installed, commercially mar-
keted attachment used to drain spent saline. The attachment became heavily
contaminated with multiple gram-positive, gram-negative, and fungal
pathogens and served as a portal of entry into the blood tubing.128
Outbreaks related to peritoneal dialysis have been associated with contami-
nated peritoneal dialysis machines140,141 and the use of intrinsically contaminated
povidone iodine solution.28 Personnel responsible for cleaning, disinfecting,
and handling equipment used for peritoneal dialysis must practice strict asep-
tic technique and carefully follow manufacturers’ directions for the specific
equipment they are using.
Outbreaks related to hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis and measures to
prevent transmission of infectious agents in the dialysis setting are further
discussed in Chapter 5.
Outbreaks Associated with Surgery

Most surgical site infections are caused by endogenous or exogenous organ-
isms that are introduced into the wound at the time of surgery. However, out-
breaks associated with surgical procedures may be caused either by
contaminated antiseptics,157 dressings,158–160 equipment,115,148 medications or
solutions,40,88,161 or by organisms disseminated by a personnel carrier. These
outbreaks are generally recognized when a cluster of surgical site infections
caused by the same organism is detected. The type of organism causing the
infections will often provide a clue to a source or reservoir. Outbreaks of post-
operative infections caused by S. aureus or group A streptococci are invariably
associated with a human carrier. Outbreaks caused by gram-negative organ-
isms and fungi are frequently associated with an environmental source.115
In addition to surgery-related outbreaks caused by infectious agents, clus-
ters of adverse events associated with exposure to chemicals have also been
reported in surgical patients. In one report, six patients who had cardiac
surgery developed postoperative bleeding, which was caused by residual
detergent in reprocessed laparotomy sponges.162 In another, an outbreak of
corneal edema following cataract surgery was thought to be caused by inade-
quate rinsing of small-lumen surgical instruments that had been disinfected
by soaking in gluteraldehyde.163
Although postoperative infections and complications following cataract

surgery are uncommon, they can be devastating.164–166 Outbreaks associated
with cataract surgery are discussed in Chapter 5.
OUTBREAKS ASSOCIATED WITH PSEUDOMONAS, RALSTONIA,

AND BURKHOLDERIA SPECIES
Outbreaks associated with Ralstonia pickettii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa,

and Burkholderia cepacia are frequently related to therapeutic and diagnostic
procedures and contaminated devices and solutions, as demonstrated in
Tables 3–2, 3–3 and 3–5.167–169 Whenever a cluster of colonizations or infections
with one of these organisms is identified, a contaminated solution or aqueous
reservoir should be suspected.
OUTBREAKS ASSOCIATED WITH HUMAN CARRIERS OR

DISSEMINATORS
Human carriers and disseminators have been responsible for hospital out-
breaks of S. aureus, Streptococcus pyogenes (group A beta-hemolytic streptococci
[GAS]), Candida species, Serratia marcescens, Pseudomonas aeruginosa,
hepatitis A, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and Salmonella. Many organisms have
more than one mode of transmission. Although hospital outbreaks caused by
S. aureus, group A streptococcus, and hepatitis A are often associated with a
human carrier, each of these organisms can be spread either by direct person-
to-person contact or by food that is contaminated by a carrier. HBV may be
directly transmitted from person to person by a carrier or indirectly via conta-
minated medications or equipment. Salmonella may be directly transmitted
from person to person or via contaminated food.
Staphylococcus aureus
Although cross-infection on the hands of personnel is thought to be the pri-
mary mode of transmission of S. aureus in healthcare settings, some outbreaks
have been associated with colonized or infected healthcare workers.170,171
Healthcare workers commonly carry S. aureus in their nares and on their
hands.172 Outbreaks of surgical site infections caused by S. aureus have been
associated with personnel carrying the organism on their skin and hair 173 and
in their nares.174,175 One outbreak of MRSA surgical site infections was associ-
ated with a healthcare worker with chronic sinusitis who was a carrier for pro-
longed periods.175 One of his family members was also found to be a carrier of
the epidemic strain. Staphylococcal outbreaks in nurseries171,176,177 and inten-
sive care units (ICU)171,178 have also been associated with personnel carriers.
In a review of 165 MRSA outbreaks, Vonberg et al. determined that there was
strong evidence that healthcare workers were the source in 11 (6.6%) of the
outbreaks.171 In 8 of these outbreaks, the healthcare worker had a respiratory
tract infection or skin infection; in only 3 (1.6%) was the healthcare worker
source an asymptomatic carrier.
Outbreaks Associated with Human Carriers or Disseminators 89
There is a phenomenon of airborne dispersal of Staphylococcus aureus that

is called the “cloud” phenomenon; several outbreaks have been associated with
healthcare workers who were considered to be airborne dispersers.170,178 These
outbreaks can occur despite personnel adherence to standard precautions and
good hand hygiene and are difficult to control until the carrier is identified
and effectively treated or removed from the setting.
Outbreaks caused by MRSA are discussed in Chapter 7. Since the control
measures for preventing the transmission of MRSA are essentially the same
as those for methicillin-sensitive S. aureus, the reader is referred to Chapter 7
for a review of control measures used to interrupt staphylococcal outbreaks.
S. aureus was the fourth most frequently identified bacterial agent causing
food-borne outbreaks in the United States, as reported to the CDC between
1998 and 2002.179 Dietary personnel who have a staphylococcal infection may
contaminate food and be the source of a food-borne outbreak. Hospital person-
nel who have boils or skin lesions known or suspected to be infected with
S. aureus—especially on the hands—should be restricted from patient care
activities and from handling food until they have been treated and their infec-
tion has resolved. If investigators suspect a common source outbreak (i.e., a
personnel carrier), they should examine personnel for evidence of skin break-
down or infection.
Group A Beta-Hemolytic Streptococcus
GAS can spread rapidly from person to person and can cause serious disease
in a variety of healthcare settings.180 Numerous outbreaks of healthcare-asso-
ciated group A streptococci have been reported.180–196 A review of the literature
revealed more than 50 nosocomial outbreaks of GAS reported worldwide
between 1966 and 1995.180 A Canadian study group identified 20 outbreaks
that occurred from 1992 through 2000 in hospitals in Ontario, Canada.193 His-
torically, healthcare-associated outbreaks of GAS have involved newborns,188
postpartum women,180–185 patients in burn units180,187 and geriatric units, post-
operative surgical patients, and residents of long-term care facilities.180,191,193
Outbreaks have also been reported in medical units189 and in critical care
units.190,193 In addition to person-to-person spread, GAS may be transmitted
by contaminated food. An outbreak of streptococcal pharyngitis in a hospital
pediatric clinic was traced to food that had been contaminated by a healthcare
worker who was a GAS carrier.192
Nosocomial outbreaks are often associated with colonized or infected
healthcare personnel. Although nasopharyngeal carriers are thought to be
particularly likely to transmit GAS, personnel implicated in group A strepto-
coccal surgical wound infection outbreaks have been found to carry the organ-
ism in their scalp,181 vagina,182,183 or anus.184,185 In one report, an outbreak of
group A streptococcal surgical site infections was associated with an asympto-
matic anesthesiologist who was a pharyngeal carrier.186 The outbreak resulted
from the exposure of the anesthesiologist to his infected daughter. In several
reported outbreaks, the source of infection or colonization in hospital person-
nel was a household contact.180,181,183,186
It should be noted that healthcare workers either may serve as the index
case or may become infected through contact with infected patients or other
healthcare workers during the course of their work. In several reports, an out-
break of GAS infections occurred in healthcare workers following exposure to
an infected patient.195,196 In one report, three healthcare workers developed
GAS pharyngitis after exposure in the operating room to a patient with GAS
pharyngitis and necrotizing fasciitis.195 The three healthcare workers reported
their infections shortly after becoming symptomatic. An important measure
for preventing and interrupting GAS outbreaks is the recognition by person-
nel of signs and symptoms, such as pharyngitis, that are consistent with GAS
infection so that treatment may promptly be provided.
Because nosocomial infections caused by group A beta-hemolytic streptococ-
cus are relatively uncommon and can cause significant morbidity and mortal-
ity, the occurrence of one healthcare-associated GAS infection at any site
should prompt a search for other cases to detect a potential outbreak. This
search can be done by reviewing laboratory reports and by asking hospital
surgeons and other healthcare providers if they are aware of any GAS infec-
tions, especially surgical site infections. In its guidelines for preventing GAS
infections in postpartum and postsurgical patients, the CDC recommends that
“One nosocomial postpartum or postsurgical invasive GAS infection should
prompt enhanced surveillance and isolate storage, whereas two cases caused
by the same strain should prompt an epidemiological investigation that
includes the culture of specimens from epidemiologically linked healthcare
workers.”197(p950)
The reader is referred to Chapter 4 for a discussion of the epidemiology and
mode of transmission of GAS and measures that can be used to recognize, pre-
vent, and control an outbreak of GAS. Recommendations for preventing and
controlling GAS outbreaks can also be found in the CDC guideline for infec-
tion control in healthcare personnel,25 and the reviews by Weber et al180 and
Daneman et al.193
Candida and Nocardia Species
Several outbreaks of postoperative surgical site infections caused by Can-

dida species have been associated with personnel carriers. One outbreak of
Candida albicans sternal wound infections following cardiac surgery was
associated with a scrub nurse who had recurrent vaginal infections,198 and an
outbreak of Candida tropicalis sternal wound infections was also associated
with a scrub nurse.199 An outbreak of Candida osteomyelitis and diskitis after
spinal surgery was associated with a nurse who had artificial fingernails.200
A few clusters of surgical site infections caused by Nocardia farcinica have
been reported.201,202 In one, the source was not determined,202 and in the other
the source was determined to be a colonized anesthesiologist.201
Gram-Negative Organisms
Outbreaks caused by gram-negative organisms such as Pseudomonas and

Serratia are frequently associated with contaminated environmental reser-
voirs such as equipment, lotions, and solutions89; however, they can also be
associated with onychomycosis, artificial nails, transient carriage on the
hands of personnel, or by personnel who become colonized carriers.203–205 An

outbreak of Serratia marcescens infection and colonization in a neurosurgical
ICU was associated with a healthcare worker who had psoriasis and whose
hands were repeatedly colonized with Serratia marcescens over a prolonged
period.204 An outbreak of P. aeruginosa pneumonia and bloodstream infections
in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) was associated with a healthcare
worker who had otitis externa and ear cultures that grew the epidemic strain
of P. aeruginosa.206
Some studies have shown that overcrowding and staff shortages can con-
tribute to transient carriage on the hands of personnel and epidemic spread of
organisms.207 However, in many outbreaks, it is not possible to identify the
source or reservoir or mode of transmission of the causative agent.203,206,207
Hepatitis B Virus
Transmission of HBV in the healthcare setting has long been recognized

and has been associated with unsafe injection practices, contaminated equip-
ment and medications (especially in hemodialysis settings), and direct trans-
mission from an infected healthcare worker to a patient. Clusters of HBV
infection have been traced to transmission from infected obstetricians, gyne-
cologists, dentists, and surgeons to their patients during surgery.208–214 Of the
three most commonly recognized blood-borne pathogens—HBV, hepatitis C
virus (HCV), and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)—HBV is the most
easily transmitted from person to person because an infected person can carry
more than a billion HBV particles per milliliter of blood.139 Risk factors associ-
ated with transmission of HBV from healthcare worker to patient include the
presence of hepatitis B e antigen in the healthcare worker’s blood, the type of
surgical procedure (such as vaginal hysterectomy and cardiac, orthopedic, and
major pelvic surgery), and the potential for injury of the healthcare worker
(such as a needlestick during suturing) during the invasive procedure.208,214
Twelve HBV-infected healthcare workers infected 38 patients from 1991 to
2005 in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands alone.214 It is likely that
many cases of HBV infection transmitted in healthcare settings are not recog-
nized owing to the long incubation period, the occurrence of asymptomatic
infection, and the lack of healthcare-associated HBV infection surveillance
systems.214,215
Recommendations for preventing transmission of hepatitis B from infected
healthcare providers to patients have been published by the CDC (currently
being revised),211 the SHEA,208 United States and European consensus pan-
els,216,217 public health agencies, hospital associations, and others.218,219 Each of
these published guidelines provides slightly different recommendations
regarding the management of HBV-infected healthcare workers who directly
perform invasive procedures. In the United States there is “no uniform
national policy for definitive guidance concerning whether and under what
conditions infected physicians can practice.”217(1165) However, ICPs and hospi-
tal leaders must ensure that their facility has adequate protocols in place to
prevent healthcare worker-to-patient transmission of HBV, HCV, and HIV.
Because HBV in human plasma can survive for at least 1 week in the envi-
ronment,220 inanimate objects contaminated with blood can serve as vehicles
for the transmission of the virus. When a cluster of healthcare-associated HBV
infections is detected, and appears to be unrelated to surgery, the mode of
transmission is most likely via exposure to a contaminated inanimate object
rather than contact with an infected healthcare worker. When investigating
an outbreak of HBV, investigators must review and observe infection control
practices involving the use of needles, syringes, and multidose vials because
the improper use of these items can result in the transmission of blood-borne
pathogens from patient to patient.221,222
Outbreaks of HBV and other bloodborne pathogens related to unsafe injec-
tion practices and lack of adherence to infection prevention protocols are dis-
cussed in Chapter 5. Recommendations for safe injection practices and
medication handling are also discussed in that chapter.
Hepatitis C Virus
There are several reports of clusters of HCV transmitted directly from a

healthcare worker to patients.214,223,224 In all of these cases, transmission was
associated with a surgical procedure. In a review of healthcare-associated
HCV infections, Perry et al. discussed 11 reports in which healthcare workers
transmitted their HCV infection to 38 patients.214
Guidelines for preventing transmission of HCV from infected healthcare
workers to patients have been published by the CDC,225 SHEA, 208 and oth-
ers.218,219 All of these guidelines emphasize the need for infected healthcare
workers to strictly follow routine infection prevention and control measures,
such as standard precautions, to prevent the transmission of blood-borne
pathogens. However, in the United States there is no uniform policy for the
management or restriction of HCV-infected workers who perform invasive
procedures.
HCV can also be transmitted from patient to patient via contaminated
equipment and medications, unsafe injection practices, and medical proce-
dures. Outbreaks of healthcare-associated HCV infection via unsafe injection
practices and hemodialysis are discussed in Chapter 5 along with measures to
prevent the transmission of HCV in the healthcare setting.
Human Immunodeficiency Virus
As of early 2008, worldwide, HIV transmission from an infected healthcare

worker to a patient has been reported in four instances:
1. From a dentist in the United States to a patient who had an invasive
dental procedure226,227
2. From an orthopedic surgeon in France to a patient who had a hip
replacement 228
3. From a nurse to a patient in France, with no evidence of blood exposure 229,230
4. From an obstetrician/gynecologist in Spain to a patient who had a
cesarean section231,232
Guidelines for preventing transmission of HIV from surgeon to patient have

been published by the CDC,211 SHEA,208 the UK Department of Health,233 and
others.217 Although there is no uniform national standard in the United
States, all published guidelines to date have promoted the use of standard pre-
cautions, including hand hygiene and protective barriers, to minimize the
exposure of patients to blood and blood-borne pathogens. They differ on the
restrictions recommended for HIV-infected healthcare workers who perform
invasive procedures.
Salmonella Species
Most reported hospital Salmonella outbreaks have been caused by improper

handling of contaminated foods234; however, several epidemics have been
traced to symptomatic dietary235 and nursing personnel236 and to infected
patients.237 In one outbreak, Salmonella poona was most likely introduced
into an NICU by an asymptomatic infant whose mother was infected with S.
poona.237 The organism was then transmitted to two other infants via cross-
infection by personnel. To prevent transmission of Salmonella in the health-
care setting, dietary and patient care personnel with acute gastrointestinal
illness should be restricted from caring for patients and handling patient care
items or food until symptoms subside.25 Some health departments have regu-
lations governing the restriction and culturing of healthcare workers and food
handlers who have Salmonella infection.
Food-borne outbreaks and control measures for preventing the spread of
agents such as Salmonella that cause gastrointestinal infections are discussed
in Chapter 7.
Hepatitis A Virus
Hepatitis A virus (HAV) is most commonly transmitted in the hospital set-

ting via the fecal-oral route by contact with feces or fecally contaminated
items.25 Transmission by ingestion of contaminated food or beverages is
known to occur in hospitals but is rarely reported in the literature.238,239
Transmission has also occurred by blood transfusion25,240–243 and by cross-
infection from a patient with asymptomatic or unrecognized HAV infec-
tion.244,245 There is no chronic carrier state for HAV as there is for HBV and
HCV. HAV is excreted in the stool, and transient viremia can occur.24 Persons
with HAV infection are most infectious during the prodromal stage, before the
onset of jaundice.24
Several outbreaks in nurseries were traced to neonates who received blood
transfusions from a donor with HAV infection.240–242 Once introduced into the
unit, HAV was transmitted by cross-infection to other infants and personnel
and to parents and relatives of the infected infants. Activities that have been
associated with nosocomial spread of HAV include eating and drinking in
patient care areas240,241,246,247 and failure to wash hands after caring for an
infected infant.246,247 In another outbreak, the source for nosocomial HAV was
an adult patient with symptomatic HAV infection who was hospitalized for an
unrelated reason, and HAV was transmitted to six healthcare workers and
one patient.244 For more information on nosocomial HAV outbreaks the reader
is referred to the article by Chodick et al., who reviewed reports of outbreaks
in healthcare settings that were published between 1975 and 2003.243
Recommendations for preventing transmission of HAV include good hand
hygiene and use of standard precautions.26 Contact precautions should be
used for infants and children less than 3 years of age for the duration of hospi-
talization; for children 3–14 years of age for 2 weeks after onset of symptoms;
and for persons over 14 years of age for 1 week after onset of symptoms.26
The CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recom-
mends that hepatitis A vaccine, in preference to immune globulin, be adminis-
tered for postexposure prophylaxis to close contacts of index patients only if
an epidemiologic investigation indicates that nosocomial spread between
patients or between patients and staff in a hospital has occurred.248
OUTBREAKS SPREAD FROM PERSON TO PERSON BY AIRBORNE

AND DROPLET TRANSMISSION
Diseases Spread by Airborne Transmission
Outbreaks of nosocomial infections spread by the airborne route have long

been recognized in hospitals,249,250 although they are relatively uncommon
compared to outbreaks spread by contact. Only a few diseases have been docu-
mented to be spread from person to person via a true airborne route (i.e., by
airborne droplet nuclei, which are small particle residues of evaporated respi-
ratory secretions that can remain suspended in the air and can be dispersed
widely by air currents).26,249 Three diseases caused by pathogens that can be
truly airborne and have caused numerous epidemics in the healthcare setting
are tuberculosis, measles, and varicella (chickenpox). Because tuberculosis
outbreaks have been reported in a variety of healthcare settings, this disease
is discussed in detail in Chapter 7.
Measles
Measles is one of the most contagious diseases in humans. Transmission of
measles has occurred in hospitals, physicians’ offices, and emergency
rooms.250–254 Measles may be introduced into the healthcare setting by infected
patients or healthcare workers and is easily transmitted either via contact
with respiratory secretions of infected persons or via the airborne route.26
Infected healthcare workers can transmit the disease to patients, to other
healthcare workers, and to family members. Measles is readily spread because
the virus may remain airborne for prolonged periods and because infected per-
sons with measles may shed the virus in respiratory secretions during the pro-
dromal period before the disease is recognized.26 Transmission from patient to
patient has occurred in physicians’ offices even when direct contact did not
occur.255 Fifteen of the 75 measles outbreaks reported in the United States
during 1993–1996 involved transmission in a healthcare setting.254 During
1989–1991, a major resurgence of measles occurred in the United States; how-
ever, in 1996 only 508 cases were reported, of which 65 were classified as inter-
national importations.254
Outbreaks Via Airborne and Droplet Transmission 95
Measles is rarely now seen in the United States owing to a highly immu-
nized population; however, measles is still endemic in many other countries.
Many physicians and healthcare providers have not seen a case of measles,
and therefore it sometimes may be difficult to obtain a prompt diagnosis when
a patient presents with a rash and a fever. Measles transmission in the United
States is usually associated with an imported case. In 2005, 66 confirmed
cases of measles were reported to the CDC, and 34 of these were from a single
outbreak in Indiana associated with an unvaccinated 17 year old who
returned home to the United States from Romania.256,257 In May 2008, the
CDC announced that a total of 64 confirmed measles cases had been prelimi-
narily reported to the CDC by April 25, the most reported by this date for any
year since 2001.258 This increased incidence of measles in the United States
was related to importation of measles by travelers, many of whom were
returning from Europe where several outbreaks were occurring.258 Of the 64
cases, 63 were unvaccinated or had unknown or undocumented vaccine status,
one was an unvaccinated healthcare worker who was infected in a hospital, 17
(39%) were infected while visiting a healthcare facility, and one was born
before 1957.
Recommendations for preventing transmission of measles have been pub-
lished by the CDC25,26,254,259 and the American Academy of Pediatrics260 and
include the following:
• Prompt recognition of persons with measles; measles should be suspected
in persons with a fever and rash, regardless of age
• Prompt isolation of persons with suspected or known measles; airborne
precautions should be implemented in a private room with negative air-
flow and nonrecirculating air26
• Protocols to ensure measles immunity in all healthcare workers; measles
vaccine should be provided to all healthcare workers who cannot show
proof of immunity, as follows:25,254,259
1. Healthcare workers born before 1957 are generally considered to be
immune to measles.
2. Healthcare workers born during or after 1957 are considered
immune if they have one of the following:
– Documentation of physician-diagnosed measles
– Documentation of two doses of live measles vaccine on or after
their first birthday
– Serologic evidence of measles immunity
Because some outbreaks have involved persons born before 1957, some
experts advocate requiring proof of immunity by vaccination or serology even
for those adults born before 1957.261
Transmission of measles can be prevented if recommendations for im-
munization of children, adolescents, and adults are followed. The ACIP
recommendations regarding immunization of healthcare workers259 and
immunization for measles, mumps, and rubella254 should be used when devel-
oping healthcare facility policies. In addition, some state and local health
departments require measles immunity for healthcare workers, and these
requirements must be incorporated into a facility’s policies.
Because measles is highly communicable, one case (even a community-

acquired case) should be considered a potential outbreak and should be
accorded immediate action to prevent further transmission. The suspected
case should promptly be reported by telephone to the local health department
so that measures to prevent further spread can be implemented as soon as
possible. Actions that should quickly be taken to interrupt measles transmis-
sion include the following:
• Identification and prompt isolation of persons with suspected or con-
firmed measles.26 Suspected cases should promptly be reported to the
health department; however, a diagnosis of measles should be verified
before exposure follow-up is conducted. Serologic testing is recommended
to confirm the diagnosis; however, if measles is clinically diagnosed, expo-
sure follow-up should begin before laboratory confirmation is received.
Information on the clinical and laboratory diagnosis of measles is pro-
vided in Appendix C.10
• Compilation of a list of all potentially exposed personnel, patients, and
visitors as soon as possible, especially if the suspected case is seen in the
emergency room.
• Identification of all exposed personnel, patients, and visitors. It is impor-
tant to define exposed person before conducting contact tracing. Exposure
may be defined as being in the same room (or area supplied by the same
air-handling system) at the same time as a patient with measles or for up
to 1 hour after the patient with measles left the room or area.
• Evaluation of immunity in all exposed personnel and patients: Guidelines
for evaluating immunity can be found above and in Appendix C.
• Restriction of susceptible exposed personnel from duty, from 5 days after
the first exposure to 21 days after the last exposure to measles, regardless
of postexposure vaccination.25,254
• Isolation of exposed susceptible patients, if they are still hospitalized,
using airborne precautions in a private room with negative airflow and
nonrecirculating air, from 5 days after the first exposure to 21 days after
the last exposure to measles.26
• Prompt provision of measles vaccine to susceptible persons to halt disease
transmission. Note: During an outbreak, serologic testing to identify sus-
ceptible persons is not necessary.25,254 The vaccine should be provided to
those born during or after 1957 who have no documentation of complete
measles vaccination or physician-documented diagnosis of measles and
should be considered for those born before 1957 if they do not have sero-
logic documentation of immunity or receipt of two doses of measles vac-
cine. Guidelines for providing the measles vaccine and immune globulin
can be found in the ACIP recommendations for measles, mumps, and
rubella immunization.254
Community outbreaks can result in transmission into a healthcare facil-
ity,262,263 and nosocomial transmission can spread into the community. Out-
breaks of measles in healthcare settings can be associated with significant
morbidity and disruption of services. They are disruptive and costly to control
due to (1) the time needed to conduct a contact investigation, (2) the lost work-
days for restricted personnel who either acquire measles or who are exposed
and are not immune, and (3) the cost of the measles vaccine for exposed per-
sonnel, patients, and visitors.
One of the most important measures to prevent measles transmission is to
ensure that all persons who work in a healthcare setting have acceptable evi-
dence of measles immunity.254,263
Varicella (Chickenpox)
Varicella-zoster virus (VZV) causes varicella (chickenpox) and zoster (shin-
gles). Varicella is one of the most communicable diseases of humans and is
readily spread from person to person via direct contact with infected lesions,
droplet spread, or airborne transmission.26,264,265 Healthcare-associated out-
breaks of varicella in hospitals and physicians’ offices have been well docu-
mented.264–270 True airborne transmission has been documented in the
hospital setting when susceptible patients have developed varicella even
though they did not have face-to-face contact with the infected source
patient.266,268 Community outbreaks can result in healthcare-associated expo-
sures and transmission.267 VZV can easily be introduced into the healthcare
setting by infected patients, personnel, and visitors (including the children of
personnel) since infected persons may be contagious up to 2 days prior to the
development of symptoms.24,26
Guidelines for prevention and control of VZV infections in healthcare set-
tings have been published by the CDC,25,26,271 the American Academy of Pedi-
atrics,272 and others.264,273,274 These guidelines should be reviewed when
developing hospital policies.
Measures that should be implemented in healthcare settings to prevent
varicella transmission include the following:
• Implementation of protocols to ensure varicella immunity in personnel271
• Prompt recognition of infected patients, personnel, and visitors. Note: The
diagnosis of chickenpox should be verified by infection control and/or
employee health personnel before exposure follow-up and contact tracing
is conducted.
• Prompt and appropriate isolation of infected patients (airborne precau-
tions in a private room with negative airflow and nonrecirculating air)26
• Compilation of a list of all potentially exposed personnel, patients, and
visitors as soon as possible, especially if the suspected case is seen in the
emergency room
• Prompt identification of exposed persons. It is important to define exposed
person before conducting contact tracing. Weber et al. define exposure as
“being in an enclosed airspace with the source case (i.e., same room) or in
intimate contact with the source in an open area during a potentially con-
tagious stage of illness. Varicella is considered contagious beginning 48
hours prior to the onset of rash and until all lesions are dried and
crusted.”264(p699)
• Evaluation of immunity in all exposed personnel, patients, and visitors271
• Restriction of susceptible exposed personnel from duty beginning on the

8th day after the first exposure through the 21st day after the last expo-
sure to chickenpox, or until all lesions are dried and crusted if varicella
occurs25,271
• Isolation of exposed susceptible patients, if they are still hospitalized,
during the period of potential infectiousness (airborne precautions in a
private room with negative airflow from 8 days after the first exposure
through 21 days after the last exposure)26
• Provision of the varicella vaccine to exposed personnel who are not
immune; however, the vaccine’s efficacy in preventing postexposure devel-
opment of varicella is unknown, and the vaccinated personnel should be
managed as if they were not immunized.271
Varicella exposure management, follow-up, and contact tracing can result in
considerable time expenditure by infection control and employee health staff,
and the exclusion of exposed susceptible personnel from duty can lead to sig-
nificant cost and disruption of services for a healthcare facility.267 Much of this
disruption can be prevented if persons with varicella are promptly identified
and appropriately isolated and if healthcare facilities ensure that all of their
personnel are immune to varicella.271
Diseases Spread by Droplet Transmission
Diseases that are spread from person to person via droplet transmission are
caused by pathogens that are expelled in large particle droplets of respiratory
secretions by a person who is coughing, talking, or sneezing or by droplets that
are produced during a procedure such as tracheal suctioning or bron-
choscopy.26 These droplets are not widely dispersed into the air and are gener-
ally said to travel several feet before settling to the ground. Diseases that have
caused outbreaks in healthcare settings and that can be spread via droplet
transmission include adenovirus infections,250,275–277 mumps,278,279 influenza,280
parvovirus B19 infection,281–283 rubella,284–286 Mycoplasma pneumoniae infec-
tion,287 respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections,288–300 and pertussis.301–303
Although the influenza virus has been transmitted in the acute care setting,
the majority of healthcare-associated outbreaks are reported in long-term care
settings, and influenza is therefore discussed in Chapter 4.
Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection

RSV infection is most common in infants and children and, although it can
cause a severe pneumonia or bronchiolitis, it usually causes a mild disease.
Community outbreaks of RSV disease are seasonal, generally occurring
between December and March in North America. RSV can be introduced into
the hospital by infected patients, personnel, or visitors and can be easily
transmitted directly from person to person via large particle aerosols during
close contact with an infected person or indirectly via RSV-contaminated
hands or articles.27,288,289 The portal of entry for RSV is the conjunctiva or nasal
mucosa, and transmission frequently occurs when contaminated hands touch
the eyes or nose.27 Hand hygiene is the most important measure for prevent-
ing the transmission of RSV. Outbreaks of RSV infection have most commonly
been reported in pediatric units,290 nurseries,291,292,300 and long-term care facil-

ities,293,294 and in immunocompromised adults in hematology/oncology and
bone marrow transplant units295,299 and ICUs.296 RSV infection may occur con-
currently with other respiratory tract infections, making outbreaks difficult to
recognize.297,299
Measures used to control RSV outbreaks have been published by the
CDC26,27 and include the following:
• Appropriate hand hygiene
• Adherence to contact isolation precautions, especially gloves and gowns
• Use of private rooms for infected patients; when a private room is not
available, an RSV-infected patient may be cohorted in a room with another
patient who has an active RSV infection but who has no other infection
• Work restrictions for personnel who have symptoms of acute upper respi-
ratory tract infection
• Restriction of visitors who have symptoms of upper respiratory tract
infection from visiting patients, especially pediatric, cardiac, and im-
munosuppressed patients
Pertussis
Pertussis, or whooping cough, is generally considered to be a childhood dis-
ease; however, approximately 29% of cases reported in 2004 occurred in adults
19 years of age or older and 34% in individuals between 11 and 18 years of
age.301 Disease in adults may be subclinical,302 mild, or atypical,303 and
although pertussis has been shown to be a common cause of prolonged cough
in adults, it is frequently not recognized as the etiology.304–307 Pertussis is eas-
ily spread from person to person by direct contact with the respiratory
droplets of infected persons. Multiple outbreaks of pertussis have been
reported in acute care facilities,304,308–317 and many have involved both patients
and staff.306–308,311,312,316 Outbreaks in the community may involve hospital per-
sonnel who then introduce pertussis into the hospital.306,307,318 Bordetella per-
tussis may also be introduced into the hospital by an infected patient, parent,
or visitor.310 There has been a resurgence of pertussis in many countries,
including the United States, since the 1990s,319–321 and outbreaks in hospitals
can readily occur when B. pertussis is circulating in the community.307,321
Unfortunately, pertussis can be difficult to diagnose, which makes early recog-
nition and implementation of preventive measures problematic.322
Guidelines for preventing the transmission of Bordetella pertussis and for
managing pertussis exposures have been published by the CDC25,26,323,324 and
others325,326 and include the following:
• Droplet precautions for infected patients: private room and use of masks
until 5 days after patient is started on effective therapy
• Droplet precautions for suspected cases until pertussis is ruled out
• Evaluation and appropriate therapy for exposed individuals who are
symptomatic, including personnel and household contacts
• Work restrictions for symptomatic personnel until 5 days of therapy are
completed
• Postexposure prophylaxis for exposed individuals who are asymptomatic,

including personnel and household contacts
• Implementation of a program for routine provision of pertussis vaccine to
personnel to prevent infection and avoid outbreaks.26,324
The article by Haiduven et al. contains a pertussis workup checklist and
pertussis exposure forms that can be used for managing exposures in patients
and personnel.326
Outbreaks of pertussis occur regularly in healthcare facilities worldwide. In
addition to causing significant morbidity and disruption of services, they are
labor intensive and costly to control.315–317 The number and size of pertussis
outbreaks in hospitals can be reduced through routine immunization of
healthcare workers, timely recognition of cases, and implementation of appro-
priate infection prevention and control measures.
More on Diseases Spread by the Airborne and Droplet Routes
Appendix G contains Guidelines for the Prevention and Control of Upper

and Lower Acute Respiratory Illnesses (including Influenza and Pneumonia)
in Long-Term Care Facilities developed by the Maryland Department of
Health Mental Hygiene.
Exhibit 3–1 provides examples of diseases that have been responsible for
outbreaks in hospitals and are caused by organisms transmitted via the airborne
and droplet routes.26 Because a detailed description of each of these diseases is
beyond the scope of this chapter, for information on signs and symptoms, diag-
nosis, epidemiology, and infection prevention and control measures the reader
is referred to the Control of Communicable Diseases Manual by Heymann24
and the CDC guidelines for isolation precautions,26 prevention of healthcare-
associated pneumonia,27 and infection control in healthcare personnel.25
Exhibit 3–1 Airborne and Droplet-Spread Diseases Responsible for Outbreaks in

Healthcare Facilities
Airborne Droplet
Measles Adenovirus
Tuberculosis Group A streptococcus
Varicella Influenza
Mumps
Mycoplasma pneumoniae infection
Erythema infectiosum (parvovirus B-19)
Pertussis
Rubella
Respiratory syncytial virus infection
Severe acute respiratory syndrome
Outbreaks of Diseases that Have Environmental Reservoirs 101
OUTBREAKS OF GASTROENTERITIS
Outbreaks of gastroenteritis are caused by infectious and noninfectious

agents and occur frequently in hospitals and long-term care settings. These
agents may be spread directly from person to person or indirectly via contami-
nated food, water, and environmental surfaces. Gastroenteritis outbreaks are
discussed in Chapter 7.
OUTBREAKS OF DISEASES THAT HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL

RESERVOIRS
Legionnaires’ disease (LD) and aspergillosis are two major nosocomial dis-
eases that have airborne and droplet modes of transmission but have environ-
mental, rather than human, reservoirs.
Legionnaires’ Disease
Epidemiology
Legionella species are gram-negative bacilli that are ubiquitous in nature
and live in aqueous habitats. They can be isolated from hot and cold tap water,
ponds, streams, and the surrounding soil. Nosocomial cases of LD were
reported shortly after the etiologic agent of LD was identified in 1977,327,328
and multiple healthcare-associated outbreaks and clusters have since been
reported.327,329–336 Healthcare-associated LD has generally been associated
with contamination of the water in cooling systems27,334,335 or the potable hot
water systems in hospitals,27,329–333,336 and these systems may remain colo-
nized for prolonged periods.333 In one hospital, persistent colonization of the
water supply was associated with contaminated shock absorbers installed
within the pipes to decrease noise.331
In 2005 and 2006, 11,980 cases of LD were reported by 35 countries in
Europe, and 629 of these were reported as nosocomial.336 Sixty-six of the
nosocomial cases were involved in 19 outbreaks in hospitals or healthcare
facilities. Fifteen of these outbreaks were “attributed to contaminated hot or
cold water systems, two to wet cooling systems, and two to an unknown
source.” 336
A 1994 community outbreak of Legionella pneumophila pneumonia in
Wilmington, Delaware, was associated with the cooling towers of a hospital.337
Although no hospitalized patients were affected, hospital staff and persons liv-
ing in the area surrounding the hospital developed LD.
Hospitals play an important role in the detection of outbreaks. Recognition
of a cluster of community-acquired cases of LD by the staff of a community
hospital led to the detection of an outbreak of LD among passengers of a cruise
ship.338 Because tests for Legionella species are not routinely performed, it is
likely that many cases, both community and healthcare associated, are not
recognized.
Mode of Transmission
The mode of transmission for Legionella pneumophila is via inhalation of
the organism in aerosolized water droplets that can be produced by cooling
towers, showers, room air humidifiers, and respiratory therapy nebulization
devices.27,335
Control Measures
To avoid transmission of Legionella in the hospital, sterile water (not tap or
distilled water) should be used to rinse and fill respiratory therapy equipment.
Recommendations for preventing nosocomial LD have been published by the
CDC27 and World Health Organization339 and include information on decontam-
inating potable water and cooling systems. Control measures used to interrupt
outbreaks in hospitals have included hyperchlorination and superheating of
the hot water system, use of sterile water in nebulizers, and use of biocides in
cooling towers.327–329,331
Criteria for defining healthcare-associated cases have been published by a
variety of organizations and public health agencies and differ slightly.27,336,339
The incubation period for LD is generally 2–10 days, and the CDC defines
healthcare-associated LD as follows:27(pg.27)
Definite: Laboratory-confirmed legionellosis that occurs in a patient
who has spent greater than or equal to 10 days continuously in a
healthcare facility prior to onset of illness
Possible: Laboratory-confirmed infection that occurs in a patient who
has spent 2–9 days in a healthcare facility before onset of illness
The CDC recommends initiating an investigation for the source of
Legionella spp. when healthcare-associated legionellosis is detected, as out-
lined in Exhibit 3–2.
An epidemiologic investigation of the source of Legionella spp. includes
“(1) retrospective review of microbiologic and medical records,( 2) active sur-
veillance to identify all recent or ongoing cases of legionellosis, (3) identifica-
tion of potential risk factors for infection (including environmental exposures,
such as showering or use of respiratory-therapy equipment) by line listing of
cases; analysis by time, place, and person; and comparison with appropriate
controls, (4) collection of water samples from environmental sources impli-
cated by the epidemiologic investigation and from other potential sources of
aerosolized water, and (5) subtype matching between Legionella spp. isolated
from patients and environmental samples.”27(p30)
Much information on Legionella and LD can be found at www.Legionella.org.
Aspergillosis
Epidemiology and Mode of Transmission

Aspergillus species are ubiquitous in nature and can easily be cultured from
the hospital environment.340 This fungus produces spores that are approxi-
mately 3 µm in size and that can remain suspended in air for prolonged peri-
Outbreaks of Diseases that Have Environmental Reservoirs 103
Exhibit 3–2 Response to Identification of Laboratory-Confirmed

Healthcare-Associated Legionellosis
A. In facilities with hemopoietic stem-cell transplant (HSCT) or solid-organ transplant

recipients:
When one inpatient of an inpatient HSCT or solid-organ transplant unit develops a
case of laboratory-confirmed definite (i.e., after >10 days of continuous inpatient stay)
or possible (i.e., within 2–9 days of inpatient stay) healthcare-associated Legionnaires’
disease, or when two or more patients develop laboratory-confirmed Legionnaires’
disease within 6 months of each other and after having visited an outpatient transplant
unit during part of the 2–10 day period before illness onset:
In consultation with the facility’s infection control team, conduct a combined
epidemiologic and environmental investigation to determine the source(s) of
Legionella spp. Include but not limit the investigation to such potential sources as
showers, water faucets, cooling towers, hot-water tanks, and carpet-cleaner water
tanks.
B. In facilities that do not house severely immunocompromised patients (e.g., HSCT or
solid-organ transplant recipients):
When a single case of laboratory-confirmed definite healthcare-associated Legionnaires’
disease is identified, or when two or more cases of laboratory confirmed possible
healthcare-associated Legionnaires’ disease occur within 6 months of each other:
Conduct an epidemiologic investigation through a retrospective review of microbiologic,
serologic, and postmortem data to identify previous cases, and begin an intensive
prospective surveillance for additional cases of healthcare-associated Legionnaires’
disease.
Source: Adapted from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for Preventing Health-
Care-Associated Pneumonia, 2003. Recommendations of CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control
Practices Advisory Committee. p. 71. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/gl_hcpneumonia.html. Accessed
April 19, 2008.
ods.341 The usual portal of entry is via inhalation of aerosolized spores.27 How-
ever, primary cutaneous aspergillosis resulting from inoculation of spores onto
nonintact skin has been reported.37,55 Immunocompromised patients are at
greatest risk of developing invasive pulmonary infection, which can result in
significant morbidity and mortality.342
Multiple outbreaks of nosocomial aspergillosis have been reported in hospi-
tals.37,55,340,343–350 Most outbreaks have been associated with construction or
renovation in, or adjacent to, the hospital.37,340,344–346,348 In one outbreak, expo-
sure to a radiology suite that was undergoing extensive renovation was the
only common environmental factor found among six patients who developed
nosocomial aspergillosis during a 1-month period.348 Although most outbreaks
involve pulmonary aspergillosis in immunosuppressed patients,37,343–346 there
are several reports of outbreaks of primary cutaneous aspergillosis caused by
contact with contaminated medical supplies, such as dressings37,55 and intra-

venous arm boards.347 In one report, an outbreak of cutaneous aspergillosis
was recognized when three cases of extensive wound aspergillosis occurred in
surgical and burn patients in a 3-week period. The source was traced to the
outer packaging of dressing supplies (dressing trays, gauze, bandages, and
tapes) that had become contaminated during renovation in the central inven-
tory control area of the hospital.37 An investigation of a cluster of cases of pul-
monary infections with Aspergillus fumigatus in a transplant unit found that
patient-to-patient transmission of A. fumigatus likely occurred from
aerosolization of conidiophores during surgical dressing changes and wound
debridement of a patient who had an extensive abdominal wound infected
with A. fumigatus.350 In addition to outbreaks of infection, pseudo-outbreaks
involving aspergillosis have been reported as a result of contamination of
microbiology cultures in the laboratory.351
Control Measures
Measures used to prevent transmission of fungal spores to patients include
implementation of protocols to prevent dispersal of construction-related dust
and bioaerosols,27,89,340,352 placement of high-risk patients (e.g., those with
severe and prolonged granulocytopenia) in a protected environment,26 routine
inspection and maintenance of air-handling systems in high-risk patient care
areas (such as operating rooms, nurseries, ICUs, bone marrow or solid organ
transplant units, and oncology units),27 and protection of sterile supplies from
contamination.
Guidelines and recommendations for controlling the airborne transmission
of Aspergillus in the hospital have been published by the CDC,27,89 Walsh and
Dixon,340 Carter and Barr,352 public health agencies, and others.353–355 Mea-
sures used to control transmission of Aspergillus spores during construction
and renovation projects include the following:
• Construction of impermeable barriers of plastic or drywall that extend
from the floor to the ceiling to control the dissemination of dust and dirt
and to separate the construction site from patient care areas, the phar-
macy, and areas where sterile supplies are stored
• Frequent cleaning and vacuuming of the work site and the areas adjacent
to the work site
• Restriction of pedestrian traffic through the work area to prevent the
tracking of dust and dirt through the facility
• Careful attention to traffic patterns of the construction crew, personnel,
patients, and visitors to avoid the spread of dirt and dust through the hos-
pital and to reduce the risk of patient exposure to infectious agents
• Evaluation of air patterns and air-handling systems in the work site and
the surrounding areas to ensure that dust and spores are not dissemi-
nated through the facility via air currents
• Ventilation of construction areas so they are at negative pressure to sur-
rounding critical areas such as patient care units and clean and sterile
supply rooms.
Outbreaks and Pseudo-Outbreaks Associated with a Water Reservoir 105
OUTBREAKS AND PSEUDO-OUTBREAKS ASSOCIATED

WITH A WATER RESERVOIR
Many outbreaks and pseudo-outbreaks in inpatient and outpatient health-

care settings have been traced to a water reservoir,356–367 including potable or
drinking water, ice and ice machines, toilet water, and warm-water and sonicator
baths. Table 3–6 lists several examples. Whenever outbreaks or pseudo-
outbreaks are caused by nontuberculous mycobacteria or Legionella, Pseudo-
monas, Flavobacterium, or Acinetobacter species, an aqueous reservoir should
be suspected.
For additional information on waterborne infection risks for hospitalized
patients, the reader is referred to the review article by Emmerson.368
Potable Water
Nontuberculous mycobacteria are commonly found in municipal water sup-
plies and are frequent causes of pseudo-outbreaks. Sniadeck et al. described
an outbreak of Mycobacterium xenopi pseudo-infections that occurred in
13 patients over a 1-year period.363 Acid-fast bacilli smears were negative, and
only a few colonies of the organism were isolated from each of the specimens
(six sputa, two bronchial washings, four urines, and one stool). None of the
patients had disease that was compatible with M. xenopi infection. The source
of the organism was believed to be the hospital’s potable water system, which
contaminated the specimens at the time of collection. A review of specimen
collection and instrument disinfection procedures revealed the following:
1. Tap water was used to rinse a patient’s mouth just prior to collecting a
sputum specimen.
2. Tap water was used as a final rinse after cold sterilization of broncho-
scopes.
3. Urine for mycobacterial culture was occasionally collected in previously
used bedpans that had been rinsed with tap water.
4. Tap water was used for colonic irrigation.
This report highlights the need to instruct personnel to collect specimens for
culture carefully in order to minimize microbial contamination, and to avoid
using tap water as a final rinse when cleaning and disinfecting bronchoscopes.
Copepods and nonpathogenic freshwater microorganisms present in hospi-
tal drinking water have caused pseudo-outbreaks.364,365 Copepods are small
animals, such as Cyclops, that are the intermediate hosts of animal parasites
of humans (e.g., the guinea worm, Dracunculus medinensis, and the fish tape-
worm, Diphyllobothrium latum).
Ice
Contaminated ice machines and ice baths used to cool medical devices such
as syringes have been responsible for nosocomial outbreaks.356 An outbreak of
bacteremia caused by Flavobacterium species was traced to syringes that were
cooled in ice from the ice machine in an ICU before being used to collect arter-
ial specimens for blood gas determination.357 Guidelines for minimizing the
Table 3–6 Outbreaks and Pseudo-Outbreaks Associated with a Water Reservoir
Year Reported/
Outbreak Reservoir Source Reference No.
Flavobacterium Hospital potable Syringes cooled in ice from 1975 (357)
septicemia water ice machine in intensive
care unit
Pseudomonas Hospital potable Contaminated water bath 1981 (358)
septicemia water in the operating room used
to thaw fresh-frozen plasma
Pseudomonas Water in physical Contaminated Hubbard 1981 (359)
aeruginosa wound therapy tank; associated with
infections department discontinuation of using
bleach to disinfect tank
Mycobacterium Water supply in Hemodialyzers that were 1990 (360)
chelonae infections outpatient hemo- manually reprocessed
dialysis center using Renalin germicide
Pseudomonas Distilled water Distilled water used by 1991 (48)
pickettii bacteremia employee to replace Fen-
tanyl during narcotic theft
Gram-negative Hospital potable Pressure monitoring equip- 1996 (115)
bacteremia water ment left open and uncovered
overnight in the operating
room contaminated by house-
keeping personnel who
sprayed a water-disinfectant
mixture when cleaning
Legionellosis Hospital potable Contaminated ice machine 1997 (361)
(one case prompted water
an investigation)
Pseudo-outbreak Water in Fecal specimens for 1997 (362)
of Pseudomonas hospital toilet surveillance cultures were
aeruginosa collected from the toilet
Mycobacterium Hospital potable M. simiae was recovered 2004 (367)
simiae colonization water from hospital tap water,
and one possible patients’ home showers,
infection and well supplying the
hospital water
risk of transmission of infectious agents by ice and ice machines have been
published by the CDC89,369 and by Burnett et al.370
Water Baths
Warm-water baths have frequently served as the source of outbreaks.356
Organisms present in water baths used to thaw blood components and peri-
Outbreaks of Nosocomial Pneumonia in Intensive Care Units 107
toneal dialysis solutions can easily contaminate the outer surfaces of these
items and can enter the container when it is opened or punctured. Items being
thawed in water baths should be placed in an impermeable plastic wrapper to
avoid contamination. Alternatively, peritoneal dialysis fluid can be warmed by
using a dry-heat source or a microwave oven.
OUTBREAKS OF NOSOCOMIAL PNEUMONIA IN

INTENSIVE CARE UNITS
Although most nosocomial pneumonias (NPs) arise from aspiration of

endogenous oropharyngeal or gastric flora, outbreaks of NP in ICUs have been
caused by exogenously acquired organisms.27,371 Outbreaks of NP can be
caused by a variety of bacteria, viruses, and fungi. Organisms causing NP can
be transmitted by person-to-person contact or by healthcare workers or other
patients through contact with contaminated respiratory therapy devices and
equipment.27,371–378 Examples of NP outbreaks in ICUs that were spread by
contact are shown in Table 3–7. Control measures used to interrupt transmis-
sion of the pathogens are also shown.
Most outbreaks of NP that are spread by cross-infection can be controlled by
implementation of routine infection prevention and control practices, such as
contact isolation precautions, appropriate use of gloves and hand hygiene, and
intensive surveillance.371 It is often difficult to recognize clusters and out-
breaks that are caused by common pathogens, such as S. aureus, because
these organisms may be causing endemic infections. However, outbreaks
caused by unusual gram-negative organisms, such as Burkholderia (formerly
Pseudomonas) cepacia and Stenotrophomonas (formerly Xanthomonas) mal-
tophilia, are more likely to be detected because these isolates are more likely
to be noticed.
Outbreaks associated with bronchoscopy and respiratory therapy solutions
and equipment, such as albuterol, mechanical ventilator circuits, and nebuliz-
ers, have been discussed previously in this chapter. Most of these outbreaks
can be prevented by routine use of aseptic technique when handling fluids and
by adherence to proper cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization protocols for
devices and equipment.
Outbreaks of Legionella and Aspergillus pneumonia associated with envi-
ronmental reservoirs have occurred in ICU patients.345,371,377–382 Control mea-
sures for these outbreaks depend on the specific reservoir and source of the
organism, as outlined in Table 3–8. Information on outbreaks caused by these
two pathogens was given in a previous section of this chapter.
For a comprehensive review of outbreaks of nosocomial pneumonia reported
in ICU patients, including a discussion of the steps used to investigate an out-
break of NP, the reader is referred to the article by Maloney and Jarvis.371 The
CDC Guidelines for Preventing Health Care-Associated Pneumonia provide
information on the etiology, epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, risk factors,
and control measures for preventing NP.27 They include guidelines for con-
ducting outbreak investigations for specific pathogens. Control measures rec-
ommended by the CDC include staff education on basic infection prevention
and control practices, infection surveillance, sterilization or disinfection and
Table 3–7 Reported Epidemics of Nosocomial Pneumonia (NP) in Intensive Care Unit Patients Spread by Contact Transmission, 1982–1993
Number
57793_CH03_ARIAS.qxd
Author of Patients
(Reference Study with NP/ Patients/ Respiratory Control
Pathogen No.) Year Population Colonization Risk Factors Personnel Equipment Measures*
1/19/09
Branhamella Patterson et al372 1988 Intermediate 8/2 Respiratory therapy x 1, 2, 5, 7

catarrhalis care unit Steroid use
Ward location
2:28 PM
Influenza A Centers for 1988 Med/Surg 3/NA* NA 5

virus Disease Control373 ICU**
Methicillin- Locksley et al.374 1982 Hospital-wide 15/1 Mechanical X 1, 3, 5, 7, 8
resistant ventilation ICU/
Page 108
Staphylococcus burn ward

aureus
Parainfluenza Singh-Naz et al.375 1990 Intermediate 6/1 NA X 1, 2, 3, 5
virus ICN**
Pseudomonas Weems113 1993 General ICU NA/120 Mechanical ventilation X 6
cepacia Respiratory therapy
Conly et al.116 1986 Medical ICU, 4/21 Mechanical ventilation
surgical ICU Antimicrobial therapy X X 3, 4, 6
297
Respiratory Valenti et al. 1982 NICU/SCN** 7/1 Endotracheal or X 1, 3
syncytial virus nasogastric intubation
and rhinovirus Mechanical ventilation
Xanthomonas Villarino et al.376 1992 CCU**, 42/0 Trauma ICU X X 1, 3, 4, 5, 6
maltophilia Trauma ICU, Mechanical ventilation
Med/Surg ICU Antimicrobial therapy
NOTE: *Control measures: 1 = isolation precautions; 2 = cohorting of infected patients; 3 = appropriate hand washing and glove use; 4 = staff education; 5 = prospective
surveillance; 6 = high-level disinfection and sterile water for respiratory equipment; 7 = appropriate antimicrobial therapy; 8 = treatment of carrier state.
**Med/Surg = medical and surgical; ICU = intensive care unit; NA = not available; ICN = intensive care nursery; NICU/SCN = neonatal intensive care and special care
nursery; CCU = critical care unit.
Source: Reprinted from Maloney SA, Jarvis WR. Epidemic nosocomial pneumonia in the intensive care unit. Chest. 1995; 16:213.
Outbreaks of Sick Building Syndrome and Building-Related Illness 109
proper handling of medical equipment and devices, installation and mainte-

nance of special ventilation systems for patients at high risk for aspergillosis,
and isolation precautions for patients with known or suspected infection.27
For a discussion of outbreaks of pneumonia and other infections that have
been reported in neonatal intensive care units, the reader is referred to the
review by Gastmeier et al.385
OUTBREAKS OF SICK BUILDING SYNDROME AND

BUILDING-RELATED ILLNESS
Much has been published on “sick building syndrome” and indoor air pollu-
tion;386–392 however, little has been published regarding noninfectious episodes
of building-associated illnesses in healthcare facilities.388,389,393,394 In one
review of indoor air pollution, building-associated illnesses were linked to
inadequate ventilation in approximately half of the cases studied, and in
many cases no causal factor was found.387 Brandt-Rauf et al. described an out-
break of eye and respiratory tract irritation in operating room personnel.388
The outbreak was attributed to emergency generator diesel exhaust emissions
that entered the ventilation system for the operating room suite; however, per-
sonnel continued to complain of symptoms after this problem was rectified
and a definitive etiology for the ongoing symptoms was not identified.388 There
are also several reports of outbreaks of illness, including headache, nausea,
and vomiting, in hospital personnel that were traced to vapors of xylene that
had been disposed of down a drain.393,394
Hospital personnel in infection control, employee health, and safety man-
agement are frequently called upon to investigate clusters of complaints of
symptoms and illnesses by healthcare personnel, who often attribute the prob-
lems to exposure to some factor in the workplace. Infection prevention and
control personnel who are asked to investigate such incidents should follow
the epidemiologic principles used to investigate outbreaks of infection and
other conditions as outlined in Chapter 8. In many cases of building-related
complaints, it is difficult to determine if symptoms are truly a result of building-
related exposures. A review article on indoor air pollution by Gold provides
helpful information that can be used when evaluating building-related com-
plaints, and Gold suggests that the following questions be asked:389
1. Is the building tight?
2. Are there any significant levels of indoor air pollutants?
3. What is the overall prevalence of symptoms?
4. Are the symptoms clustered in any one work area?
When investigating building-related complaints, it is helpful to evaluate the
following:
1. The work exposure histories of the personnel involved, such as exposure
to chemicals, paint fumes, exhaust fumes from nearby vehicles, photo-
copying machines, volatile organic substances from new carpets, or mold
spores from wet carpets
2. The time of day that the symptoms occur(red)
Table 3–8 Outbreaks of NP Associated with Specific Environmental Reservoirs, 1978–1994
Number
57793_CH03_ARIAS.qxd
Author Study of Patients Control

Pathogen (Reference) Year Population with NP Risk Factors Reservoir Source Measures*
Legionella Fisher-Hoch 1981 General 11 Immunosuppression; Water supply Tap water; 1,3
species et al. (377) hospital Admission to new and cooling cooling tower
1/19/09
building system
Arnow et al. 1982 General 5 Immunosuppressive Water supply Respiratory 2,3
(378) hospital therapy; Jet nebulizer equipment
use
2:28 PM
Brady 1988 Pediatric 7 Immunosuppressive Water supply Showers 2,4, and

- (379) hospital therapy; chronic lung/ Respiratory appropriate
kidney disease equipment antimicrobial
therapy
Mastro et al. 1991 General 13 Chronic lung disease; Water supply Respiratory 1,2
Page 110
(380) hospital Jet nebulizer use; equipment

>3 days in ICU
Blatt et al. 1993 Military 14 Immunosuppressive Water supply Tap water 2.3
(381) hospital therapy; nasogastric
tube use; antimicrobial
therapy; bed bathing
Aspergillus Arnow et al. 1978 Renal unit 2 Immunosuppressive Construction Surface dust 7.,8
species (345) transplantation therapy; proximity to
construction
Weems et al. 1987 Pediatric 5 Hematologic malig- Construction NA 7,8
(382) hospital nancy; construction
activity
Arnow et al. 1991 General 29 Malignancy; hematology/ Ventilation Ventilator 5,6
(383) hospital oncology ward system filters
Surface dust
Buffington 1994 Pediatric 7 Hematologic malig- Construction NA 5,7,8
et al. (384) hospital nancy; construction
activity
NOTE: *Control measures: 1 = hyperchlorination and superheating of hospital water supply; 2 = sterile water for rinsing and use in respiratory equipment; 3 = prospective surveillance;
4 = staff education and shower prohibition; 5 = aggressive hospital cleaning and inspection; 6 = retrofitting of ventilation system; 7 = impermeable barriers around construction site; 8 =
relocation of immunocompromised patients.
NA = not available
Source: Reprinted from Maloney SA, Jarvis WR. Epidemic nosocomial pneumonia in the intensive care unit. Chest. 1995;16:216.
Newly Recognized Agents and Sources for Outbreaks 111
3. The time of day that exposure(s) to possible pollutants occur(red)

4. The temporal relationship between time of exposure and onset of symptoms
5. The relationship of symptoms at and away from work; for instance, do
symptoms subside on weekends or when employees are away from the
workplace?
6. Physical factors, such as poor lighting
7. Psychological factors, such as job dissatisfaction, especially if no other
causative factors can be found.
It is important that employers listen to, and address, the concerns of person-
nel and demonstrate a genuine effort to identify the cause and implement cor-
rective measures. Such support will encourage employee productivity and
workplace satisfaction and will reduce the risk of legal or regulatory actions
taken by personnel against the employer.
The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine published
an evidenced-based statement on the adverse human health effects associated
with molds in the indoor environment; this is available from the Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine.393
NEWLY RECOGNIZED AGENTS AND SOURCES FOR

HEALTHCARE-ASSOCIATED OUTBREAKS
Candida Species
Epidemiology
The Candida species emerged in the 1980s as an important cause of nosoco-
mial infection in severely ill and immunocompromised patients.396–400 The
most commonly reported Candida species causing infection in humans are C.
albicans, C. tropicalis, C. (Torulopsis) glabrata, C. parapsilosis, C. krusei, and
C. lusitaniae.396,397 Risk factors for nosocomial candidiasis include intravenous
therapy (especially TPN), exposure to antibiotics, and neutropenia.396,398,399
Although most Candida infections arise from a patient’s endogenous flora,
nosocomial transmission via contaminated intravenous fluids and medical
devices and the hands of personnel has been documented.198–200,396,398–404
Although many reported clusters and outbreaks of Candida species have no
identified source,402 outbreaks have been associated with TPN,405,406 intravenous
blood pressure-monitoring devices,407 and personnel carriers.198–200,402,404 Can-
dida species are important pathogens in NICUs. Studies demonstrate that
Candida can be acquired by the neonate either vertically from the mother or
horizontally (nosocomial) in an NICU401–403,405 and that a mother can carry dif-
ferent strains of Candida albicans at different body sites.403 Studies show that
TPN fluids can promote growth of Candida species and may serve as a reser-
voir for infection.405 In one NICU, an outbreak of Candida bloodstream infec-
tions caused by C. albicans, C. parapsilosis, and C. tropicalis was associated
with a contaminated retrograde medication administration system used for
TPN.405
Control Measures
Further epidemiologic studies are needed to identify and investigate com-
mon source outbreaks, nosocomial clusters, and instances of person-to-person
transmission of Candida species so that the reservoirs and the modes of trans-
mission for exogenously acquired candidiasis can be clarified.403–408 Since little
is known about the epidemiology of nosocomial Candida infections acquired
from exogenous sources, it is difficult to identify control measures that can be
used to interrupt transmission. Based on a review of the reports noted in this
section, the following measures can be recommended to prevent the nosoco-
mial spread of Candida species, to interrupt an outbreak, and to identify a
possible cause of an outbreak:
• Since several investigators have associated outbreaks with transmission

by personnel,198–200 and since hand carriage of Candida species by health-
care workers has been documented,404,409 careful hand hygiene should be
practiced before and after patient care, especially when caring for
neonates, severely ill patients, and immunocompromised patients, and
before handling intravenous solutions and related equipment. If an out-
break is suspected, personnel should be reminded of the importance of
proper hand hygiene.
• Since Candida outbreaks have been associated with TPN 405,406 and intra-
venous blood pressure-monitoring devices,407 personnel preparing and
administering intravenous solutions, especially TPN, should be taught
proper aseptic technique. If an outbreak is suspected, personnel practices
should be observed to ensure that aseptic technique is being used.
• If a cluster or suspected increase in Candida infections occurs, an epi-
demiologic investigation should be conducted to verify the existence of an
outbreak and to identify potential sources and modes of transmission as
discussed in Chapter 8. If an outbreak is suspected, the laboratory should
be requested to save isolates from patients for possible typing.
• If an epidemiologic investigation suggests an outbreak, control measures
should be implemented based on the potential sources and possible modes
of transmission identified.
• If initial control measures do not prevent transmission, culture surveys of
patients, personnel, or an implicated source may be considered, based on
the findings of the epidemiologic investigation; however, cultures should
not be done unless the laboratory is involved in planning the specimen
collection process and unless molecular typing will be done to determine
the relatedness of any strains of Candida that are isolated.
• Because of the risk of contamination of retrograde medication adminis-
tration systems, facilities using these systems need to evaluate carefully
the practices used to maintain them.405
• Because clusters of Candida infections may be caused by more than one
strain of Candida, laboratory typing methods must be chosen and inter-
preted carefully in conjunction with observational epidemiologic data.410
Newly Recognized Agents and Sources for Outbreaks 113
Identifying New Risk Factors and Sources for Infection
Emerging infectious diseases are considered to be those in which the inci-

dence in humans increased since the 1970s or threatens to increase in the near
future.411,412 It is sobering to note that many of the diseases discussed in this
text are considered emerging, or reemerging, infectious diseases, such as LD,
candidiasis, cryptosporidiosis, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, HBV
and HCV, and infections caused by MRSA, VRE, MDR-TB, Clostridium diffi-
cile, human parvovirus B19, norovirus, rotavirus, and Pneumocystis carinii.
Two additional organisms that recently have been identified as causative
agents in nosocomial outbreaks are Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Helicobacter
pylori.413 Weber and Rutala noted that “The reasons for the emergence of new
nosocomial pathogens include enhanced survival of immunocompromised
hosts, acquisition and spread of adaptive genes (i.e., antibiotic resistance and
virulence genes), enhanced ability to survive in new ecologic niches, increasing
use of invasive procedures, unrecognized virulence, prior underidentification
due to difficulties inculturing, and increased recognition due to taxonomic
clarification.”413(p306)
In 1998 the CDC published Preventing Emerging Infectious Diseases: A
Strategy for the 21st Century, a plan to combat infectious diseases.412 One of
the objectives of this plan is to “identify the behaviors, environments, and host
factors that put people at increased risk for infectious diseases and their
sequelae.”412(p29) Table 3–9 shows examples of new risk factors and sources for
infections that were identified by CDC investigators from 1994 to 1998.414–417
Four of the five examples given involve outbreaks of infections acquired as a
result of healthcare activities in acute and home care settings. Exhibit 3–3
demonstrates an area for risk factor research that was identified by the CDC
investigators: the relationship between healthcare practices and bloodstream
infection rates in the acute and home care settings.415,418–421
Additional new and reemerging risks and organisms responsible for healthcare-
associated outbreaks and pseudo-outbreaks in the early 2000s include the
following:
• Biofilm formation on medical devices such as gastrointestinal endoscopes,
bronchoscopes, and respiratory therapy devices that can inhibit the abil-
ity of disinfectants to destroy microorganisms, make these devices diffi-
cult to clean and disinfect, and result in the growth of organisms that can
be transferred to patients73,422,423
• The use of probiotics (biotherapeutic agents) and the demonstration that
organisms such as Saccharomyces cerevisiae that are used in probiotics
can be transmitted to untreated patients in the same unit as a patient
that is treated with a biotherapeutic preparation424
• Pantoea agglomerans (formerly Erwniia herbicola then Enterobacter
agglomerans)425–428
• A large multistate outbreak of mumps in the United States in 2006 that
resulted in infections in healthcare workers429
• The role of the environment and environmental surfaces in the transmis-
sion of pathogens in outbreaks89,430,431
Table 3–9 Examples of New Risk Factors and Sources for Infection Identified by
CDC Investigations, 1994–1998
Outbreak investigations provide some of the most important opportunities for identifying
risk factors for disease. The investigations described below were conducted in
collaboration with many partners in state and local health departments, other federal
agencies, and other organizations.
Year Location Problem Finding Implications

1994 United States Hepatitis C414 Strong association Led to requirements for
with particular lots viral inactivation steps
of intravenous (IV) and new testing proce-
immunoglobulin dures to ensure safety
from one company of IV and intramuscular
immunoglobulin products
1994 Rhode Island Bloodstream BSIs associated with First outbreak to link
infections use of inoculation these devices with
(BSIs)415 devices. Findings led adverse outcomes in
to CDC recommenda- patients
tions on the use and
management of
needleless devices.
1995 Democratic Ebola Transmission linked No evidence of airborne
Republic of infection416 to direct contact with transmission. Led to
Congo ill patients updating of policies for
managing patients with
viral hemorrhagic fever
in the United States.
1996 Indiana Vancomycin- Illness linked to prior Highlighted rapid spread
resistant use of antibiotics. of this strain in the
Enterococci417 Implementation of United States. Also
control measures showed feasibility and
reduced transmission effectiveness of control
measures to reduce the
spread of antibiotic-
resistant organisms in
hospitals.
1997 New York HIV Cluster of cases of HIV detection and
–1998 HIV infection in women prevention programs
who had sex with one need to be strengthened
HIV-positive man in rural communities.
Source: Reprinted from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preventing Emerging Infectious
Diseases: A Strategy for the 21st Century. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 1998:30.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00031393.htm.
Summary 115
Exhibit 3–3 Bloodstream Infections in ICU and Home Healthcare Patients
Since 1993, CDC has investigated three outbreaks of bloodstream infection (BSI)417,418
among patients in intensive care units (ICUs) that were associated with decreases in
nurse-to-patient ratios. In each of these outbreaks, rates of BSI increased when the number
of healthcare workers per patient decreased or when the level of training of those workers
decreased. The epidemiologic relationship between nursing staff numbers and training
levels and the rates of BSIs remained significant even after controlling for other factors.
Since that time, CDC has also investigated three outbreaks of BSIs among patients
receiving home infusion therapy.415,420,421 Risk factors for these outbreaks include practices
related to care of the intravenous line, the use of particular types of intravenous devices,
and socioeconomic factors. Interventions that involve teaching and training home
healthcare providers and families of home care patients are being evaluated.
Source: Reprinted from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preventing Emerging Infectious
Diseases: A Strategy for the 21st Century. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 1988:31.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00031393.htm.
THE IMPORTANCE OF PERSONNEL AND EMPLOYEE HEALTH
Because healthcare workers (including employees, physicians, volunteers,

and students) play an important role in initiating and propagating outbreaks
in healthcare settings, each facility should have policies and procedures that
address personnel health and include hand hygiene and personal hygiene,
standard precautions, immunization, and work restrictions for certain infec-
tious diseases. Because many outbreaks involve vaccine-preventable diseases,
ICPs should ensure that the latest recommendations for healthcare worker
immunization are implemented in their facility and that efforts are made to
increase immunization rates in healthcare personnel.254,259,271,315,316,324,432–434
Because immunization recommendations are frequently revised, those who
are developing personnel policies should identify the latest public health rec-
ommendations on preventing diseases such as pertussis, influenza, varicella,
hepatitis B, measles, mumps and rubella, and refer to the Healthcare Infection
Control Practice Advisory Committee (HICPAC) guideline for infection control
in healthcare personnel.25 Appendix D contains a list of the immunizations
recommended for healthcare personnel and provides the MMWR issue and an
Internet address for the ACIP guidelines for each of the vaccines. The HICPAC
summary of recommended work restrictions for personnel can be found in
Appendix E.
SUMMARY
Outbreaks in acute care and other healthcare settings are caused by a variety
of infectious and noninfectious agents. New, emerging and well-known path-
ogens will continue to evolve and present a challenge to ICPs, clinicians, and
healthcare providers. Infection surveillance, prevention, and control programs
in hospitals play an integral role in identifying the occurrence of infectious dis-

eases and their risk factors, modes of transmission, and sources so that effec-
tive prevention and control measures can be identified and implemented.
REFERENCES
1. LaForce FM. The control of infections in hospitals: 1750 to 1950. In: Wenzel RP, ed. Preven-
tion and Control of Nosocomial Infections. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1987:1–12.
2. Stamm WE, Weinstein RA, Dixon RE. Comparison of endemic and epidemic nosocomial infec-
tions. Am J Med. 1981;70:393–397.
3. Haley RW, Tenney JH, Lindsey JO, Garner JS, Bennett J. How frequent are outbreaks of
nosocomial infection in community hospitals? Infect Control. 1985;6:233–236.
4. Jarvis WR, and the Epidemiology Branch, Hospital Infections Program, Centers for Disease
Control. Nosocomial outbreaks: the Centers for Disease Control’s hospital infections program
experience; 1980–1990. Am J Med. 1991:91:3B–101S–3B–106S.
5. Beck-Sague C, Jarvis W, Martone WJ. Outbreak investigations. Infect Control Hosp Epi-
demiol. 1997;18:138–145.
6. Jackson M, Fierer J. Infections and infection risk in residents of long-term care facilities: a
review of the literature; 1970–1984. Am J Infect Control. 1985;13:63–77.
7. Nicolle LE, Garibaldi RA. Infection control in long-term-care facilities. Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol. 1995;16:348–353.
8. Smith P, Rusnak PG. Infection prevention and control in the long-term-care facility. Am J
10. Wenzel RP, Thompson RL, Landry SM, et al. Hospital-acquired infections in intensive care
unit patients: an overview with emphasis on epidemics. Infect Control. 1983;4:371–375.
11. Beck-Sague C, Dooley SW, Hutton MD, et al. Outbreak of multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium
tuberculosis infections in a hospital: transmission to patients with HIV infection and staff.
JAMA. 1992;268:1280–1286.
12. Boyle JF, Soumakis SA, Rendo A, et al. Epidemiologic analysis and genotypic characteriza-
tion of a nosocomial outbreak of vancomycin-resistant enterococci. J Clin Microbiol.
1993;31:1280–1285.
13. Edmond MB, Wenzel RP, Pasculle W. Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: perspec-
tives on measures needed for control. Ann Intern Med. 1996;124:329–334.
Clostridium difficile disease for health care practitioners. Am J Infect Control. 2007;35:
237–253.
15. Luna CM, Aruj PK. Nosocomial Acinetobacter pneumonia. Respirology. 2007;12(6):787–791.
16. Paauw A, Verhoef J, Fluit AC, et al. Failure to control an outbreak of qnrA1-positive multidrug-
resistant Enterobacter cloacae infection despite adequate implementation of recommended
infection control measures. J Clin Microbiol. 2007;45(5):1420–1425.
17. Wenger P, Tokars J, Brennan P, et al. An outbreak of Enterobacter hormaechi infection and
colonization in an intensive care nursery. Clin Infect Dis. 1997;24:1243–1244.
18. Lederberg J, Shope R, Oaks S, eds. Emerging Infections: Microbial Threats to Health in the
United States. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1992:36-41. http://www.nap.edu/
19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Addressing Emerging Infectious Disease
Threats: A Prevention Strategy for the United States. US Dept of Health and Human Services;
1994. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00031393.htm. Accessed April 21, 2008.
20. Ostroff SM. Emerging infectious diseases in the institutional setting: another hot zone. Infect
Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;17:484–489.
References 117
Nature. 2004;430:250–256.
22. Smolinski MS, Hamburg MA, Lederberg J., eds. Microbial Threats to Health: Emergence,
Detection, and Response. Executive Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press;
2003;1. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10636. Accessed April 21, 2008.
Biol Sci. 2004;29;359:1075–1079. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?
artid=1693390. Accessed April 21, 2008.
24. Heymann DL. Control of Communicable Diseases Manual. 18th ed. Washington, DC: APHA
Press; 2005.
25. Bolyard EA, Tablan OC, Williams WW, et al. Guideline for infection control in health care
personnel; 1998. Am J Infect Control. 1998;26:289–354. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/
dhqp/gl_hcpersonnel.html. Accessed April 19, 2008.
tices Advisory Committee. Guideline for Isolation Precautions: Preventing Transmission of
Infectious Agents in Healthcare Settings. Atlanta, GA: CDC; June 2007. http://www.cdc.gov/
ncidod/dhqp/gl_isolation.html. Accessed November 25, 2007.
27. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for Preventing Health-Care-Associated
Pneumonia. Recommendations of CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advi-
sory Committee. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/gl_hcpneumonia.html. Accessed April 19,
2008.
28. Maki DG, Rhame FS, Mackel DC, Bennett JV. Nationwide epidemic of septicemia caused by
contaminated intravenous products, I: epidemiologic and clinical features. Am J Med.
1976;60:471–485.
29. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Epidemiologic notes and reports: nosocomial
bacteremias associated with intravenous fluid therapy—USA. MMWR. 1996;46:1227–1233.
30. Goldmann DA, Dixon RE, Fulkerson CC, et al. The role of nationwide infection surveillance
in detecting epidemic bacteremia due to contaminated intravenous fluids. Am J Epidemiol.
1978;108:207–213.
31. Kaslow RA, Mackel DC, Mallison GF. Nosocomial pseudo-bacteremia: positive blood cultures
due to contaminated benzalkonium chloride antiseptic. JAMA. 1976;236:2407–2409.
32. Wysowski DK, Flynt JW Jr, Goldfield M, Altman R, Davis AT. Epidemic neonatal hyperbiliru-
binemia and use of a phenolic disinfectant detergent. Pediatr. 1978;61:165–167.
33. Berkelman RL, Lewin S, Allen JR, et al. Pseudobacteremia attributed to contamination of
povidone-iodine with Pseudomonas cepacia. Ann Intern Med. 1981;95:32–36.
34. Panlilio AL, Beck-Sague CM, Siegel JD, et al. Infections and pseudoinfections due to povidone-
iodine solution contaminated with Pseudomonas cepacia. Clin Infect Dis. 1992;14:1078–1083.
35. Sharbaugh RJ. Suspected outbreak of endotoxemia associated with computerized axial
tomography. Am J Infect Control. 1980;8:26–28.
36. Cleary TJ, MacIntyre DS, Castro M. Serratia marcescens bacteremias in an intensive care
unit. Am J Infect Control. 1981;9:107–111.
37. Bryce EA, Walker M, Scharf S, et al. An outbreak of cutaneous aspergillosis in a tertiary-care
hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;17:170–172.
38. Parrott PL, Terry PM, Whitworth EN, et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa peritonitis associated
with contaminated poloxamer-iodine solution. Lancet. 1982;2:683–685.
39. Martone WJ, Williams WW, Mortensen ML, et al. Illness with fatalities in premature infants:
association with intravenous vitamin E preparation, E-Ferol. Pediatr. 1986;78:591–600.
40. Safranek TJ, Jarvis WR, Carson LA, et al. Mycobacterium chelonae wound infections after
plastic surgery employing contaminated gentian violet skin-marking solution. N Engl J Med.
1987;317:197–201.
41. Nakashima AK, McCarthy MA, Martone WJ, Anderson RL. Epidemic septic arthritis caused
by Serratia marcescens and associated with a benzalkonium chloride antiseptic. J Clin
Microbiol. 1987;25:1014–1018.
42. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Yersinia enterocolitica bacteremia and endo-
toxin shock associated with red blood cell transfusion-United States; 1987–1988. MMWR.
1988;37:577–578.
43. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Red blood cell transfusions contaminated with
Yersinia enterocolitica—United States; 1991–1996, and initiation of a national study to
detect bacteria-associated transfusion reactions. MMWR. 1997;46:553–556.
44. Chodick G, Ashkenazi S, Lerman Y. The risk of hepatitis A infection among healthcare work-
ers: a review of reported outbreaks and sero-epidemiologic studies. J Hosp Infect.
2006;62:414–420.
45. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Postsurgical infections associated with an
extrinsically contaminated intravenous anesthetic agent—California, Illinois, Maine, and
Michigan; 1990. MMWR. 1990;39:426–427, 433.
46. Bennett SN, McNeil MM, Bland LA, et al. Postoperative infections traced to contamination of
an intravenous anesthetic, propofol. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:147–154.
47. Kuehnert MJ, Webb RM, Jochimsen EM, et al. Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections
among patients undergoing electroconvulsive therapy traced to breaks in infection control
and possible extrinsic contamination by propofol. Anesth Analg. 1997;85:420–425.
48. Maki DG, Klein BS, McCormick R, et al. Nosocomial Pseudomonas pickettii bacteremias
traced to narcotic tampering. JAMA. 1991;265:981–986.
49. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outbreak of hepatitis C associated with intra-
venous immunoglobulin administration—United States; October 1993–June 1994. MMWR.
1994;43:505–509.
50. Hamill RJ, Houston ED, Georghiou PR, et al. An outbreak of Burkholderia cepacia respira-
tory tract colonization and infection associated with nebulized albuterol therapy. Ann Intern
Med. 1995;122:762–766.
51. Reboli AC, Koshinski R, Arias K, et al. An outbreak of Burkholderia cepacia lower respiratory
tract infection associated with contaminated albuterol nebulization solution. Infect Control
52. Trilla A, Codina C, Salles M, et al. A cluster of fever and hypotension on a surgical intensive
care unit related to the contamination of plasma expanders by cell wall products of Bacillus
stearothermophilus. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1995;16:335–339.
53. File TM, Tan JS, Thomson RB, et al. An outbreak of Pseudomonas aeruginosa ventilator-
associated respiratory infections due to contaminated food coloring dye—further evidence of
the significance of gastric colonization proceeding nosocomial pneumonia. Infect Control
54. Anglim AM, Collmer JE, Loving J, et al. An outbreak of needlestick injuries in hospital
employees due to needles piercing infectious waste containers. Infect Control Hosp Epi-
demiol. 1995;16:570–576.
55. Larkin JA, Greene JN, Sandin RL, Houston SH. Primary cutaneous aspergillosis: case report
and review of the literature. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;17:365–366.
56. Orth B, Frei R, Itin PH, et al. Outbreak of invasive mycoses caused by Paecilomyces lilacinus
from a contaminated skin lotion. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:799–806.
57. Shay DK, Fann LM, Jarvis WR. Respiratory distress and sudden death associated with
receipt of a peripheral parenteral nutrition admixture. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1997;18:814–817.
58. Archibald LK, Shah B, Schulte M, et al. Serratia marcescens outbreak associated with extrin-
sic contamination of 1% chloroxylenol soap. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1997;18:704–709.
59. Chetoui H, Melin P, Struelens MJ, et al. Comparison of biotyping, ribotyping, and pulsed-field
gel electrophoresis for investigation of a common-source outbreak of Burkholderia pickettii
bacteremia. J Clin Microbiol. 1997;35:1398–1403.
60. Mangram AJ, Archibald LK, Hupert M, et al. Outbreak of sterile peritonitis among continu-
ous cycling peritoneal dialysis patients. Kidney Int. 1998;54:1367–1371. http://www.nature
.com/ki/journal/v54/n4/full/4490374a.html. Accessed April 14, 2008.
References 119
61. Van Laer F, Raes D, Vandamme P, et al. An outbreak of Burkholderia cepacia with septicemia
on a cardiology ward. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1998;19:112–113.
62. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nosocomial Ralstonia pickettii colonization
associated with intrinsically contaminated saline solution—Los Angeles, California, 1998.
MMWR. 1998;47:285–286.
63. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Endotoxin-like reactions associated with intra-
venous gentamicin—California, 1998. MMWR. 1998;47:877–880.
64. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Enterobacter cloacae bloodstream infections
associated with contaminated prefilled saline syringes—California, November 1998. MMWR.
1998;47:959–960.
65. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nosocomial Burkholderia cepacia infection and
colonization associated with intrinsically contaminated mouthwash—Arizona, 1996–1998.
MMWR. 1998;47:926–928.
66. Sautter RL, Mattman LH, Legaspi, RC. Serratia marcescens meningitis associated with a
contaminated benzalkonium chloride solution. Infect Control. 1984;5:223–225.
67. Matrician L, Ange G, Burns S, et al. Outbreak of nosocomial Burkholderia cepacia infection
and colonization associated with intrinsically contaminated mouthwash. Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol. 2000;21:739–741.
68. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Salmonella Oranienburg Infections Associated
with Fruit Salad Served in Health-Care Facilities—Northeastern United States and Canada,
2006. MMWR. 2007;56(39);1025–1028. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/
mm5639a3.htm. Accessed April 22, 2008.
69. Sunenshine RH, Tan ET, Terashita DM, et al. A multistate outbreak of Serratia marcescens
bloodstream infection associated with contaminated intravenous magnesium sulfate from a
compounding pharmacy. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45(5):527–533.
70. Buchholz U, Richards C, Murthy R, et al. Pyrogenic reactions associated with single daily
dosing of intravenous gentamicin. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2000;21:771–774.
71. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pseudomonas bloodstream infections associated
with a heparin/saline flush—Missouri, New York, Texas, and Michigan; 2004–2005. MMWR.
2005;54:269–72. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5411a1.htm. Accessed
April 22, 2008.
72. Bowen AB, Braden CR. Invasive Enterobacter sakazakii disease in infants. Emerg Infect Dis.
2006 Aug;12(8):1185–1189. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol12no08/05–1509.htm. Accessed
April 21, 2008.
73. Jhung MA, Sunenshine RH, Noble-Wang J, et al. A national outbreak of Ralstonia mannito-
lilytica associated with use of a contaminated oxygen-delivery device among pediatric
patients. Pediatr. 2007;119(6):1207–1209.
74. Souza Dias MB, Bernardes Habert A, Borrasca V, et al. Salvage of long-term central venous
catheters during an outbreak of Pseudomonas putida and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia
infections associated with contaminated heparin catheter-lock solution. Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol. 2008;29:125–130.
75. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Exophiala infection from contaminated in-
jectable steroids prepared by a compounding pharmacy. MMWR. 2002; 51:1109–12.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5149a1.htm. Accessed April 22, 2008.
76. Civens R, Vugia DJ, Alexander R, et al. Outbreak of Serratia marcescens infection following
injections of betamethasone compounded at a community pharmacy. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;
43:831–837.
77. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Acute allergic-type reactions among patients
undergoing hemodialysis-multiple states; 2007–2008. MMWR. 2008;57(05);124–125. http://
www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5705a4.htm. Accessed April 22, 2008.
78. Molina-Cabrillana J, Bolanos-Rivero M, Alvarez-Leon EE, et al. Intrinsically contaminated
alcohol-free mouthwash implicated in a nosocomial outbreak of Burkholderia cepacia colo-
nization and infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006;27:1181–1182.
79. Ghazal SS, Al-Mudaimeehg K, Al Fakihi EM, Asery AT. Outbreak of Burkholderia cepacia
bacteremia in immunocompetent children caused by contaminated nebulized sulbutamol in
Saudi Arabia. Am J Infect Control. 2006;34:394–398.
80. Hutchinson J, Runge W, Mulvet M, et al. Burkholderia cepacia infections associated with
intrinsically contaminated ultrasound gel: the role of microbial degradation of parabens.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004;25(4):291–296.
81. Matsouka DM, Costa SF, Mangini C, et al. A nosocomial outbreak of Salmonella enteritidis
associated with lyophilized enteral nutrition. J Hosp Infect. 2004;58:122–127.
82. Adverse ocular reactions following transfusions—United States; 1997–1998. MMWR.
1998;47(03):49–50. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/00051231.htm. Accessed
April 22, 2008.
83. Pegues DA. Improving and enforcing compounding pharmacy practices to protect patients.
Clin Infect Dis. 2006;43:838–840.
84. Weist K, Wendt C, Petersen LR, Versmold H, Ruden H. An outbreak of pyoderma among
neonates caused by ultrasound gel contaminated with methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus
aureus. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2000;21:761–764.
85. Pan A, Dolcetti L, Barosi C, et al. An outbreak of Serratia marcescens bloodstream infections
associated with misuse of drug vials in a surgical ward. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
2006;27:79–82.
86. Gaillot O, Maruejouls C, Abachin E, et al. Nosocomial outbreak of Klebsiella pneumoniae pro-
ducing SHV-5 extended-spectrum beta-lactamase, originating from a contaminated ultra-
sonography coupling gel. J Clin Microbiol. 1998;36:1357–1360.
87. Kimura AC, Calvet H, Higa JI, et al. Outbreak of Ralstonia pickettii bacteremia in a neonatal
intensive care unit. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2005;24(12):1099–1103.
88. Mateos I, Valencia R, Torres MJ, Cantos A, Conde M, Aznar J. Nosocomial outbreak of
Pseudomonas aeruginosa endophthalmitis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006;27:1249–
1251.
89. Sehulster L, Chinn RY, Arduino MJ, et al. Guidelines for environmental infection control in
health-care facilities; 2003. Recommendations of CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control
Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). MMWR. 2003;52(RR-10):1–42. http://www.cdc.gov/
ncidod/dhqp/gl_environinfection.html. Accessed April 5, 2008.
90. Dixon RE, Kaslow RA, Mackel DC, Fulkerson CC, Mallinson GF. Aqueous quaternary ammo-
nium antiseptics and disinfectants: use and misuse. JAMA. 1976;236:2415–2417.
91. Donowitz LG. Benzalkonium chloride is still in use. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1991;12:186–187.
92. France DR. Survival of Candida albicans in hand creams. N Z J Med. 1968;67:552–554.
93. Morse LJ, Williams HL, Grann FP, et al. Septicemia due to Klebsiella pneumoniae originating
from a hand cream dispenser. N Engl J Med. 1967;277:472–473.
94. Morse LJ, Schonbeck LE. Hand lotions—a potential nosocomial hazard. N Engl J Med.
1968;278:376–378.
95. Anderson K. The contamination of hexachlorophene soap with Pseudomonas pyocyanea. Med
J Aust. 1962;2:463.
96. Alonso-Echanove J, Cairns L, Richards M, et al. Nationwide outbreak of red eye syndrome
associated with transfusion of leukoreduced red blood cell units. Infect Control Hosp Epi-
demiol. 2006;27:1146–1152.
97. Vonberg RP, Gastmeier P. Hospital-acquired infections related to contaminated substances.
J Hosp Infect. 2007;65:15–23.
98. Sprach DH, Silverstein FE, Stamm WE. Transmission of infection by gastrointestinal
endoscopy and bronchoscopy. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118:117–128.
99. Struelens MJ, Rost F, Deplano A, et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacteriaceae bac-
teremia after biliary endoscopy: an outbreak investigation using DNA macrorestriction
analysis. Am J Med. 1993;95:489–498.
References 121
100. Alvarado CJ, Stolz SM, Maki DG. Nosocomial infections from contaminated endoscopes: a
flawed automated endoscope washer: an investigation using molecular epidemiology. Am J
Med. 1991;91:272S–280S.
101. Fraser TG, Reiner S, Malczynski M, Yarnold PR, Warren J, Noskin G. Multidrug-resistant
Pseudomonas aeruginosa cholangitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography:
failure of routine endoscope cultures to prevent an outbreak. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol
2004;25:856–859.
102. Schliessler KH, Rozendaal B, Taal C, Meawissen SGM. Outbreak of Salmonella agona after
upper intestinal fiberoptic endoscopy. Lancet. 1980;2:1246.
103. Birnie GG, Quigley EM, Clements GB, Follet EAC, Watkinson G. Endoscopic transmission of
hepatitis B virus. Gut. 1983;24:171–174.
104. Bronowicki JP, Venard V, Botte C, et al. Patient-to-patient transmission of hepatitis C virus
during colonoscopy. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:237–240.
105. Allen JI, O’Connor AM, Olson MM, et al. Pseudomonas infection of the biliary system result-
ing from use of a contaminated endoscope. Gastroenterol. 1987;92:759–763.
106. Nelson KE, Larson PA, Schraufnagel DE, Jackson J. Transmission of tuberculosis by flexible
fiberbronchoscopes. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1983;127:97–100.
107. Wheeler PW, Lancaster D, Kaiser AB. Bronchopulmonary cross-contamination and infection
related to mycobacterial contamination of suction valves of bronchoscopes. J Infect
Dis.1989;159:954–958.
108. Blanc DS, Parret T, Janin B, et al. Nosocomial infections and pseudoinfections from contami-
nated bronchoscopes: two-year follow-up using molecular markers. Infect Control Hosp Epi-
demiol. 1997;18:134–136.
109. Gubler JG, Salfinger M, von Graevenitz A. Pseudoepidemic of nontuberculous mycobacteria
due to a contaminated bronchoscope cleaning machine: report of an outbreak and review of
the literature. Chest. 1992;101:1245–1249.
110. Agerton T, Valway S, Gore B, et al. Transmission of a highly drug-resistant strain (Strain W1)
of Mycobacterium tuberculosis: community outbreak and nosocomial transmission via a con-
taminated bronchoscope. JAMA. 1997;278:1073–1077.
111. Cetre JC, Nicolle MC, Salord H. Outbreaks of contaminated broncho-alveolar lavage related
to intrinsically defective bronchoscopes. J Hosp Infect. 2005;61(1):39–45.
112. Srinivasin A, Wolfenden LL, Song X, et al. An outbreak of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections
associated with flexible bronchoscopes. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:221–227.
113. Weems JJ. Nosocomial outbreak of Pseudomonas cepacia associated with contamination of
reusable electronic ventilator temperature probes. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1993;14:583–586.
114. Loukil C, Saizou C, Doit C, et al. Epidemiologic investigation of Burkholderia cepacia acqui-
sition in two pediatric intensive care units. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2003;24:
707–710.
115. Rudnick JR, Beck-Sague CM, Anderson RL, Schable B, Miller JM, Jarvis WR. Gram-negative
bacteremia in open-heart-surgery patients traced to probable tap-water contamination of
pressure-monitoring equipment. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;17:281–285.
116. Conly JM, Klass L, Larson L, et al. Pseudomonas cepacia colonization and infection in inten-
sive care units. Can Med Assoc J. 1986;134:363–366.
117. Beck-Sague CM, Jarvis WR. Epidemic bloodstream infections associated with pressure trans-
ducers: a persistent problem. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1989;10:54–59.
118. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular
catheter-related infections. MMWR. 2002;51(No. RR-10):1-36. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/
rr/rr5110.pdf.Accessed April 28, 2008.
119. Centers for Disease Control. Hepatitis B associated with jet gun injection—California.
MMWR. 1986;35:373–376.
120. Centers for Disease Control. Nosocomial transmission of hepatitis B virus associated with a
spring-loaded finger stick device—California. MMWR. 1990;39:610–613.
121. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nosocomial hepatitis B virus infection associ-
ated with reusable fingerstick blood sampling devices—Ohio and New York City; 1996.
MMWR. 1997;46:217–221.
122. Hamill RJ, Wright CE, Andres N, Koza MA. Urinary tract infection following instrumenta-
tion for urodynamic testing. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1989;10:26–32.
123. Climo MW, Pastor A, Wong ES. An outbreak of Pseudomonas aeruginosa related to contami-
nated urodynamic equipment. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1997;18:509–510.
124. Gillespie K, Arnold J, Noble-Wang B, et al. Outbreak of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections
after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Urology. 2007;69:912–914.
125. Yardy GW, Cox RA. An outbreak of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection associated with con-
taminated urodynamic equipment. J Hosp Infect. 2001;47:60–63.
126. Livornese L, Dias S, Samel C, et al. Hospital-acquired infection with vancomycin-resistant
Enterococcus faecium transmitted by electronic thermometers. Ann Intern Med. 1992;
117:112–116.
127. Karanfil LV, Murphy M, Josephson A, et al. A cluster of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus
faecium in an intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1992;13:195–200.
128. Arnow PM, Garcia-Houchins S, Neagle MB, Bova JL, Dillon JJ, Chou T. An outbreak of blood-
stream infections arising from hemodialysis equipment. J Infect Dis. 1998;178:783–791.
129. Maragakis LL, Bradley KL, Song X, et al. Increased catheter-related bloodstream infection
rates after the introduction of a new mechanical valve intravenous access port. Infect Control
130. Rupp ME, Sholtz LA, Jourdan DR, et al. Outbreak of bloodstream infection temporally asso-
ciated with the use of an intravascular needleless valve. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44(11):
1408–1414.
131. Corne P, Godreuil S, Jean-Pierre H, et al. Unusual implication of biopsy forceps in outbreaks
of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections and pseudo-infections related to bronchoscopy. J Hosp
Infect. 2005;61(1):20–26.
132. Van der Zweit WC, Parlevliet GA, Savelkoul PH, et al. Outbreak of Bacillus cereus infections
in a neonatal intensive care unit traced to balloons used in manual ventilation. J Clin Micro-
biol. 2000;38:4131–4136. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=87553&
blobtype=pdf. Accessed April 25, 2008.
133. Trick WE, Kioski CM, Howard KM, et al. Outbreak of Pseudomonas aeruginosa ventriculitis
among patients in a neurosurgical intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
2000;21:204–208.
134. Durante L, Zulty JC, Israel E, et al. Investigation of an outbreak of bloody diarrhea: associa-
tion with endoscopic cleaning solution and demonstration of lesions in an animal model. Am
J Med. 1992;92:476–480.
135. Burtin P, Ruget O, Petit R, Boyer J. Gluteraldehyde-induced proctitis after anorectal ultra-
sound examination: a higher risk of incidence than expected? Gastrointest Endosc.
1993;39:859–860.
136. Beck-Sague CM, Jarvis WR, Bland LA, Arduino MJ, Aguero SM, Verosic G. Outbreak of
gram-negative bacteremia and pyrogenic reactions in a hemodialysis center. Am J Nephrol.
1990;10:397–403.
137. Welbel SF, Schoendorf K, Bland LA, et al. An outbreak of gram-negative bloodstream infec-
tions in chronic hemodialysis patients. Am J Nephrol. 1995;15:1–4.
138. Flaherty JP, Garcia-Houchins S, Chudy R, Arnow PM. An outbreak of gram-negative bac-
teremia traced to contaminated O-rings and reprocessed dialyzers. Ann Intern Med.
1993;119:1072–1078.
139. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outbreaks of hepatitis B virus infection among
hemodialysis patients—California, Nebraska, and Texas; 1994. MMWR. 1996;45:285–289.
140. Band JD, Ward JI, Fraser DW. Peritonitis due to a Mycobacterium chelonei-like organism
with intermittent chronic peritoneal dialysis. J Infect Dis. 1982;145:9–17.
141. Berkelman RL, Godley J, Weber JA, et al. Pseudomonas cepacia peritonitis associated with
contamination of automatic peritoneal dialysis machines. Ann Intern Med. 1982;96:456–458.
References 123
142. Kayabas U, Bayraktar M, Otlu B, et al. An outbreak of Pseudomonas aeruginosa because of

inadequate disinfection procedures in a urology unit: A pulsed-field gel electrophoresis-based
epidemiologic study. Am J Infect Control. 2008;36:33–38.
143. Pena C, Dominguez MA, Pujol M, Verdaguer R, Gudiol F, Ariza J. An outbreak of carbapenem-
resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a urology ward. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2003;9:938–943.
144. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Transplantation-transmitted tuberculosis—
Oklahoma and Texas; 2007. MMWR. 2008;57:333–336.
145. Singh N, Paterson DL. Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection in solid-organ transplant recipi-
ents: impact and implications for management. Clin Infect Dis. 1998;27:1266–1277.
146. Young L, Sable A, Price CS. Epidemiologic, clinical, and economic evaluation of an outbreak
of clonal multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infection in a surgical intensive care
unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28:1247–1254.
147. Schabrun S, Chipchase L, Rickard H. Are therapeutic ultrasound units a potential vector for
nosocomial infection? Physiother Res Int. 2006;11(2):61–71.
148. Kronman MP, Baden HP, Jeffries HE, Heath J, Cohen GA, Zerr DM. An investigation of
Aspergillus cardiac surgical site infections in 3 pediatric patients. Am J Infect Control.
2007;35:332–327.
149. Berthelot P, Carricajo A, Aubert G, Akhavan H, Gazielly D, Lucht F. Outbreak of postopera-
tive shoulder arthritis due to propionibacterium acnes infection in nondebilitated patients.
150. Weber DJ, Rutala WA. Lessons from outbreaks associated with bronchoscopy. Infect Control
151. Kaczmarek RG, Moore RM, McCrohan J, et al. Multi-state investigation of the actual disin-
fection/sterilization of endoscopes in health care facilities. Am J Med. 1992;92:257–261.
152. Gorse GJ, Messner RL. Infection control practices in gastrointestinal endoscopy in the
United States: a national survey. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1991;12:289–296.
153. Multidisciplinary guideline for reprocessing flexible gastrointestinal gastroscopes. Endoscopy.
2003;58:1–8. http://www.asge.org/WorkArea/showcontent.aspx?id=3376. Accessed April 28, 2008.
154. Honeybourne D, Newmann CS. An audit of bronchoscopy practice in the United Kingdom: a
survey of adherence to national guidelines. Thorax. 1997;52:709–713.
155. American Society for Gastroenterology. Infection control during gastrointestinal endoscopy.
Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;49:836–841.
156. Culver DA, Gordon SM, Mehta AC. Infection control in the bronchoscopy suite: a review of
outbreaks and guidelines for prevention. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003;167:1050–1056.
http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/reprint/167/8/1050. Accessed April 28, 2008.
157. Bassett DCJ, Stokes KJ, Thomas WRG. Wound infection with Pseudomonas multivorans. A
waterborne contaminant of disinfectant solutions. Lancet. 1970;1:1188–1191.
158. Everett ED, Pearson S, Rogers W. Rhizopus surgical wound infection associated with elasti-
cized adhesive tape dressing. Arch Surg. 1979;114:738–739.
159. Keys TF, Haldorson AM, Rhodes KH, Roberts GD, Fifer EZ. Nosocomial outbreak of Rhizopus
infections associated with Elastoplast wound dressings—Minnesota. MMWR. 1978;27:33–34.
160. Pearson RD, Valenti WM, Steigbigel RT. Clostridium perfringens wound infections associated
with elastic bandages. JAMA. 1980;244:1128–1130.
161. Mitchell RG, Hayward AC. Postoperative urinary tract infections caused by contaminated
irrigating fluid. Lancet. 1966;1:793–795.
162. Geiss HK, Schmitt J, Frank SC. Bleeding after cardiovascular surgery caused by detergent
residues in laparotomy sponges. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1997;18:579–581.
163. Courtright P, Lewallen S, Holland SP, Wendt TM. Corneal decompensation after cataract
surgery: an outbreak investigation in Asia. Ophthalmol. 1995;102:1461–1465.
164. Pegues CF. Outbreak investigations: red-eyed rabbits and community service. Infect Control
Hosp Epidemiol. 2006;27:1143–1145
165. Hugonnet S, Dosso A, Dharan S, et al. Outbreak of endophthalmitis after cataract surgery:
the importance of the quality of the surgical wound. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006;
27:1246–1248.
166. Mateos I, Valencia R, Torres MJ, Cantos A, Conde M, Aznar J. Nosocomial outbreak of
Pseudomonas aeruginosa endophthalmitis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006; 27:1249–1251.
167. Labarca JA, Trick WE, Peterson CL, et al. A multistate nosocomial outbreak of Ralstonia
pickettii colonization associated with an intrinsically contaminated respiratory care solution.
Clin Infect Dis. 1999;29:1281–1286.
168. Maroye P, Doermann HP, Rogues AM, Gachie JP, Megraud F. Investigation of an outbreak of
Ralstonia pickettii in a paediatric hospital by RAPD. J Hosp Infect. 2000;44:276–272.
169. Moreira BM, Leobons MBGP, Pellegrino FLPC, et al. Ralstonia pickettii and Burkholderia
cepacia complex bloodstream infections related to infusion of contaminated water for injec-
tion. J Hosp Infect. 2005;60:51–55.
170. Sheretz RJ, Bassetti S, Bassetti-Wyss B. “Cloud” Health-Care Workers. Emerg Infect Dis.
2001;7:241–244.
171. Vonberg R-P, Stamm-Balderjahn S, Hansen S, et al. How often do asymptomatic healthcare
workers cause methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus outbreaks? A systematic evalua-
tion. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006;27:1123–1127.
172. Wenzel RP. Healthcare workers and the incidence of nosocomial infection: can treatment of
one influence the other? a brief review. J Chemother. 1994;4:33–40.
173. Dineen P, Drudin L. Epidemics of postoperative wound infection associated with hair carri-
ers. Lancet. 1973;2:1157–1159.
174. Kreiswirth BN, Kravitz GR, Schlievert PM, Novick RP. Nosocomial transmission of a strain
of Staphylococcus aureus causing toxic shock syndrome. Ann Intern Med. 1986;105:704–707.
175. Faibis F, Laporte C, Fiacre A, et al. An outbreak of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus surgical-site infections initiated by a healthcare worker with chronic sinusitis. Infect
176. Belani A, Sheretz RJ, Sullivan ML, Russell BA, Reumen PD. Outbreak of staphylococcal
infection in two nurseries traced to a single carrier. Infect Control. 1986;7:487–490.
177. Mean M, Mallaret MR, Andrini P, et al. A neonatal specialist with recurrent methicillin-
resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) carriage implicated in the transmission of MRSA to
newborns. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28:625–628.
178. Sheretz RJ, Reagan DR, Hampton KD, et al. A cloud adult: the Staphylococcus aureus-virus
interaction revisited. Ann Intern Med. 1996;124:539–547.
179. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Surveillance for food-borne disease outbreaks—
United States,; 1998–2002. Surveillance Summaries; 2006. MMWR. 2006;55(SS-10):9.
180. Weber DJ, Rutala WA, Denny FW. Management of healthcare workers with pharyngitis or
suspected streptococcal infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;17:753–761.
181. Mastro TD, Farley TA, Elliot JA, et al. An outbreak of surgical wound infections due to group
A streptococcus carried on the scalp. N Engl J Med. 1990;32:968–972.
182. Stamm WE, Feeley JC, Facklam RR. Wound infections due to group A streptococcus traced to
a vaginal carrier. J Infect Dis. 1978;138:287–292.
183. Berkelman RL, Martin D, Graham DR, et al. Streptococcal wound infections caused by a
vaginal carrier. JAMA. 1982;247:2680–2682.
184. Schaffner W, Lefkowitz LB Jr, Goodman JS, Koenig MG. Hospital outbreak of infections with
group A streptococci traced to an asymptomatic anal carrier. N Engl J Med. 1969;280:1224–1225.
185. Viglionese A, Nottebart VF, Bodman HA, Platt R. Recurrent group A streptococcal carriage in
a health care worker associated with widely separated nosocomial outbreaks. Am J Med.
1991;91(suppl 3B):329S–333S.
186. Paul SM, Genese C, Spitalny K. Postoperative group A beta-hemolytic streptococcus outbreak
with the pathogen traced to a member of a healthcare worker’s household. Infect Control
187. Ridgway EJ, Allen KD. Clustering of group A streptococcal infections on a burns unit: impor-
tant lessons in outbreak management. J Hosp Infect. 1993;25:173–182.
188. Isenberg HD, Tucci V, Lipsitz P, Facklam RR. Clinical laboratory and epidemiological investi-
gations of a Streptococcus pyogenes cluster epidemic in a newborn nursery. J Clin Microbiol.
1984;19:366–370.
References 125
189. Ramage L, Green K, Pyskir D, Simor AE. An outbreak of fatal infections due to group A strep-
tococcus on a medical ward. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;17:429–431.
190. Lannigan R, Hussain Z, Austin TW. Streptococcus pyogenes as a cause of nosocomial infection
in a critical care unit. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1985;3:337–341.
191. Schwartz B, Elliott JA, Butler JC, et al. Clusters of invasive group A streptococcal infections
in family, hospital, and nursing home settings. Clin Infect Dis. 1992;15:277–284.
192. Decker MD, Lavely GB, Hutcheson RH, Schaffner W. Foodborne streptococcal pharyngitis in
a hospital pediatrics clinic. JAMA. 1985;253:679–681.
193. Daneman N, Green KA, Low DE, et al., and the Ontario Group A Streptococcal Study Group.
Surveillance for hospital outbreaks of invasive group A streptococcal infections in Ontario,
Canada; 1992 to 2000. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(4):234–241. http://www.annals.org/cgi/
reprint/147/4/234.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2008.
194. Felkenr M, Pascoe N, Shupe-Rickecker K, Goodman E. The wound care team: a new source of
group a streptococcal nosocomial transmission. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2005;
26(5):462–465.
196. Chandler RE, Lee LL, Townes JM, Taplitz RA. Transmission of Group A Streptococcus lim-
ited to healthcare workers with exposure in the operating room. Infect Control Hosp Epi-
demiol. 2006; 27:1159–1163.
196. Kakis A, Gibbs L, Eguia J, et al. An outbreak of group A streptococcal infection among health
care workers. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;35(11):1353–1359.
197. Prevention of Invasive Group A Streptococcal Infections Workshop Participants. Prevention
of invasive group A streptococcal disease among household contacts of case patients and
among postpartum and postsurgical patients: recommendations from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;35:950–959.
198. Pertowski CA, Baron RC, Lasker BA, Werner SB, Jarvis WR. Nosocomial outbreak of Can-
dida albicans sternal wound infections following cardiac surgery traced to a scrub nurse. J
Infect Dis. 1995;172:817–822.
199. Isenberg HD, Tucci V, Cintron F, et al. Single source outbreak of Candida tropicalis compli-
cating coronary bypass surgery. J Clin Microbiol. 1989;27:2426–2428.
200. Parry MF, Grant B, Yukena M, et al. Candida osteomyelitis and diskitis after spinal surgery:
an outbreak that implicates artificial nail use. Clin Infect Dis. 2001; 32:352–357. http://
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/318487. Accessed April 25, 2008.
201. Wegener PN, Brown JM, McNeil MM, Jarvis WR. Nocardia farcinica sternotomy site infec-
tions in patients following open heart surgery. J Infect Dis. 1998;178:1539–1543.
202. Exmelin L, Malbruny B, Vergnaud M, Provost F, Boiron P, Morel C. Molecular study of noso-
comial nocardiosis outbreak involving heart transplant recipients. J Clin Microbiol.
1996;34:1014–1016.
203. Maragakis LL, Winkler A, Tucker MG, et al. Outbreak of multidrug-resistant Serratia
marcescens infection in a neonatal intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
2008;29:418–423.
204. de Vries JJC, Baas WH, vander Ploeg K, Heesink A, Degener JE, Arends JP. Outbreak of Ser-
ratia marcescens colonization and infection traced to a healthcare worker with long-term car-
riage on the hands. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006; 27:1153–1158.
205. Zawacki A, O’Rourke E, Potter-Boyne G, et al. An outbreak of Pseudomonas aeruginosa pneu-
monia and bloodstream infection associated with intermittent otitis externa in a healthcare
worker. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004;25:1083–1089.
206. Friedman ND, Kotsanas D, Brett J, Billah B, Korman TM. Investigation of an outbreak of
Serratia marcescens in a neonatal unit via a case control study and molecular typing. Am J
207. Liu S-C, Leu H-S, Yen M-Y, Lee P-I, Chou M-C. Study of an outbreak of Enterobacter cloacae
sepsis in a neonatal intensive care unit: the application of epidemiologic chromosome profil-
ing by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. Am J Infect Control. 2002;30:381–385.
208. AIDS/TB Committee of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Management of
healthcare workers infected with hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, human immunodefi-
ciency virus, or other bloodborne pathogens. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1997;18:349–
363.
209. Bell D, Shapiro CN, Chamberland ME, Ciesielski CA. Preventing bloodborne pathogen trans-
mission from healthcare workers to patients: the CDC perspective. Surg Clin North Am.
1995;75:1189–1203.
210. Prentice MB, Flower AJE, Morgan GM, et al. Infection with hepatitis B virus after open
heart surgery. BMJ. 1992;304:761–764.
211. Centers for Disease Control. Recommendations for preventing transmission of human
immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis B virus to patients during exposure-prone invasive
procedures. MMWR. 1991;40(RR-8):1–9. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/
00014845.htm. Accessed April 30, 2008.
212. Spijkerman IJB, van Doorn L-J, Janssen MHW, et al. Transmission of hepatitis B virus from
a surgeon to his patients during high-risk and low risk surgical procedures during 4 years.
213. Redd JT, Baumbach J, Kohn W, Nainan O, Khristova M, Williams I. Patient-to-patient trans-
mission of hepatitis B virus associated with oral surgery. J Infect Dis. 2007;195:1311–1314.
214. Perry JL, Pearson RD, Jagger J. Infected health care workers and patient safety: a double
standard. Am J Infect Control. 2006;34:313–319.
215. Allos BM, Schaffner W. Transmission of hepatitis B in the health care setting: the elephant in
the room…or the mouse? J Infect Dis. 2007;195:1245–1247.
216. Mele A, Ippolito G, Craxi A, et al. Risk management of HBsAG or anti-HCV positive health-
care workers in hospital. Dig Liver Dis. 2001;33:795–802.
217. Reitsma AM, Closen ML, Cunningham M, et al. Infected physicians and invasive procedures:
safe practice management. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40:1665–1672. http://www.journals
.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/429821. Accessed April 30, 2008.
218. United Kingdom Department of Health. Guidance for health care workers: protection against
infection with blood-borne viruses. Recommendations of the Expert Advisory Group on AIDS
and the Advisory Group on Hepatitis. London, UK: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1993.
http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/01/44/74/04014474.pdf. Accessed April 30, 2008.
219. Gunson RN, Shouval D, Roggendorf M, et al. Hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus
(HCV) infections in health care workers (HCW): guidelines for prevention of transmission of
HBV and HCV from HCW to patients. J Clin Virol. 2003;27:213–230.
220. Bond WW, Favero MS, Petersen NJ, Gravelle CR, Ebert JW, Maynard JE. Survival of hepati-
tis B virus after drying and storage for one week. Lancet. 1981;27:550–551.
221. Oren I, Hershow RC, Ben-Porath E, et al. A common-source outbreak of fulminant hepatitis
B in a hospital. Ann Intern Med. 1989;110:691–698.
222. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Improper infection-control practices during
employee vaccination programs—District of Columbia and Pennsylvania, 1993. MMWR.
1993;42:969–971.
223. Esteban JI, Gomez J, Martell M, et al. Transmission of hepatitis C virus by a cardiac surgeon.
N Engl J Med. 1996;334:555–560.
224. Lot F, Delarocque-Astagneau E, Thiers V, et al. Hepatitis C virus transmission from a health-
care worker to a patient. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28:227–229.
225. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendations for prevention and control of
hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and HCV-related chronic disease. MMWR. 1998;47(RR-
19):1–39.
226. Centers for Disease Control. Update: transmission of human immunodeficiency virus infec-
tion during an invasive dental procedure—Florida. MMWR. 1991;40:21–33.
227. Scully C, Greenspan JS. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission in dentistry. J
Dent Res. 2006;85:794–800.
228. Lot F, Seguier JC, Fegueux S, et al. Probable transmission of HIV from an orthopedic surgeon
to a patient in France. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:1–6.
229. Goujon CP, Schneider VM, Grofti J, et al. Phylogenetic analyses indicate an atypical nurse-to-
patient transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1. J Virol. 2000;74:2525–2532.
References 127
230. Astagneau P, Lot F, Fegueux S, et al. Lookback investigation of patients potentially exposed
to HIV type I after a nurse-to-patient transmission. Am J Infect Control. 2002;30:242–245.
231. Bosch X. Second case of doctor-to-patient HIV transmission. Lancet Infect Dis. 2003;3:261.
232. Mallolas J, Arnedo M, Pumarola T. Transmission of HIV-1 from an obstetrician to a patient
during a caesarean section. AIDS. 2006;20:285–287.
233. UK Department of Health. HIV Infected Health Care Workers: A Consultation Paper on Man-
agement and Patient Notification. London, UK: Department of Health; 2002. http://www
.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/01/85/96/04018596.pdf. Accessed April 30, 2008..
234. Centers for Disease Control. Foodborne nosocomial outbreak of Salmonella reading—Con-
necticut. MMWR. 1991;40:804–806.
235. Opal SM, Mayer KH, Roland F, Brondum J, Heelan J, Lyhte L. Investigation of a food-borne
outbreak of salmonellosis among hospital employees. Am J Infect Control. 1989;17:141–147.
236. Perlino CA, Parrish CM, Terry PM. Salmonella infantis outbreak in neonates in an interme-
diate intensive care nursery. Presented at: Third Decennial International Conference on
Nosocomial Infections; July 31–August 3, 1990; Atlanta, GA. Abstract 62.
237. Stone A, Shaffner M, Sautter R. Salmonella poona infection and surveillance in a neonatal
nursery. Am J Infect Control. 1993;21:270–273.
238. Meyers JD, Romm FJ, Tihen WS, Bryan JA. Food-borne hepatitis A in a general hospital: epi-
demiologic study of an outbreak attributed to sandwiches. JAMA. 1975;231:1049–1053.
239. Eisenstein AB, Aach RD, Jacobsohn W, Goldman A. An epidemic of infectious hepatitis in a gen-
eral hospital: probable transmission by contaminated orange juice. JAMA. 1963;185:171–174.
240. Rosenblum LS, Villarino ME, Naina OV, et al. Hepatitis A outbreak in a neonatal intensive
care unit: risk factors for transmission and evidence of prolonged viral excretion among
preterm infants. J Infect Dis. 1991;164:476–482.
241. Azimi PH, Roberto RR, Guralnik J, et al. Transfusion-acquired hepatitis A in a premature
infant with secondary nosocomial spread in an intensive care nursery. Am J Dis Child.
1986;140:23–27.
242. Noble RC, Kane MA, Reeves SA, Roeckel I. Posttransfusion hepatitis A in a neonatal inten-
sive care unit. JAMA. 1984;252:2711–2715.
ers: a review of reported outbreaks and sero-epidemiologic studies. J Hosp Infect.
2006;62:414–420.
244. Goodman RA, Carder CC, Allen JR, Orenstein WA, Finton RJ. Nosocomial hepatitis A trans-
mission by an adult patient with diarrhea. Am J Med. 1982;73:220–226.
245. Petrosillo N, Raffaele B, Martini L, et al. A nosocomial and occupational cluster of hepatitis A
virus infection in a pediatric ward. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2002;23:343–345.
246. Doebbeling BN, Li N, Wenzel RP. An outbreak of hepatitis A among health care workers: risk
factors for transmission. Am J Public Health. 1993;83:1679–1684.
247. Drusin LM, Sohmer M, Groshen SL, Spiritos MD, Senterfit LB, Christenson WN. Nosocomial
hepatitis A infection in a pediatric intensive care unit. Arch Dis Child. 1987;62:690–695.
248. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Update: prevention of hepatitis A after exposure
to hepatitis A virus and in international travelers. Updated recommendations of the Advisory
Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR. 2007;56(41);1080–1084.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5641a3.htm. Accessed May 2, 2008.
249. Eickhoff TC. Airborne nosocomial infection: a contemporary perspective. Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol. 1994;15:663–672.
250. Sepkowicz KA. Occupationally acquired infections in health care workers, pt I. Ann Intern
Med. 1996;125:826–834.
251. Atkinson WL. Measles and healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1994;15:5–7.
252. Gurevich I, Barzarga RA, Cuhna BA. Measles: lessons from an outbreak. Am J Infect Control.
1992;20:319–325.
253. Rank EL, Brettman L, Katz-Pollack H, DeHertogh D, Neville D. Chronology of a hospital-
wide measles outbreak: lessons learned and shared from an extraordinary week in late
March 1989. Am J Infect Control. 1992;20:315–318.
254. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Measles, mumps, and rubella—vaccine use and
strategies for elimination of measles, rubella, and congenital rubella syndrome and control of
mumps: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
MMWR. 1998;47(RR-8):1–57. http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/MMWRhtml/00053391.htm.
Acessed April 6, 2008.
255. Bloch AB, Orenstein WA, Ewing WM, et al. Measles outbreak in a pediatric practice: airborne
transmission in an office setting. Pediatr. 1985;75:676–683.
256. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Import-associated measles outbreak—Indiana,
May–June 2005. MMWR. 2005;54(42):1073–1075. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/
257. Parker AA, Staggs W, Dayan GH, et al. Implications of a 2005 measles outbreak in Indiana
for sustained elimination of measles in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(5):447–
455. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/355/5/447. Accessed April 5, 2008.
258. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Measles—United States, January 1–April 25,
2008. MMWR. 2008;57(Early Release):1–4. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/
mm57e501a1.htm?s_cid=mm57e501a1_e. Accessed May 1, 2008.
259. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Immunization of health-care workers: recom-
mendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and the Hospital
Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). MMWR.1997;6(RR-18):1–42.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00050577.htm. Accessed April 6, 2008.
260. American Academy of Pediatrics. Measles. In: Peter G, ed. 2006 Red Book: Report of the Commit-
tee on Infectious Diseases. 24th ed. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2006.
261. Uckay I, Hugonnet S, Kaiser L, Sax H, Pittet D. Age limit does not replace serologic testing
for determination of immune status for measles. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
2007;28:1117–1120.
262. Rivera ME, Mason WH, Ross LA, Wright HT Jr. Nosocomial measles infection in a pediatric
hospital during a community-wide epidemic. J Pediatr. 1991;119:183–186.
263. Houck P, Scott-Johnson G, Krebs L. Measles immunity among community hospital employ-
ees. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1991;12:663–668.
264. Weber DJ, Rutala WA, Hamilton H. Prevention and control of varicella-zoster infections in
healthcare facilities. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;17:694–705.
265. Sawyer MH, Chamberlain CJ, Wu YN, Aintablian N, Wallace MR. Detection of varicella-
zoster virus DNA in air samples from hospital rooms. J Infect Dis. 1994;169:91–94.
266. Leclair JM, Zaia JA, Levin MJ, Congdon RG, Goldmann DA. Airborne transmission of chick-
enpox in a hospital. N Engl J Med. 1980;302:450–453.
267. Faoagali JL, Darcy D. Chickenpox outbreak among the staff of a large, urban adult hospital:
costs of monitoring and control. Am J Infect Control. 1995;23:247–250.
268. Gustafson TL, Lavely GB, Brawner ER, Hutcheson RH, Wright PF, Schaffner W. An outbreak
of airborne nosocomial varicella. Pediatr. 1982;70:550–556.
269. Apisarnthanarak A, Kitphati R, Tawatsupha P, et al. Outbreak of varicella-zoster virus infec-
tion among Thai healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28:430–434.
270. Yehia A, Aly N, Al Obaid I, Al-Qulooshi N, Zahed Z. Occupationally related outbreak of chick-
enpox in an intensive care unit. Med Princ Pract. 2007;16:399–401.
271. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevention of varicella: recommendations of the
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR. 2007;56(RR-04):1–40.
272. American Academy of Pediatrics. Varicella-zoster. In: Peter G, ed. 2006 Red Book: Report of
the Committee on Infectious Diseases. 24th ed. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of
Pediatrics; 2006.
273. Brawley RL, Wenzel RP. An algorithm for chickenpox exposure. Pediatr Infect Dis J.
1984;3:502–504.
274. Stover BH, Bratcher DF. Varicella-zoster virus: infection, control and prevention. Am J Infect
Control. 1998;26:369–381.
275. Levandowski RA, Rubenis M. Nosocomial conjunctivitis caused by adenovirus Type 4. J
Infect Dis. 1981;143:28–31.
References 129
276. Brummit CF, Cherrington JM, Katzenstein DA. Nosocomial adenovirus infections: molecular
epidemiology of an outbreak due to adenovirus 3a. J Infect Dis. 1988;158:423–432.
277. Birenbaum E, Linder N, Varsano N, et al. Adenovirus type 8 conjunctivitis outbreak in a
neonatal intensive care unit. Arch Dis Child. 1993;68:610–611.
278. Wharton M, Cochi SL, Hutcheson RH, Schaffner W. Mumps transmission in hospitals. Arch
Intern Med. 1990;150:47–49.
279. Fischer PR, Brunetti C, Welch V, Christenson JC. Nosocomial mumps: report of an outbreak
and its control. Am J Infect Control. 1996;24:13–18.
280. Buxton Bridges C, Kuehnert MJ, Hall CB. Transmission of influenza: implications for control
in health care setting. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;37:1094–1101.
281. Shishiba T, Matsunaga Y. An outbreak of erythema infectiosum among hospital staff mem-
bers including a patient with pleural fluid and pericardial effusion. J Am Acad Dermatol.
1993;29:265–267.
282. Seng C, Watkins P, Morse D, et al. Parvovirus B19 outbreak on an adult ward. Epidemiol
Infect. 1994;113:345–353.
283. Pillay D, Patou G, Hurt S, Kibbler CC, Griffiths PD. Parvovirus B19 outbreak in a children’s
ward. Lancet. 1992;339:107–109.
284. Poland GA, Nichol KL. Medical students as sources of rubella and measles outbreaks. Arch
Intern Med. 1990;150:44–46.
285. Fliegel PE, Weinstein WM. Rubella outbreak in a prenatal clinic: management and preven-
tion. Am J Infect Control. 1982;10:29–33.
286. Polk FB, White JA, DeGirolami PC, Modlin JF. An outbreak of rubella among hospital per-
sonnel. N Engl J Med. 1980;303:541–545.
287. Klausner JD, Passaro D, Rosenberg J, et al. Enhanced control of Mycoplasma pneumoniae
pneumonia with azithromycin prophylaxis. J Infect Dis. 1998;177:161–166.
288. Hall CB. Nosocomial viral respiratory infections: perennial weeds on pediatric wards. Am J
Med. 1981;70:670–676.
289. Hall CB, Douglas RG Jr. Possible transmission by fomites of respiratory syncytial virus. J
Infect Dis. 1980;141:98–102.
290. Hall CB. Respiratory syncytial virus: its transmission in the hospital environment. Yale J
Biol Med. 1982;55:219–223.
291. Hall CB. The nosocomial spread of respiratory syncytial viral infections. Annu Rev Med.
1983;34:311–319.
292. Snydman DR, Greer C, Meissner HC, McIntosh K. Prevention of nosocomial transmission of
respiratory syncytial virus in a newborn nursery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1988;9:105–
108.
293. Falsey AR. Noninfluenza respiratory virus infection in long-term care facilities. Infect Control
294. Sorvillo FJ, Huie SF, Strassburg MA, Butsumyo A, Shandera WAX, Fannin SL. An outbreak
of respiratory syncytial virus pneumonia in a nursing home for the elderly. J Infect.
1984;9:252–256.
295. Harrington RD, Hooton TM, Hackman RC, et al. An outbreak of respiratory syncytial virus in
a bone marrow transplant center. J Infect Dis. 1992;165:987–993.
296. Guidry GG, Black-Payne CA, Payne DK, Jamison RM, George RB, Bocchini JA Jr. Respira-
tory syncytial virus infection among intubated adults in a university intensive care unit.
Chest. 1991;100:1377–1384.
297. Valenti WM, Clarke TA, Hall CB, et al. Concurrent outbreaks of rhinovirus and respiratory
syncytial virus in an intensive care nursery: epidemiology and associated risk factors. J Pedi-
atr. 1982;100:722–726.
298. Goldmann DA. Epidemiology and prevention of pediatric viral respiratory infections in
health-care institutions. Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7:249–253.
299. Jalal H, Bibby DF, Bennett J, et al. Molecular investigations of an outbreak of parainfluenza
virus type 3 and respiratory syncytial virus infections in a hematology unit. J Clin Microbiol.
2007;45:1690–1696.
300. Halasa NB, Williams JV, Wilson GJ, Walsh WF, Schaffner W, Wright PF. Medical and eco-
nomic impact of a respiratory syncytial virus outbreak in a neonatal intensive care unit.
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2005;24(12):1040–1044.
301. Broder KR, Cortese MM, Iskander JK, et al. Preventing tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis
among adolescents: use of tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid and acellular pertussis
vaccines recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
MMWR Recomm Rep. 2006; 55:1–34.
302. Long SS, Welkon CJ, Clark JL. Widespread silent transmission of pertussis in families: anti-
body correlates of infection and symptomatology. J Infect Dis. 1990;161:480–486.
303. Black S. Epidemiology of pertussis. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1997;16:S85–S89.
304. Weber DJ, Rutala WA. Pertussis: an underappreciated risk for nosocomial outbreaks. Infect
305. Cherry JD. Nosocomial pertussis in the nineties. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1995;16:553–
555.
306. Bryant K, Humbaugh K, Brothers K, et al. Measures to control an outbreak of pertussis in a
neonatal intermediate care nursery after exposure to a healthcare worker. Infect Control
307. Boulay BR, Murray CJ, Ptak J, Kirkland KB, Montero J, Talbot EA. An outbreak of pertussis
in a hematology-oncology care unit: implications for adult vaccination policy. Infect Control
Hosp Epidemiol. 2006; 27:92–95.
308. Linneman CC Jr, Ramundo N, Perlstein PH, Minton SD, Englender GS. Use of pertussis vac-
cine in an epidemic involving hospital staff. Lancet. 1975;2:540–543.
309. Valenti WM, Pincus PH, Messner MK. Nosocomial pertussis: possible spread by a hospital
visitor. Am J Dis Child. 1980;134:520–521.
310. Kurt TL, Yeager AS, Guenette S, Dunlop S. Spread of pertussis by hospital staff. JAMA.
1972;221:264–267.
311. Bassinet L, Matrat M, Njamkepo E, et al. Nosocomial pertussis outbreak among adult
patients and healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004;25:995–997.
312. Pascual FB, McCall CL, McMurtray A, et al. Outbreak of pertussis among healthcare work-
ers in a hospital surgical unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006;27(6):546–552.
313. Bonmarin I, Poujol I, Lévy-Bruhl D. Nosocomial infections and community clusters of per-
tussis in France, 2000–2005. Eur Surveill. 2007;12(11). http://www.eurosurveillance.org/
em/v12n11/1211–226.asp. Accessed May 1, 2008.
314. Vranken P, Pogue M, Romalewski C, Ratard R. Outbreak of pertussis in a neonatal intensive
care unit—Louisiana, 2004. Am J Infect Control. 2006;34:550–554.
315. Calugar A, Ortega-Sanchez IR, Tiwari T, et al. Nosocomial pertussis: costs of an outbreak and
benefits of vaccinating health care workers. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;42(7):981–988.
316. Daskalaki I, Hennessey P, Hubler R, Long SS. Resource consumption in the infection control
management of pertussis exposure among healthcare workers in pediatrics. Infect Control
317. Baggett HC, Duchin JS, Shelton W. Two nosocomial pertussis outbreaks and their associated
costs—King County, Washington, 2004. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28:537–543.
318. Christie CD, Glover AM, Wilke MJ, Marx ML, Reising SF, Hutchinson NM. Containment of
pertussis in the regional pediatric hospital during the greater Cincinnati epidemic of 1993.
319. Tam TWS, Bentsi-Enchill A. The return of the 100-day cough: resurgence of pertussis in the
1990s. CMAJ. 1998;159(6):695–596.
320. de Melker HE, Schellekens JFP, Neppelenbroek SE, et al. Reemergence of pertussis in the
highly vaccinated population of the Netherlands: observations on surveillance data. Emerg
Infect Dis. 2000;6:348–335.
321. Wirsing von König C, Riffelman M,. Pertussis: An old disease in new clothes [Epub ahead of
print]. Eur Surveill. 2007;12(9). http://www.eurosurveillance.org/em/v12n09/1209–221
.asp. Accessed May 2, 2008.
References 131
322. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outbreaks of respiratory illness mistakenly
attributed to pertussis—New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Tennessee, 2004–2006.
MMWR. 2007;56(33);837–842.
323. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for the Control of Pertussis Out-
breaks. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA, 2000. (Amendments made
in 2005 and 2006). http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pertussis-guide/guide.htm. Accessed
May 1, 2008.
324. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC. Preventing tetanus, diphtheria, and per-
tussis among adults: use of tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid and acellular pertussis
vaccine. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP),
supported by the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC), for
use of Tdap among health-care personnel. MMWR. 2006;55(No. RR-17).
325. Rutala WA, Weber DJ. Management of healthcare workers exposed to pertussis. Infect Con-
trol Hosp Epidemiol. 1994;15:411–415.
326. Haiduven DJ, Hench CP, Simpkins SM, Stevens DA. Standardized management of patients
and employees exposed to pertussis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1998;19:861–864.
327. Haley CE, Cohen ML, Halter J, Meyer RD. Nosocomial Legionnaires’ disease: a continuing
common-source epidemic at Wadsworth Medical Center. Ann Intern Med. 1979;90:583–586.
328. Thacker SB, Bennett JV, Tsai TF, et al. An outbreak in 1965 of severe respiratory illness
caused by the Legionnaires’ disease bacterium. J Infect Dis. 1978;138:512–519.
329. Mermel LA, Josephson SL, Giorgio CH, Dempsey J, Parentau S. Association of Legionnaires’
disease with construction: contamination of potable water? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1995;16:76–81.
330. Doebbeling BN, Ishak MA, Wade BH, et al. Nosocomial Legionella micdadei pneumonia: 10
years experience and a case-control study. J Hosp Infect. 1989;13:289–298.
331. Memish ZA, Oxley C, Contant J, Garber GE. Plumbing system shock absorbers as a source of
Legionella pneumophila. Am J Infect Control. 1992;20:305–309.
332. Venezia RA, Agresta MD, Hanley EM, Urquhart K, Schoonmaker D. Nosocomial legionellosis
associated with aspiration of nasogastric feedings diluted in tap water. Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol. 1994;15:529–533.
333. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sustained transmission of nosocomial Legion-
naires’ disease—Arizona and Ohio. MMWR. 1997;46:416–421.
334. Dondero TJ, Rendtorff RC, Mallison GF, et al. An outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease associ-
ated with a contaminated cooling tower. N Engl J Med. 1980;302:365.
335. Arnow PM, Chou T, Weil D, et al. Nosocomial Legionnaires’ disease caused by aerosolized tap
water from respiratory devices. J Infect Dis. 1982;146:460–467.
336. Ricketts K, Joseph C, Legionnaires’ disease in Europe: 2005–2006 [Epub ahead of print].
Eur Surveill 2007;12(12). http://www.eurosurveillance.org/em/v12n12/1212–224.asp. Accessed
July 29, 2008.
337. Brown CM, Nuorti P, Breiman RF, et al. A community outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease
linked to hospital cooling towers: an epidemiological method to calculate dose of exposure. Int
J Epidemiol. 1999;28:353–359.
338. Guerrero IC, Filippone C. A cluster of Legionnaires’ disease in a community hospital—a clue
339. Bartram J, Chartier Y, Lee JV, Pond K, Surman-Lee S, eds. Legionella and the Prevention of
Legionellosis. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2007. http://www.who.int/
water_sanitation_health/emerging/legionella/en/index.html. Accessed May 2, 2008.
340. Walsh TJ, Dixon DM. Nosocomial aspergillosis: environmental microbiology, hospital epi-
demiology, diagnosis, and treatment. Eur J Epidemiol. 1989;5:131–142.
341. Cole EC, Cook CE. Characterization of infectious aerosols in health care facilities: an aid to
effective engineering controls and preventive strategies. Am J Infect Control. 1998;26:453–
464.
342. Pannuti CS, Gingrich RD, Pfaller MA, Wenzel RP. Nosocomial pneumonia in adult patients
undergoing bone marrow transplantation: a 9-year study. J Clin Oncol. 1991;9:77–84.
343. Rotstein C, Cummings KM, Tidings J, et al. An outbreak of invasive aspergillosis among allo-
geneic bone marrow transplants: a case-control study. Infect Control. 1985;6:347–355.
344. Opal SM, Asp AA, Cannady PB Jr, Morse PL, Burton LJ, Hammer PG II. Efficacy of infection
control measures during a nosocomial outbreak of disseminated aspergillosis associated with
hospital construction. J Infect Dis. 1986;153:634–637.
345. Arnow PM, Anderson RL, Mainous D, et al. Pulmonary aspergillosis during hospital renova-
tion. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1978;118:49–53.
346. Flynn PM, Williams BG, Hetherington SV, Williams BF, Giannini MA, Pearson TA. Aspergillus
terreus during hospital renovation. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1993;14:363–365.
347. McCarty JM, Flam MJ, Pulen G, et al. Outbreak of primary cutaneous aspergillosis related to
intravenous arm boards. J Pediatr. 1986;108:721–724.
348. Hopkins CC, Weber DJ, Rubin RH. Invasive Aspergillus infection: possible non-ward common
source within the hospital environment. J Hosp Infect. 1989;13:19–25.
349. Thio CL, Smith D, Merz WG, et al. Refinements of environmental assessment during an out-
break investigation of invasive aspergillosis in a leukemia and bone marrow transplant unit.
350. Pegues DSA, Lasker BA, McNeil MM, et al. Cluster of cases of invasive aspergillosis in a
transplant intensive care unit: evidence of person-to-person airborne transmission. Clin
Infect Dis. 2002;34:412–416. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/338025.
Accessed May 2, 2008.
351. Hruszkewycz V, Ruben B, Hypes CM, Bostic GD, Staszkiewicz J, Band JD. A cluster of pseu-
dofungemia associated with hospital renovation adjacent to the microbiology laboratory.
352. Carter CD, Barr BA. Infection control issues in construction and renovation. Infect Control
353. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Community Health Administration.
Guidelines for Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Pulmonary Aspergillosis, 1999.
http://www.cha.state.md.us/edcp/guidelines/aspers2.html. Accessed May 2, 2008.
354. Carreras E. Preventing exposure to molds. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2006;12(suppl 7):77–83.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469–0691.2006.01608.x. Accessed May
2, 2008.
355. Gangneux J-P, Bretagne S, Cordonnier C, et al. Prevention of nosocomial fungal infection: the
French approach. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;35:343–345. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/
pdf/10.1086/341318. Accessed May 2, 2008.
356. Rutala WA, Weber DJ. Water as a reservoir of nosocomial pathogens. Infect Control Hosp Epi-
demiol. 1997;18:609–616.
357. Stamm WE, Colella JJ, Anderson RL, Dixon RE. Indwelling arterial catheters as a source of
nosocomial bacteremia: an outbreak caused by Flavobacterium species. N Engl J Med.
1975;292:1099–1102.
358. Casewell MW, Slater NGP, Cooper JE. Operating theatre water baths as a cause of
Pseudomonas septicaemia. J Hosp Infect. 1981;2:237–240.
359. McGuckin MB, Thorpe RJ, Abrutyn E. Hydrotherapy: an outbreak of Pseudomonas aerugi-
nosa wound infections related to Hubbard tank treatments. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.
1981;62:283–285.
360. Lowry PW, Beck-Sague CM, Bland LA, et al. Mycobacterium chelonae infection among
patients receiving high-flux dialysis in a hemodialysis clinic in California. J Infect Dis.
1990;161:85–90.
361. Graman PS, Quinlan GA, Rank JA. Nosocomial legionellosis traced to a contaminated ice
machine. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1997;18:637–640.
362. Verweij PE, Bilj D, Melchers W, et al. Pseudo-outbreak of multiresistant Pseudomonas aerugi-
nosa in a hematology unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1997;18:128–131.
363. Sniadack DH, Ostroff SM, Karlix MA, et al. A nosocomial pseudo-outbreak of Mycobacterium
xenopi due to a contaminated potable water supply: lessons in prevention. Infect Control
References 133
364. Van Horn KG, Tatz JS, Li KI, Newman L, Wormser GP. Copepods associated with a perirectal
abscess and copepod pseudo-outbreak in stools for ova and parasite examinations. Diagn
Microbiol Infect Dis. 1992;15:561–565.
365. Klotz SA, Normand RE, Kalinsky RG. “Through a drinking glass and what was found there”:
pseudocontamination of a hospital’s drinking water. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1992;13:477–481.
366. Muyldermans G, de Smet F, Pierard D, et al. Neonatal infections with Pseudomonas aerugi-
nosa associated with a water-bath used to thaw fresh frozen plasma. J Hosp Infect. 1998;
9(4):309–314.
367. Conger NG, O’Connell RJ, Laurel VL, et al. Mycobacterium simiae outbreak associated with a
hospital water supply. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004;25:1050–1055.
368. Emmerson AM. Emerging waterborne infections in health-care settings. Emerg Infect Dis.
2007;7:272–276. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no2/emmerson.htm. Accessed May 2,
2008.
369. Manangan LP, Anderson RL, Arduino MJ, Bond WW. Sanitary care and maintenance of ice-
storage chests and ice-making machines in health care facilities. Am J Infect Control.
1998;26(2):111–112.
370. Burnett IA, Weeks GR, Harris DM. A hospital study of ice-making machines: their bacteriol-
ogy, design, usage, and upkeep. J Hosp Infect. 1994;28:305–313.
371. Maloney SA, Jarvis WR. Epidemic nosocomial pneumonia in the intensive care unit. Chest.
1995;16:209–223.
372. Patterson TF, Patterson JE, Masecar BL, et al. A nosocomial outbreak of Branhamella
catarrhalis confirmed by restriction endonuclease analysis. J Infect Dis. 1988;157:996–1001.
373. Centers for Disease Control. Suspected nosocomial influenza cases in an intensive care unit.
MMWR. 1988;37:3–4.
374. Locksley RM, Cohen ML, Quinn TC, et al. Multiply antibiotic-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus: introduction, transmission, and evolution of nosocomial infection. Ann Intern Med.
1982;97:317–324.
375. Singh-Naz N, Willy M, Riggs N. Outbreak of para-influenza virus type 3 in a neonatal nurs-
ery. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1990;9:31–33.
376. Villarino ME, Stevens LE, Schable BS, et al. Risk factors for epidemic Xanthomonas infec-
tion/colonization in intensive care unit patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1992;13:201–
206.
377. Fisher-Hoch SP, Tobin JO, Nelson AM, et al. Investigation and control of Legionnaires’ dis-
ease in a district general hospital. Lancet. 1981;1:933–936.
378. Arnow PM, Chou T, Weil D, et al. Nosocomial Legionnaires’ disease caused by aerosolized tap
water from respiratory devices. J Infect Dis. 1982;146:460–467.
379. Brady MT. Nosocomial Legionnaires’ disease in a children’s hospital. J Pediatr. 1988;115:
46–58.
380. Mastro TD, Fields BS, Breiman RF, et al. Legionnaires’ disease and use of medication nebu-
lizers. J Infect Dis. 1991;163:667–671.
381. Blatt SP, Parkinson MD, Pace E, et al. Nosocomial Legionnaires’ disease: aspiration as a pri-
mary mode of disease acquisition. Am J Med. 1991;95:16–22.
382. Weems JJ, Davis BJ, Tablan OC, et al. Construction activity: an independent risk factor for
invasive aspergillosis and zygomycosis in patients with hematologic malignancy. Infect Con-
trol. 1987;8:71–75.
383. Arnow PM, Sadigh M, Costas C, et al. Endemic and epidemic aspergillosis associated with in-
hospital replication of Aspergillus organisms. J Infect Dis. 1991;164:998–1002.
384. Buffington J, Reporter R, Lasker B, et al. Investigation of an epidemic of invasive aspergillo-
sis: utility of molecular typing with the use of random amplified polymorphic DNS probes.
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1994;13:386–393.
385. Gastmeier P, Loui A, Stamm-Balderjahn S, et al. Outbreaks in neonatal intensive care
units—They are not like others. Am J Infect Control. 2007;35:172–176.
386. Samet JM, Marbury MC, Spengler JD. Health effects and sources of indoor air pollution, pt.
1. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1987;136:1486–1508.
387. Samet JM, Marbury MC, Spengler JD. Health effects and sources of indoor air pollution, pt.
2. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1988;137:221–242.
388. Brandt-Rauf PW, Andrews LR, Schwarz-Miller J. Sick-hospital syndrome. J Occup Med.
1991;33:737–739.
389. Gold DR. Indoor air pollution. Clin Chest Med. 1992;13:215–229.
390. Hodgson M. Indoor environmental exposures and symptoms. Environ Health Perspect.
2002;110:(Suppl 4):663–667. http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/suppl-4/663–667hodgson/
hodgson-full.html. Accessed May 3, 2008.
391. Jaakkola MS, Yang L, Ieromnimon A, Jaakkola JJK. Office work exposures and respiratory
and sick building syndrome symptoms. Occup Environ Med. 2007;64(3):178–184. [Erratum
in: Occup Environ Med. 2007 Jun;64(6):428.] http://oem.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/64/3/178.
392. Donnell HD Jr, Bagby JR, Harmon RG, et al. Report of an illness outbreak at the Harry S
Truman State Office Building. Am J Epidemiol. 1989;129(3):550–558.
393. Klaucke DN, Johansen M, Vogt RL. An outbreak of xylene intoxication in a hospital. Am J
Ind Med. 1982;3(2):173–178.
394. Klauck D, Vogt R. A case exercise: outbreak investigation at a Vermont community hospital. J
Public Health Manag Pract. 2005;11(4):301–305.
395. Hardin BD, Kelman BJ, Saxon A. ACOEM evidence-based statement. adverse human health
effects associated with molds in the indoor environment. J Occup Environ Med.
2003;45(5):70–478. http://www.joem.org/pt/re/joem/fulltext.00043764-200305000-00006.htm;
jsessionid=LcDNJvXVnnDgJvDR7d155vzr6LtQRhMWdVdf03HSSnmK1JL6D3Wt!1379360954!
181195629!8091!-1?&fullimage=true. Accessed May 3, 2008.
396. Pfaller MA. Nosocomial candidiasis: emerging species, reservoirs, and modes of transmission.
Clin Infect Dis. 1996;22(suppl 2):S89–S94.
397. Jarvis WR. Epidemiology of nosocomial fungal infections with emphasis on Candida species.
Clin Infect Dis. 1995;20:1526–1530.
398. Pfaller MA, Diekma DJ. Epidemiology of invasive candidiasis: a persistent public health
problem. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2007;20(1):133–163. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/
articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17223626. Accessed May 3, 2008.
399. Perlroth J, Choi B, Spellberg B. Nosocomial fungal infections: epidemiology, diagnosis, and
treatment. Med Mycol. 2007;45(4):321–346.
400. Pappas PG. Invasive candidiasis. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2006;20(3):485–506.
401. Waggoner-Fountain LA, Whit Walker M, Hollis RJ, et al. Vertical and horizontal transmission
of unique Candida species to premature newborns. Clin Infect Dis. 1996:22:803–808.
402. Fowler SL, Rhoten B, Springer SC, Messer SA, Hollis RJ, Pfaller MA. Evidence for person-to-
person transmission of Candida lusitaniae in a neonatal intensive care unit. Infect Control
403. Reef SE, Lasker BA, Butcher DS. Nonperinatal nosocomial transmission of Candida albicans
in a neonatal intensive care unit: prospective study. J Clin Microbiol. 1998;36:1255–1259.
404. van Asbeck EC, Huang YC, Markham AN, Clemons KV, Stevens DA. Candida parapsilosis
fungemia in neonates: genotyping results suggest healthcare workers hands as source, and
review of published studies. Mycopathologia. 2007;164(6):287–293.
405. Sheretz RJ, Gledhill KS, Hampton KD, et al. Outbreaks of Candida bloodstream infections
associated with retrograde medication administration in a neonatal intensive care unit. J
Pediatr. 1992;120:455–461.
406. Solomon SL, Khabbaz R, Parker RH, et al. An outbreak of Candida parapsilosis bloodstream
infections in patients receiving parenteral nutrition. J Infect Dis. 1984;149:96–102.
407. Solomon SL, Alexander H, Eley JW, et al. Nosocomial fungemia in neonates associated with
intravascular pressure monitoring devices. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1986;5:680–685.
References 135
408. Faix RG, Finkel DJ, Andersen RD, Hostetter MK. Genotypic analysis of a cluster of systemic
Candida albicans infections in a neonatal intensive care unit. Pediatr Infect Dis J.
1995;14:1063–1068.
409. Strausbaugh LJ, Sewell DL, Ward TT, Pfaller MA, Heitzman T, Tjoelker R. High frequency of
yeast carriage on hands of hospital personnel. J Clin Microbiol. 1994;32:2299–2300.
410. Khatib R, Thirumoorthi MC, Riederer KM, Sturm L, Oney LA, Baran J. Clustering of Can-
dida infections in the neonatal intensive care unit: concurrent emergence of multiple strains
simulating intermittent outbreaks. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1998;17:130–134.
411. Institute of Medicine. Emerging Infections: Microbial Threats to Health in the United States.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1994.
412. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preventing Emerging Infectious Diseases: A
Strategy for the 21st Century. Atlanta, GA: US Dept of Health and Human Services; 1998.
http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/PDF/rr/rr4715.pdf. Accessed May 3, 2008.
413. Weber DJ, Rutala WA. The emerging nosocomial pathogens Cryptosporidium, Escherichia
coli O157:H7, Helicobacter pylori, and hepatitis C: epidemiology, environmental survival, effi-
cacy of disinfection, and control measures. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2001;22:306–315.
414. Bresee JS, Mast EE, Coleman PJ, et al. Hepatitis C virus infection associated with adminis-
tration of intravenous immune globulin: a cohort study. JAMA. 1996;276:1563–1567.
415. Danzig LE, Short LJ, Collins K, et al. Bloodstream infections associated with a needleless
intravenous infusion system in patients receiving home infusion therapy. JAMA.
1995;273:1862–1864.
416. Dowell SF, Mukunu R, Ksiazek TG, Khan AS, Rollin PE, Peters CJ, and the Ebola Hemor-
rhagic Fever Study Group. Transmission of Ebola hemorrhagic fever: a study of risk factors
in family members—Kikwit, Zaire. J Infect Dis. 1999;179:S87–S91.
417. Jochimsen EM, Fish L, Manning K, et al. Evaluation and control of vancomycin-resistant
enterococci at an Indianapolis hospital. Presented at: Seventh Annual Meeting of the Society
for Healthcare Epidemiology of America; April 27–29, 1997; St. Louis, MO. Abstract 54.
418. Fridkin SK, Pear SM, Williamson TH, Galgiani JN, Jarvis WR. The role of understaffing in
central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1996;17:150–158.
419. Archibald LK, Manning ML, Bell LM, Banerjee S, Jarvis WR. Patient density, nurse-to-
patient ratio and nosocomial infection risk in a pediatric cardiac intensive care unit. Pediatr
Infect Dis J. 1997;16:1045–1048.
420. Kellerman S, Shay DK, Howard J, et al. Bloodstream infections in home infusion patients:
the influence of race and needleless intravascular access devices. J Pediatr. 1996;129:
711–717.
421. Do A, Ray B, Barnett B, et al. Evaluation of the role of needleless devices (ND) in bloodstream
infections. Presented at: 1996 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Microbiology, 36th
Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; September 1996; New
Orleans, LA. Abstract J61.
422. Donlan RM. Biofilms and device-associated infections. Emerg Infect Dis. 2002;7:277–281.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no2/donlan.htm. Accessed May 3, 2008.
423. Lindsay D, von Holy A. Bacterial biofilms within the clinical setting: what healthcare profes-
sionals should know. J Hosp Infect. 2006;64:313–325.
424. Cassone M, Serra P, Mondello F, et al. Outbreak of Saccharomyces cerevisiae subtype
boulardii fungemia in patients neighboring those treated with a probiotic preparation of the
organism. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41:5340–5343.
425. Bicudo EL, Macedo VO, Carrara MA, Castro FFS, Rage RI. Nosocomial outbreak of Pantoea
agglomerans in a pediatric urgent care center. Braz J Infect Dis. 207;11:281–284.
http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bjid/v11n2/23.pdf. Accessed April 23, 2008.
426. Habsah H, Zeehaida M, Van Rostenberghe H. An outbreak of Pantoea spp. in a neonatal
intensive care unit secondary to contaminated parenteral nutrition. J Hosp Infect.
2005;61(3):213–218.
427. Van Rostenberghe H, Noraida R, Wan Pauzi WI, et al. The clinical picture of infection with
Pantoea species. Jpn J Infect Dis. 2006;59:120–121. http://www.nih.go.jp/JJID/59/120.pdf.
428. Koo H-K, Kim J-S, Eom J-S, et al. Pseudooutbreak of Pantoea species bacteremia associated
with contaminated cotton pledgets. Am J Infect Control. 2006;34:443–446.
429. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Update: multistate outbreak of mumps—United
States, January 1–May 2, 2006. MMWR. 2006;55(20):559–563. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/
preview/mmwrhtml/mm5520a4.htm. Accessed May 4, 2008.
430. Boyce J. Environmental contamination makes an important contribution to hospital infec-
tion. J Hosp Infect. 2007;65(Suppl 2):50–54.
431. Hayden MK, Blom DW, Lyle EA, Moore CG, Weinstein RA. Risk of hand or glove contamina-
tion after contact with patients colonized with vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus or the col-
onized patient’s environment. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008;29:149–154.
432. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza vaccination of health-care personnel
recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC)
and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recommendations
and Reports. 2006;55(RR-02);1–16. http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/PREVIEW/MMWRHTML/
rr5502a1.htm. Accessed May 4, 2008.
433. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Notice to readers: updated recommendations of
the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for the control and elimination of
mumps. MMWR. 2006;55(22);629–630. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml
/mm5522a4.htm. Accessed May 4, 2008.
434. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-
Preventable Diseases. The Pink Book. 10th ed. Atlanta, GA: CDC; 2008. http://www.cdc.gov/
vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/default.htm. Accessed May 4, 2008.
SUGGESTED READING AND RESOURCES
Readings
APIC Text of Infection Control and Epidemiology. Washington, DC: Association for Professionals in
Infection Control and Epidemiology; 2005.
American Academy of Pediatrics. 2006 Red Book: Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases.
24th ed. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2006. http://www.aap.org.
Block SS, ed. Disinfection, Sterilization, and Preservation. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lea &
Febiger; 1991.
Biosafety in Microbiological and Bio-Medical Laboratories. 4th ed. Atlanta, GA: US Dept of
Health and Human Services, Public Health Service; 1999. http://www.cdc.gov/OD/ohs/biosfty/
bmbl4/bmbl4toc.htm. Accessed May 4, 2008.
Atkinson W, Hamborsky J, McIntyre L, Wolfe S, eds. Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-
Preventable Diseases. The Pink Book. 10th ed. Washington DC: Public Health Foundation,
2008. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/default.htm. Accessed May 4, 2008.
Heymann DL. Control of Communicable Diseases Manual. 18th ed. Washington, DC: APHA Press;
2005.
Institute of Medicine. Emerging Infections: Microbial Threats to Health in the United States.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1994.
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Occupational Expo-
sure to Bloodborne Pathogens (Final Rule). 1910 C.F.R. § 1030 (1991).
Preventing Emerging Infectious Diseases: A Strategy for the 21st Century. Atlanta, GA: US Dept of
Health and Human Services; 1998. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00031393
.htm. Accessed April 21, 2008.
Rutala WA, Weber DJ. Disinfection and sterilization in health care facilities: what clinicians need
to know. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39(5):702–709. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/
10.1086/423182. Accessed April 5, 2008.
Suggested Reading and Resources 137
United Kingdom Department of Health. Guidance for health care workers: protection against
infection with blood-borne viruses. Recommendations of the Expert Advisory Group on AIDS
and the Advisory Group on Hepatitis. London, UK: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office; 1993.
http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/01/44/74/04014474.pdf. Accessed April 30, 2008.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guideline for hand hygiene in health-care settings.
Recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the
HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. MMWR. 2002;51(No. RR-16).
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5116a1.htm. Accessed April 5, 2008.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Immunization of health-care workers: recommenda-
tions of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and the Hospital Infec-
tion Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). MMWR. 1997;46(RR-18):1–42.
Bolyard EA, Tablan OC, Williams WW, et al. Guideline for infection control in health care person-
nel, 1998. Am J Infect Control. 1998;26:289–354. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/gl_hcpersonnel
.html. Accessed April 19, 2008.
Siegel JD, Rhinehart E, Jackson M, Chiarello L, and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices
Advisory Committee, 2007 Guideline for Isolation Precautions: Preventing Transmission of
Infectious Agents in Healthcare Settings. Atlanta, GA: CDC; 2007. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/
dhqp/gl_isolation.html. Accessed November 25, 2007.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for Preventing Health-Care-Associated
Pneumonia, 2003. Recommendations of CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices
Advisory Committee. Atlanta, GA: CDC; 2003. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/gl_hcpneumonia
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendations for preventing transmission of
human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis B virus to patients during exposure-prone
invasive procedures. MMWR. 1991;40(RR-8):1–9. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR /preview/
mmwrhtml/00014845.htm. Accessed April 30, 2008.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular
catheter-related infections. MMWR. 2002;51(No. RR-10):1–36. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/
PDF/rr/rr5110.pdf. Accessed April 28, 2008.
Sehulster L, Chinn RY, Arduino MJ, et al. Guidelines for environmental infection control in
health-care facilities, 2003. Recommendations of CDC and the Healthcare Infection
Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). MMWR. 2003;52(RR-10):1–42.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/gl_environinfection.html. Accessed April 5, 2008.
Appendix A of this text contains “Methods for Sterilizing and Disinfecting Patient-Care Items and
Environmental Surfaces” reprinted from: CDC. Guidelines for infection control in dental health-
care settings, 2003. MMWR. 2003:52(RR-17).
Resources
CDC recommended infection control guidelines for dentistry: Information on dental infection con-
trol issues as well as consensus evidence-based recommendations. See also the slide set and
accompanying speaker notes. http://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/ or http://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/
infectioncontrol/guidelines/ppt.htm. Accessed April 14, 2008.
CDC Vaccines and Immunizations

• General information: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/default.htm
• Immunization schedules, recommendations and guidelines, and information for healthcare
workers: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/default.htm Accessed April 6, 2008.
• General recommendations on immunization: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee
on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR. 2006;55(No. RR-15).
• Prevention of varicella: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization
Practices (ACIP). MMWR. 2007;56(No. RR-4).
CDC Infection control in health care settings: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/
CDC Dialysis-associated infections: Infection prevention and control guidelines and links to out-
break reports and surveillance data. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/dpac_dialysis_pc.html.
Accessed April 11, 2008.
Disinfection and Sterilization.org: Guidelines and resources on cleaning, disinfection, and steril-
ization in healthcare settings: http://disinfectionandsterilization.org.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System
MedWatch—The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting System. http://www
.fda.gov/medwatch.
Agencies and Organizations

The following national agencies and organizations have guidelines, position papers, and stan-
dards that can be used for developing infection prevention and control programs in the acute care
setting. Information on obtaining copies of these guidelines can be obtained by telephoning the
organization or accessing their Web site.
American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM)

25 Northwest Point Blvd, Suite 700
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007-1030
Telephone: 847/818-1800, Fax: 847/818-9266
http://www.acoem.org
American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE)

13 Elm St
Manchester, MA 01944-1314
Telephone: 978-526-8330
http://www.asge.org
Multidisciplinary guideline for reprocessing flexible gastrointestinal gastroscopes. Endoscopy.

2003;58:1–8. http://www.asge.org/WorkArea/showcontent.aspx?id=3376. Accessed April 28, 2008.
Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC)

1275 K St NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005-4006
Telephone: 202-789-1890
http://www.apic.org
Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI)

3330 Washington Blvd, Suite 400
Arlington, VA 22201-4598
Telephone: 800-332-2264, ext. 217
http://www.aami.org
Provides standards for dialysis water quality, storage, and distribution and standards for disin-
fection and sterilization in healthcare settings.
Association of periOperative Registered Nurses (AORN)

2170 South Parker Rd, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80231-5711
Telephone: 800-755-2676
http://www.aorn.org
Provides standards for operating rooms and for cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization of
equipment.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

1600 Clifton Rd
Atlanta, GA 30033
http://www.cdc.gov
The Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) and most of the CDC guidelines noted in
this chapter can be downloaded from this Web site.
Immunization Action Coalition

1573 Selby Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55104
(651) 647-9009
http://www.immunize.org and http://www.vaccineinformation.org
CHAPTER 4
Long-Term Care Settings
Outbreaks of infection are common in long-term care facilities, and a

wide variety have been reported . . . Effective implementation of control
programs should limit the occurrence and extent of outbreaks.1
INTRODUCTION
The term long-term care facility (LTCF) encompasses a variety of institu-

tions: nursing homes (NHs), skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), psychiatric hos-
pitals, rehabilitation centers, pediatric chronic care facilities, and facilities for
persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities. In addition to free-
standing LTCFs, many acute care hospitals have affiliated long-term subacute
care units. Conversely, many LTCFs have ventilator and subacute care units.
These specialty care settings are known as long-term acute care because they
provide comprehensive nursing and medical care for an extended period of
time to persons who cannot be managed in a nursing or home health care set-
ting.2 The majority of LTCFs in the United States are nursing homes. Of the
estimated 2.5 million Americans who reside in an LTCF, approximately 1.6
million elderly and disabled residents receive care in nearly 17,000 NHs in the
United States.3 These numbers are expected to increase as the baby-boom gen-
eration ages. An estimated 25–43% of persons who reach the age of 65 years
will likely spend some time in an NH.4,5 Most persons admitted to an NH gen-
erally have a chronic disease or a disability or have reached an advanced age
and require nursing and medical care, and 90% of those who reside in NHs are
over 65 years of age.6
The purpose of this chapter is to review reports of outbreaks that have
occurred in long-term care settings and discuss effective infection prevention
and control measures. These reports were identified by conducting a Medline
search of English-language publications from 1985 through 2007, by review-
ing the table of contents of selected publications, and by reading the refer-
ences listed in relevant articles and infection prevention and control
textbooks. Almost all of the identified outbreaks occurred in NHs. Perhaps this
is because the frail elderly population that resides in NHs is more likely to
develop a nosocomial or healthcare-associated infection (HAI) than the mostly
younger, more mobile residents of other types of LTCFs. Little has been pub-
lished about epidemic infections in pediatric LTCFs, and only a few reports
141
142 OUTBREAK INVESTIGATION, PREVENTION, AND CONTROL IN HEALTH CARE SETTINGS
from pediatric settings are noted.7 The reports of outbreaks in LTCFs high-
light the importance of having a routine surveillance program that can identify
the occurrence of both facility-acquired and community-acquired infections.
Personnel who are responsible for infection prevention and control programs
in long-term care settings should be familiar with the types of outbreaks that
have been reported in LTCFs and should implement prevention and control
measures to prevent similar occurrences in their facility. Although this chap-
ter describes outbreaks that occurred in LTCFs, many of the reported etiologic
agents and disease syndromes, especially gastrointestinal and respiratory ill-
nesses, are associated with endemic and epidemic infections in both the long-
term care and acute care settings. Therefore, practitioners in long-term care
settings should be familiar with outbreaks reported in a variety of healthcare
settings, including those reported in acute care settings.
Several agents that have been found to cause outbreaks in a variety of
healthcare settings are discussed in Chapter 7. These include Mycobacterium
tuberculosis, Sarcoptes scabiei, norovirus, Clostridium difficile, the influenza
viruses, and multidrug-resistant organisms such as methicillin-resistant Staph-
ylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE). There
are many reports of outbreaks of VRE in hospitals, especially in patients in
intensive care units. Although VRE is often found to colonize LTCF residents,
and is responsible for causing sporadic infections in residents, there are few
published reports of VRE outbreaks in an LTCF.8,9
The Suggested Reading and Resources section at the end of this chapter
provides additional information on infectious diseases and infection preven-
tion and control in LTCFs.
ENDEMIC INFECTIONS
Elderly patients in hospitals and LTCFs are particularly susceptible to

infection, and HAIs have long been recognized in this population.6,10,11,13 The
overall nosocomial infection rates reported in LTCFs vary widely because of
differences in definitions used to classify infections, duration of study, data col-
lection methods, format for data presentation (incidence versus prevalence),
population characteristics, and level of nursing intensity (e.g., intermediate
SNFs versus nursing facilities). Reported overall prevalence rates range from
1.6 to 32.7 infections per 100 residents per month,6,10,14 and incidence rates
range from 10.7% to 20.7% or 2.6 to 7.1 infections per 1000 resident-days.6 An
estimated 1.6 million to 3.8 million HAIs per year occur in NH patients in the
United States.15 It is important to remember that “classification of an infection
as nosocomial does not imply that the LTCF caused the infection, that the
infecting organism was acquired in the LTCF, or that it was preventable, but
simply that it occurred in the LTCF.”6(p490)
The most common endemic infections in LTCFs are urinary tract infections
(UTIs), respiratory tract infections (pharyngitis, sinusitis, pneumonia, bron-
chitis, and influenza), skin and soft tissue infections (cellulitis and infected
pressure ulcers), gastroenteritis, and conjunctivitis.6,12,13,16,17
Epidemic Infections 143
Risk Factors for Infection
Factors that place residents at risk for infection include indwelling urinary
catheters (UTI); incontinence (infected pressure ulcers); decreased mental sta-
tus (aspiration pneumonia and pressure ulcers); age-related decline in cell-
mediated immunity (reactivation of latent infections such as tuberculosis or
herpes zoster); decreased cough reflex (aspiration pneumonia); and underlying
diseases such as congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary dis-
ease, and diabetes mellitus.6,13 Invasive devices such as intravascular
catheters, tracheostomy tubes, feeding tubes, and mechanical ventilators,
which are well-recognized risk factors for HAIs, are commonly used in many
LTCFs.1 Other factors that predispose LTCF residents to infection include
poor nutritional status, functional impairment leading to decreased mobility,
epidermal thinning, poor vascular circulation, and decreased gastric acidity. In
addition, the LTCF is the resident’s home and socializing, which increases
direct contact with other residents and healthcare workers, is encouraged.13
EPIDEMIC INFECTIONS
The majority of reported infectious disease outbreaks in LTCFs involve re-

spiratory and gastrointestinal infections.10,11,13,18 Exhibit 4–1 lists the types of
infections and etiologic agents responsible for outbreaks in long-term care
facilities.
Exhibit 4–1 Etiologic Agents of Outbreaks Reported in Long-Term Care Facilities
Respiratory Infections Gastrointestinal Infections

Adenovirus Aeromonas hydrophilia
Bordetella pertussis Bacillus cereus (food poisoning)
Chlamydia pneumoniae Campylobacter jejuni
Group A streptococcus Clostridium botulinum (food poisoning)
Hemophilus influenzae Clostridium difficile
Human metapneumovirus Clostridium perfringens (food poisoning)
Influenza A and B Entamoeba histolytica
Legionella species Escherichia coli O157:H7
Mycobacterium tuberculosis Giardia lamblia
Neisseria meningitidis Norovirus
Parainfluenza virus Rotavirus
Respiratory syncytial virus Salmonella species
Rhinovirus (common cold virus) Shigella species
Streptococcus pneumoniae Staphylococcus aureus (food poisoning)
Skin Infections Conjunctivitis

Group A streptococcus Group A streptococcus
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Adenovirus
Sarcoptes Scabiei
RECOGNIZING AND CONFIRMING AN OUTBREAK IN THE

LONG-TERM CARE SETTING
An outbreak is defined as the occurrence of more cases of a disease or event

than expected during a specified period of time in a given area or among a spe-
cific group of people. A cluster is a group of cases of a disease or health-related
event that are closely related in time and place, although the number of cases
in a cluster may or may not exceed the expected number. Outbreaks and clus-
ters of disease in healthcare facilities may go undetected unless they result in
considerable morbidity or mortality or are caused by an unusual organism. An
active, ongoing surveillance program, as discussed in Chapter 2, is essential to
detect an outbreak or a cluster in an LTCF. Methods that can be used to inves-
tigate, control, and prevent outbreaks are discussed in Chapter 8.
Many health departments and public health agencies have guidelines for
identifying and controlling outbreaks in LTCFs, and these guidelines are fre-
quently posted on the agency’s Web site.19–22 Many of these guidelines have cri-
teria for defining the occurrence of an outbreak in an LTCF: case definitions;
line-listing forms to record cases among residents and personnel; information
on collecting appropriate specimens to confirm a clinical diagnosis; and control
measures that can be used to interrupt an outbreak. For example, the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides the following criteria for
defining a cluster and an outbreak of acute febrile respiratory illness in an
LTCF:18
• Cluster: Three or more cases of acute febrile respiratory illness (AFRI)
occurring within a 48- to 72-hour period in residents who are in close
proximity to each other (e.g., in the same area of the facility)
• Outbreak: A sudden increase of AFRI cases over the normal background
rate or when any resident tests positive for influenza. One case of con-
firmed influenza by any testing method in an LTCF.
Very few LTCFs have on-site laboratories and radiology services and, owing
to the nature of the population, diagnostic testing is not frequently performed.
Many suspected infections are treated empirically, and a definitive diagnosis
may not be made. The imprecision in clinical and laboratory diagnosis inher-
ent in LTCFs makes recognition and confirmation of an outbreak more diffi-
cult than in the acute care setting. In addition, investigations of outbreaks in
facilities with an elderly, debilitated population are complicated by the fact
that many of the residents cannot give a clear history of the development of
symptoms or exposures to risk factors such as food or beverages consumed or
contact with other residents. These facts should be kept in mind when con-
ducting routine surveillance and when investigating a cluster or potential out-
break in an LTCF.
OUTBREAKS OF RESPIRATORY DISEASE
Outbreaks of respiratory disease in the long-term care setting have involved

a variety of viral and bacterial agents including influenza A and B viruses, rhi-
novirus, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), parainfluenza virus, human metap-
Outbreaks of Respiratory Disease 145
neumovirus, adenovirus, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Streptococcus pneumo-

niae, group A streptococcus, Hemophilus influenzae, Bordetella pertussis,
Legionella species, Chlamydia pneumoniae, and Neisseria meningitidis.23–65
The etiologic agent for many cases of respiratory disease in LTCFs is not
definitively diagnosed because bacterial and viral cultures and serologic stud-
ies are not routinely performed. Serologic and culture surveys performed in
LTCFs have demonstrated that viral agents are often responsible for sporadic
cases and epidemics of acute respiratory illness such as cough, nasal conges-
tion, pharyngitis, or wheezing.66–68 Reported outbreaks of pertussis in LTCFs
are rare; however, it is likely that many go undetected because many adult
cases are mild or asymptomatic. Examples of respiratory infectious disease
outbreaks in LTCFs are shown in Table 4–1.
Streptococcus Pneumoniae

Streptococcus pneumoniae (the pneumococcus) is commonly found in the
upper respiratory tract of children and adults worldwide. It can cause a vari-
ety of illnesses: invasive infections such as bacteremia and meningitis, lower
respiratory tract infections such as pneumonia, and upper respiratory tract
infections such as otitis media and sinusitis.69 Children 2 years and younger
and adults 65 years and older are at increased risk for pneumococcal infection.
Persons who have chronic cardiovascular, pulmonary, or liver diseases are also
at risk for developing pneumococcal infection and frequently develop severe
disease and complications.69 S. pneumoniae is the most common bacterial
cause of community-acquired and NH-acquired pneumonia.32,69,70 The organ-
ism is transmitted from person to person by direct oral contact, by droplet
spread, or by contact with articles that have been freshly soiled with respira-
tory secretions.71
There are several reports of outbreaks of pneumococcal disease in
LTCFs.29–35,72 The attack rates among residents in these outbreaks ranged from
7.4% to 23%,29–35,72 and deaths resulting from pneumococcal infection were
reported in a majority of the facilities. In most of the reported outbreaks, less
than 10% of the residents had previously received the pneumococcal vaccine,
and underutilization of the vaccine was considered to be a contributing factor
to the outbreak.31,32,72 In recent years, drug-resistant strains of Streptococcus
pneumoniae have been responsible for both sporadic and epidemic infections
in LTCFs.29,33,35
Control Measures
Immunization of those at greatest risk of infection is the most important
measure used to prevent pneumococcal disease. Identified risk groups include
all persons 65 years of age or older and residents of NHs and other chronic
care facilities.32,69 Although there are few published recommendations for con-
trolling outbreaks of pneumococcal disease in LTCFs, several reports indicate
that prompt immunization of unvaccinated residents resulted in decreased
transmission and termination of the outbreak.30,32,69 Using information
Table 4–1 Outbreaks of respiratory disease reported in long-term care facilities
Major Symptoms of Year Reported/

Agent Disease Reported Comments Reference
Adenovirus Fever, increased 84% of residents in a specialty 200460
type 7 tracheal secretions, hospital of an LTCF were
pneumonia, infected: 30 were confirmed
wheezing, tracheitis, cases of adenovirus infection
chest congestion and 12 were suspected cases;
26 residents were hospitalized
and 7 died; adenoviruses can
cause severe and fatal respira-
tory disease in immunocom-
promised patients.
Influenza A Nasal congestion, 53% attack rate in residents 200625
fever, muscle aches, (74/139) of LTCF with 15%
fatigue, sore throat, case fatality (11/74); 31% attack
headache rate in staff (55/175) with one
staff member hospitalized;
occurred in highly immunized
population (85% residents and
84% staff had been immunized
prior to outbreak).
Influenza A Cough, coryza, sore First cases occurred in five 199923
throat, fever unvaccinated nurses; 11%
attack rate in personnel (34/309)
and 13% attack rate in residents
(25/192) in one building;
2 residents died.
Influenza B Fever, cough, Occurred in 300-bed extended 200124
pneumonia care NH; 28 resident cases
(10% attack rate); 9% attack
rate among immunized residents
(20/220) and 12% among
nonimmunized residents (8/66);
3 residents died; 43% staff
not immunized; many staff
members had influenza-like
illness.
Streptococcus Pneumonia, Nine cases in 108 NH residents; 200331
pneumoniae bacteremia all cases occurred in elderly
residents who had not received
pneumococcal vaccine; only
49% of residents had received
pneumococcal vaccine at time
of first case.

Streptococcus Pneumonia, Between December 27, 200535
pneumoniae— bacteremia 1995, and January 30, 1996,
multidrug- five cases of MDR pneumo-
resistant coccal disease occurred in an
(MDR) 80-bed AIDS care unit of LTCF;
nasopharyngeal cultures col-
lected in March from 6 of 65
residents were positive for MDR
pneumococcus; none of 70 staff
cultured were positive; two case
patients died; MDR pneumo-
coccus continued to circulate in
the unit through December 1999.
Mycobacterium Persistent cough Source was highly infectious 198127
tuberculosis NH resident; 30% (49/161) of
tuberculin-negative residents
became infected and eight
developed tuberculosis; 15%
(21/138) of tuberculin-negative
employees became infected
and one developed clinical
tuberculosis.
Mycobacterium NH outbreak detected by tuber- 200226
tuberculosis culin skin testing (TST) program
when TST conversions occurred
in residents and personnel; began
in one NH and spread to second
NH, a local hospital, and com-
munity; a nurse exposed in hos-
pital to source case developed
tuberculous cervical abscess and
one employee in NH developed
pulmonary TB.
Group A Sepsis, pneumonia, Eight cases in LTCF residents 200537
streptococcus cellulitis (six died); screening found
(GAS)—invasive 11/112 residents (10%) and 8/95
staff (9%) culture-positive for
GAS; risk factors for infection and
carriage were skin treatment and
having roommate that was case
or carrier.
Continues

Group A Pharyngitis Occurred in LTCF for develop- 200636
streptococcus— mentally disabled; 57 of 251
noninvasive residents affected (42 confirmed,
15 probable); 10 confirmed
cases in staff.
Respiratory Rhinorrhea, cough, Outbreaks of RSV in NH 199046
syncytial virus fever, pneumonia, residents can result in 200359
(RSV) malaise, anorexia considerable morbidity and
mortality.
Bordetella Prolonged cough NH outbreak occurred during 199149
pertussis a community outbreak;
38 residents were seropositive
(nine ill, 29 asymptomatic) and
seven employees were
seropositive (five ill, two
asymptomatic).
Rhinovirus Upper and lower 56 residents and 26 staff of an 200543
respiratory illnesses LTCF developed respiratory
illness; rhinovirus produced
severe illness in some residents;
15 residents developed pneu-
monia, and 12 residents died.
Parainfluenza Cough, fever, Respiratory illness outbreak 200055
virus pneumonia affected 25 of 49 residents in a
skilled nursing facility; resulted
in considerable morbidity and
mortality; three residents
hospitalized and four died.
Neisseria Fever, bacteremia, First published report of an 199858
meningitidis meningitis LTCF as the setting for a
meningococcal outbreak; index
case was a nurse with respiratory
illness and meningitis; two
patients developed meningo-
coccemia (one died) and a
nursing assistant developed
meningitis.

Legionella Pneumonia Four residents of an LTCF 200752
pneumophila developed Legionnaires’
disease; no Legionella was
isolated from multiple water
samples collected throughout
the LTCF; three additional cases
were detected in community
residents; outbreak strain was
isolated from cooling tower
approximately 0.4 km from the
LTCF; LTCF outbreak occurred
as part of wider community
outbreak associated with
industrial cooling tower.
Chlamydia Cough, wheezing, Respiratory illness with 200657
pneumoniae sore throat, significant morbidity occurred
hoarseness, in 53% (31/59) residents and
rhinorrhea, nasal 22% (9/41) staff in a NH for
obstruction, bronchitis, elderly patients; one resident
pneumonia case died.
Human Cough, pneumonia 26 residents and 13 staff of an 200765
metapneumo- LTCF developed acute
virus respiratory illness; eight
residents (31%) developed
pneumonia and two residents
(5%) were hospitalized.
NH = nursing home; LTCF = long-term care facility
published by the CDC on preventing pneumococcal disease, and measures

reported to be effective in controlling the reported outbreaks, the following
measures are recommended to prevent and control the transmission of S.
pneumoniae in LTCFs18,20,72–74:
• Develop and implement a protocol for assessing vaccination status and
for immunizing residents, if needed, at the time of admission.73
• Document administration of pneumococcal vaccine in the resident’s med-
ical record. This will aid in the rapid assessment of susceptible residents
if an outbreak occurs.
• Conduct routine surveillance for acute upper and lower respiratory tract
illness in residents and employees. Use standardized surveillance criteria
(case definitions) for disease.
• Whenever possible, encourage ill residents to cover their mouth and nose
when coughing or sneezing and to wash their hands after coughing or
sneezing.
• When possible, restrict employees with acute respiratory illness from
direct care of residents (at the very least, instruct these employees to
wash their hands before caring for a resident and to use tissues to cover
their mouth and nose when coughing or sneezing).
• If pneumonia is suspected, or a resident has a febrile respiratory illness,
perform appropriate diagnostic tests, such as chest X-ray and throat or
sputum cultures, to establish the diagnosis and to determine the etiologic
agent.
• Keep an updated, ongoing surveillance log of residents and employees
who meet the case definition for an acute respiratory disease.
• If an outbreak is suspected, develop a line listing of residents with pneu-
mococcal disease.
• Use standard precautions when caring for a resident with pneumococcal
disease.74
Additional information on investigating, preventing, and controlling out-
breaks of pneumococcal pneumonia can be found in Appendix G.22 Appendix G
is available for download at this text’s Web site: http://www.jbpub.com/
catalog/9780763757793/.
Neisseria Meningitidis

Neisseria meningitidis (the meningococcus) is one of the leading causes of
bacterial meningitis in the United States.75,76 Most cases of meningococcal dis-
ease are sporadic—less than 2% of cases in the United States occur during an
outbreak.75 N. meningitidis colonizes the nasopharynx and is transmitted
from person to person via direct contact with respiratory secretions and
droplets.74,75
Outbreaks of meningococcal disease have long been recognized in communi-
ties and in organizations such as primary and secondary schools, colleges, mil-
itary barracks, and correctional facilities75,76; however, outbreaks in the
healthcare setting are rare. Between July 1994 and June 2002, a total of 76
outbreaks were identified in the United States and nine of those were reported
to occur in NHs.75 A search of the literature uncovered only one additional
published report of an outbreak of meningococcal disease in a healthcare facil-
ity, and that occurred in an SNF in Florida in 1997.58 The index case in that
outbreak was a nurse who was hospitalized with confusion and fever and sus-
pected meningitis after a 2-week illness. Shortly after his hospitalization, a
90-year-old patient in the wing where the nurse was assigned developed
meningococcemia and died and a 56-year-old nursing assistant developed

meningococcal meningitis. The nursing assistant had cared for the 90-year-old
case patient. Ciprofloxacin prophylaxis was administered to all 114 of the
facility’s staff members and all but one of the 104 residents. Shortly thereafter,
the one patient who refused prophylaxis was hospitalized with meningococ-
cemia. At the recommendation of a community physician, the facility provided
antibiotic prophylaxis to approximately 250 visitors and collected nasopharyn-
geal cultures from all available patients postprophylaxis—all cultures were
negative for Neisseria meningitidis. The CDC investigators noted that mass
prophylaxis was justified for the facility’s staff and patients but was not
needed for the 250 casual contacts and that culturing of patients or staff was
an inappropriate response to the outbreak.58
Control Measures
Two measures that can be used to prevent meningococcal disease are
chemoprophylaxis and vaccination. For information on the use of chemopro-
phylaxis and vaccination, the reader is referred to the CDC Advisory Commit-
tee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations on control and
prevention of meningococcal disease.75,76 The primary tool that is used to pre-
vent the development of disease is the identification and chemoprophylaxis of
close contacts of persons with meningococcal disease.
Based on the ACIP recommendations75,76 and the findings from the report of
the nursing home outbreak,58 the following measures are recommended to
identify and control an outbreak of meningococcal disease in a healthcare
facility:
• Conduct routine surveillance to identify persons with meningococcal dis-
ease. Case definitions are given in the ACIP recommendations75 and in
Appendix B. Appendix B is available for download at this text’s Web site:
http://www.jbpub.com /catalog/9780763757793/.
• Identify close contacts of a person with meningococcal disease. Close con-
tacts are defined as persons “directly exposed to the patient’s oral secre-
tions (e.g., through kissing, mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, endotracheal
intubation, or endotracheal tube management).”75(p4)
• Provide chemoprophylaxis as soon as possible to close contacts. The ACIP
guidelines recommend using rifampin, ciprofloxacin, or ceftriaxone for
chemoprophylaxis.75
• Report cases of laboratory-confirmed meningococcal disease to the local or
state health department. In many states meningococcal disease should be
reported immediately by telephone to the health department.
• Use droplet precautions (private room and masks) for persons with known
or suspected meningococcal meningitis, meningococcal pneumonia, or
meningococcemia (meningococcal sepsis) until 24 hours after appropriate
antimicrobial therapy is given.74
• In some outbreaks, postexposure vaccination of the population at risk for
developing meningococcal disease should be considered, as discussed in
the ACIP guidelines.75
• Instruct the laboratory to type (serogroup) the organism and to save the
isolate(s) of N. meningitidis for confirmation of serogrouping and possible
subtyping.75,76
• Do not collect oropharyngeal or nasopharyngeal cultures from residents,
contacts, or personnel because cultures are not needed when investigat-
ing outbreaks or for determining who should receive antimicrobial pro-
phylaxis.75,76
Outbreaks of Respiratory Disease Caused by Other Organisms
Other organisms that have been reported to cause outbreaks of respiratory

disease in LTCFs include RSV,10,47,59 rhinovirus (common cold virus),43–45 Bor-
detella pertussis,48,49,77,78 adenovirus,60–64 Chlamydia pneumoniae,56,57 Mycobac-
terium tuberculosis,26–28 and parainfluenza virus.55 Each of these agents can
affect both residents and personnel and can result in significant morbidity.
Both endemic and epidemic infections caused by these organisms are likely to
go unrecognized because specific diagnostic testing is rarely done.66 Control
measures to prevent transmission of these agents include recognition of illness
in both residents and personnel and consistent use of good hygienic practices
such as hand hygiene and using tissues to cover the mouth and nose when
coughing or sneezing.
Pertussis should be suspected in persons who have a prolonged cough
(regardless of age), especially if pertussis is reported in the community.77,78
Since chemoprophylactic agents are recommended to prevent development
of disease in close contacts of persons with pertussis, early recognition and
contact tracing are important.79 Guidelines for preventing transmission of
Bordetella pertussis and for managing outbreaks of pertussis are discussed in
Chapter 3.
Legionella species have caused outbreaks in the community, hospitals, and
NHs.50–54 In one report, an investigation of a cluster of Legionnaires’ disease
in LTCF residents led to the identification of a community-wide outbreak
whose source was traced to an industrial cooling tower located 0.4 kilometer
from the LTCF. 52 Prevention and control measures for Legionella are dis-
cussed in Chapter 3, and for Mycobacterium tuberculosis they are discussed in
Chapter 7.
OUTBREAKS OF GASTROINTESTINAL DISEASE
Sporadic and epidemic cases of diarrhea occur frequently in LTCFs, and

they can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality.9,18,80,81 Out-
breaks of infectious gastroenteritis in the long-term care setting have been
caused by a variety of bacteria, viruses, and parasites: Salmonella species,
Clostridium difficile, Shigella species, Bacillus cereus, Aeromonas hydrophilia,
Staphylococcus aureus, Campylobacter jejuni, Clostridium perfringens and C.
botulinum, Escherichia coli O157:H7, norovirus, rotavirus, Giardia lamblia,
and Entamoeba histolytica, as noted in Exhibit 4–1.
The organisms that cause epidemic diarrhea in LTCFs can be spread by con-
tact with a contaminated item (such as soiled laundry), by contact with an
Outbreaks of Conjunctivitis 153
infected or colonized person, or by consumption of contaminated food or bever-

ages. Some organisms, such as Salmonella and Giardia lamblia, can be trans-
mitted by both the contact and food-borne routes.
Food-borne outbreaks in NHs and other LTCFs accounted for 2% of all food-
borne outbreaks and 19% of outbreak-related deaths reported to the CDC
from 1975 through 1987.81 From 1998 through 2002, Salmonella and
norovirus were the most commonly reported pathogens responsible for food-
borne outbreaks in LTCFs.82 Outbreaks of gastrointestinal illness in LTCFs
are difficult to investigate because diagnostic tests are infrequently performed
to identify an infectious agent, and those tests that are done are frequently
negative. In addition, many residents in LTCFs are poor historians and are
unable to remember risk factors for infection such as consumption of a partic-
ular food or contact with an infectious resident.
Each LTCF should have an ongoing education program to instruct person-
nel how to properly handle, prepare, and store food, and when, why, and how
to wash their hands and use standard precautions.5 The identification, inves-
tigation, prevention, and control of outbreaks of food-borne and gastrointestinal
disease are discussed in detail in Chapter 7. Many state health department
Web sites have information on detecting, preventing, investigating, and con-
trolling outbreaks of gastrointestinal disease.21,22 The Maryland Department
of Health and Mental Hygiene’s Guidelines for the Epidemiological Investiga-
tion of Gastroenteritis Outbreaks in Long-Term Care Facilities are reprinted
in Appendix H. Appendix H is available for download at this text’s Web site:
http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/9780763757793/.
OUTBREAKS OF CONJUNCTIVITIS
Conjunctivitis is a common nosocomial ailment in NHs, and in recent years

there have been frequent reports of conjunctivitis outbreaks in various long-
term care settings.62,83–89 The reported incidence of endemic episodes of con-
junctivitis varies widely from 0.08 to 3.5 per 1000 patient-days.90
Conjunctivitis may be caused by microbial pathogens, allergies, or other irrita-
tive responses. The etiology of infective conjunctivitis in long-term care resi-
dents has not been well elucidated. Boustcha and Nicolle reported that
Staphylococcus aureus and Branhamella catarrhalis were the most commonly
isolated bacterial pathogens during a prospective study of episodes of conjunc-
tivitis in residents of an LTCF.90 They noted that no bacterial pathogen was
isolated from the majority of cases, and these may possibly have been caused
by viruses or Chlamydia (laboratory tests for these agents were not per-
formed). Brennen and Muder studied the clinical characteristics of 20 episodes
of MRSA-associated conjunctivitis that occurred in 19 patients over a 3-year
period in a 432-bed LTCF.91 These were infections that occurred in a facility in
which MRSA had been endemic for at least 6 years, and nine of the patients
who developed conjunctivitis from which MRSA was isolated had documented
prior colonization of other body sites with MRSA.91
Reported outbreaks of conjunctivitis in LTCFs have been caused by group A
streptococcus, adenovirus, and Hemophilus influenzae.83,85–89 The etiologic
agents that can cause conjunctivitis are spread via direct person-to-person
contact, contact with respiratory secretions, contact with contaminated envi-

ronmental surfaces, and use of contaminated eyedrops.71,74 In several reports,
both endemic and epidemic conjunctivitis appeared to occur most often in
debilitated patients and those with cognitive impairment.84,85,90 In several
reports, residents in NHs developed conjunctivitis in concurrence with a wide-
spread outbreak of group A streptococcal disease.41,86
In reports of outbreaks of conjunctivitis in LTCFs, the most successful mea-
sures shown to interrupt transmission were strict adherence to good hand
hygiene practices by healthcare workers, use of aseptic technique when pro-
viding eye care and touching respiratory secretions, use of a disinfectant that
inactivates adenovirus, recognition of an outbreak, and restricting the move-
ment of infected residents that had cognitive impariment.85,87
Outbreaks of conjunctivitis in LTCFs cause considerable discomfort and
pain, frequently involve both residents and staff, and can result in substantial
disruption and cost.83,88,89 Piednoir et al. reported on the direct costs associated
with an outbreak of adenoviral conjunctivitis on one unit in a 340-bed LTCF
affiliated with a large university hospital.88 In this outbreak, 29 residents
(attack rate 29/57 = 50.8%) and 12 staff members were infected during an
8-week period. Direct costs associated with related medical care, the outbreak
investigation, prevention and control measures, and lost productivity (staff
absenteeism) amounted to approximately US $30,000.88
OUTBREAKS CAUSED BY GROUP A STREPTOCOCCUS
Although group A beta-hemolytic streptococcus (Streptococcus pyogenes)

most commonly causes pharyngitis, it can also cause invasive disease such as
pneumonia, sepsis, cellulitis, wound infection, and toxic shock-like syn-
drome.36,37,39,71,92 Some serotypes of group A streptococci are primarily associ-
ated with pharyngeal and minor skin infections such as impetigo, while others
readily cause invasive diseases such as sepsis and pneumonia.92 The elderly
are particularly prone to developing invasive disease, and mortality rates from
group A streptococcal bacteremia have been reported to be as high as 60% in
this population.93 Person-to-person transmission generally occurs by direct
contact with an infected or colonized person, although food-borne outbreaks of
streptococcal pharyngitis have also occurred.71 Little has been published on
the risk factors for acquisition, mode of transmission, and effective control
measures to prevent transmission of group A streptococci in LTCFs.
Outbreaks of invasive and noninvasive group A streptococcal infections in
LTCFs have been reported.36–41,86,92,93 The reports of these outbreaks identified
several risk factors for nosocomial acquisition and disease: sharing a room
with an infected resident, being bedridden, requiring extensive nursing care,
having contact with a culture-positive nurse or with an infected resident, and
having decubitus ulcers.92,93 Outbreaks of group A strep can involve both resi-
dents and staff.36,40,92 In all of the reported LTCF outbreaks, the organism was
thought to be spread by direct contact with an infected or colonized person or
by cross-infection due to poor infection prevention and control practices, such
as lack of hand hygiene or failure to change gloves between residents. In two
Outbreaks Caused by Group A Streptococcus 155
outbreaks nursing personnel with symptomatic group A streptococcal pharyn-

gitis had direct contact with residents who subsequently became infected, and
these personnel may have been responsible for introducing the organism into
their facilities.40,92
Control Measures
The following measures are recommended to recognize and control out-

breaks of group A streptococcus in an LTCF40,86,93:
• Conduct routine ongoing surveillance for healthcare-associated group A
streptococcal infections so that single cases, clusters, and outbreaks can
be detected and control measures can be promptly implemented.
• Provide timely diagnosis and antimicrobial therapy for persons with
pharyngitis or other streptococcal infections.
• Educate personnel about the importance of reporting pharyngitis in
themselves and in residents.
• Restrict personnel with group A streptococcal infections from resident
care activities until 24 hours after they have received appropriate therapy.94
• Enforce good infection prevention and control practices (hand hygiene
and glove use for wound care), especially when caring for an infected
resident.
• Ensure that personnel use standard precautions when caring for minor
wounds; however, if a resident has a major group A streptococcal wound
infection (i.e., one that cannot be covered or has drainage that cannot be
contained), in addition to standard precautions use contact and droplet
precautions (private room or cohort with another resident with known or
suspected group A streptococcal infection, gloves and mask for direct care,
proper hand hygiene, and a gown for contact with the resident). Contact
and droplet precautions are needed only until 24 hours after appropriate
antimicrobial therapy has been given.74
• Use droplet precautions for group A streptococcal pneumonia and stan-
dard precautions for mild cutaneous and other streptococcal infections.74
• Initiate an outbreak investigation if two nosocomial group A streptococcal
infections occur in a short time period among residents of an LTCF.
• Instruct the laboratory to save group A streptococcal isolates for serotyping
if an outbreak or cluster occurs (i.e., more than two healthcare-associated
cases).
• Obtain assistance in conducting an outbreak investigation from the local
or state health department.
• Consider prophylactic antimicrobials if an outbreak is ongoing or involves
severe infections.93
• Use a case definition and construct a line listing of infected and colonized
persons. Case definitions for streptococcal toxic-shock syndrome and inva-
sive group A streptococcal disease can be found in Appendix B. Appendix
B is available for download at this text’s Web site: http://www.jbpub.com/
catalog/9780763757793/.
SUMMARY
Residents and patients in LTCFs are at risk for developing HAIs (nosoco-
mial). Preventing the transmission of infectious agents in LTCFs presents a
challenge because LTCF residents are frequently ambulatory and may have
profound physical and mental disabilities. Personnel responsible for managing
the infection prevention and control program in an LTCF should establish a
routine infection surveillance program and ensure that evidence-based infec-
tion prevention practices are implemented and used to reduce the risk of
infection in both residents and personnel.5,9,19–22,69,73–76,94,95 An effective surveil-
lance program should be able to detect and quantify the occurrence of infec-
tions so that clusters and outbreaks can be identified and control measures
can be instituted as soon as possible to prevent further transmission. The
infection prevention program should include the participation of personnel,
residents, and visitors of the facility. All should be instructed on proper hand
hygiene, respiratory hygiene and cough etiquette, and other infection preven-
tion measures.95,96 Outbreaks in LTCFs can be avoided if personnel, residents,
and visitors routinely follow basic infection prevention measures.
REFERENCES
1. Nicolle LE. Infection control in long-term care facilities. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;31(3):752–756.
2. Eskildsen MA. Long-term acute care: a review of the literature. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55
(5):775–779.
3. Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA). Medicare Fact Sheet. May 16, 1999.
4. American Medical Association. White paper on elderly health. Arch Intern Med.
1990;150:2459–2472.
5. Kemper P, Murtaugh CM. Lifetime use of nursing home care. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:
595–600.
6. Smith PW, Rusnak PG. Infection prevention and control in the long-term-care facility. Am J
7. Harris J. Infection control in pediatric extended care facilities. Infect Control Hosp Epi-
demiol. 2006;27:598–603.
8. Pacio GA, Visintainer P, Maguire G, Wormser GP, Raffalli J, Montecalvo MA. Natural history
of colonization with vancomycin-resistant Enterococci, methicillin resistant Staphylococcus
aureus, and resistant gram-negative bacilli among long-term-care facility residents. Infect
9. Armstrong-Evans M, Litt M, McArthur MA, et al. Control of transmission of vancomycin-
resistant Enterococcus faecium in a long-term-care facility. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1999;20:312–317.
10. Nicolle LE, Garibaldi RA. Infection control in long-term-care facilities. Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol. 1995;16:348–353.
11. Loeb M, McGeer A, McArthur M, Peeling RW, Petric M, Simor AE. Surveillance for outbreaks
of respiratory tract infections in nursing homes. CMAJ. 2000;162(8):1133–1137.
12. Bentley DW, Bradley S, High K, Schoenbaum S, Taler G, Yoshikawa TT. Practice guideline for
evaluation of fever and infection in long-term care facilities. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001;49(2):
210–222.
13. Nicolle LE. Preventing infections in non-hospital settings: Long-term care. Emerg Infect Dis.
2001;7:205–207. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no2/nicolle.htm. Accessed October 5, 2008.
References 157
14. Smith PW, Daly PB, Roccaforte JS. Current status of nosocomial infection control in extended
care facilities. Am J Med. 1991;91:3B-281S–3B-285S.
15. Strausbaugh LJ. Infection control in long-term care: news from the front. Am J Infect Con-
trol. 1999;27:1–3.
16. Yoshikawa TT, Norman DC. Approach to fever and infection in the nursing home. J Am Geri-
atr Soc. 1996;44:74–82.
17. Muder RR. Pneumonia in residents of long-term care facilities: epidemiology, etiology, man-
agement, and prevention. Am J Med. 1998;105:319–330.
18. Strausbaugh LJ, Sukumar SR, Joseph CL. Infectious disease outbreaks in nursing homes: an
unappreciated hazard for frail elderly persons. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;36(7):870–876.
19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Infection control measures for preventing and
controlling influenza transmission in long-term care facilities. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/
infectioncontrol/longtermcare.htm. Accessed October 27, 2007.
20. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Public Health Division and Long-Term
Care Homes Branch. A guide to the control of respiratory infection outbreaks in long-term
care homes. Published 2004 http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/pub/pub_menus/
pub_pubhealth.html. Accessed October 27, 2007.
21. California Department of Health Services, Division of Communicable Disease Control,
Resources and Publications. http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/dcdc/disb/disbindex.htm. Accessed
April 24, 2008.
22. Maryland Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, Epidemiology & Disease Control Pro-
gram, Community Health Administration. Guidelines for long term care facilities. http://
www.cha.state.md.us/edcp/html/cd_guide.html. Accessed November 20, 2007.
23. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Update: influenza activity—United States,
1998–99 season. MMWR. 1999;48:177–181.
24. Public Health Agency of Canada. Experience with oseltamivir in the control of a nursing
home influenza B outbreak. Can Commun Dis Rep. 2001;27:37–40. http://www.phac-aspc
.gc.ca/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/01pdf/cdr2705.pdf. Accessed November 20, 2007.
25. Mitchell R, Huynh V, Pak J, et al. Influenza outbreak in an Ontario long-term care home,
January 2005. Can Commun Dis Rep. 2006;32:257–262. http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/
ccdr-rmtc/index.html. Accessed October 5, 2008.
26. Ijaz K, Dillaha JA, Yang Z, Cave MD, Bates JH. Unrecognized tuberculosis in a nursing home
causing death with spread of tuberculosis to the community. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50:1213–
1218.
27. Stead WW. Tuberculosis among elderly persons: an outbreak in a nursing home. Ann Intern
Med. 1981;94:606–610.
28. Brenner C, Muder RR, Muraca PW. Occult endemic tuberculosis in a chronic care facility.
29. McNeeley DF, Lyons J, Conte S. Labowitz A, Layton M. A cluster of drug-resistant Streptococcus
pneumoniae among nursing home patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1998;19:476–477.
30. Sheppard DC, Bartlett KA, Lampiris HW. Streptococcus pneumoniae transmission in chronic-
care facilities: description of an outbreak and review of management strategies. Infect Con-
31. Tan CG, Ostrawski S, Bresnitz EA. A preventable outbreak of pneumococcal pneumonia
among unvaccinated nursing home residents in New Jersey during 2001. Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol. 2003;24:848–852.
32. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outbreaks of pneumococcal pneumonia among
unvaccinated residents in chronic-care facilities—Massachusetts, October 1995, Oklahoma,
February 1996, and Maryland, May-June 1996. MMWR. 1997;46:60–62.
33. McNeeley DF, Lyons J, Conte S. Labowitz A, Layton M. A cluster of drug-resistant Streptococcus
pneumoniae among nursing home patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1998;19:476–477.
34. Gleich S, Morad Y, Echague R, et al. Streptococcus pneumoniae serotype 4 outbreak in a home
for the aged: report and review of recent outbreaks. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2000;
21(11):711–717.
35. Carter RJ, Sorenson G, Heffernan R, et al. Failure to control an outbreak of multidrug-resis-
tant Streptococcus pneumoniae in a long-term-care facility: emergence and ongoing transmis-
sion of a fluoroquinolone-resistant strain. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2005;26:248–255.
36. Dworkin MS, Park L, Barringer J, Curtis R. An outbreak of noninvasive group A streptococ-
cal disease in a facility for the developmentally disabled. Am J Infect Control. 2006;34:296–
300.
37. Greene CM, Van Beneden CA, Javadi M, et al. Cluster of deaths from group A streptococcus
in a long-term care facility—Georgia, 2001. Am J Infect Control. 2005;33(2):108–113.
38. Smith A, Li A, Tolomeo O, Tyrrell GJ, Jamieson F, Fisman D. Mass antibiotic treatment for
group A streptococcus outbreaks in two long-term care facilities. Emerg Infect Dis. 2003;
9(10):1260–1265.
39. Arnold KE, Schweitzer JL, Wallace B, et al. Tightly clustered outbreak of group A streptococ-
cal disease at a long-term care facility. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006;27(12):1377–1384.
40. Harkness GA, Bentley DW, Mottley M, Lee J. Streptococcus pyogenes outbreak in a long-term
care facility. Am J Infect Control. 1992;20:142–148.
41. McNutt LA, Casiano-Colon AE, Coles FB, et al. Two outbreaks of primarily noninvasive
group A streptococcal disease in the same nursing home, New York, 1991. Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol. 1992;13:748–751.
42. Nazir J, Urban C, Mariano N, et al. Quinolone-resistant Haemophilus influenzae in a long-
term care facility: clinical and molecular epidemiology. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38(11):1564–
1569.
43. Louie JK, Yagi S, Nelson FA, et al. Rhinovirus outbreak in a long-term care facility for elderly
persons associated with unusually high mortality. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;41(2):262–265.
44. Wald TG, Shult P, Krause P, Miller BA, Drinka P, Gravenstein S. A rhinovirus outbreak
among residents of a long-term care facility. Ann Intern Med. 1995;123:588–593.
45. Hicks LA, Shepard CW, Britz PH, et al. Two outbreaks of severe respiratory disease in nurs-
ing homes associated with rhinovirus. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(2):284–289.
46. Osterweil D, Norman D. An outbreak of influenza-like illness in a nursing home. J Am Geri-
atr Soc. 1990;38:659–662.
47. Sorvillo FJ, Huie SF, Strassburg M, Butsumyo A, Shandera WX, Fannin SL. An outbreak of
respiratory syncytial virus pneumonia in a nursing home for the elderly. J Infect. 1984;9:252–
259.
48. Ferson MJ, Morgan K, Robertson PW, Hampson AW, Carter I, Rawlinson WD. Concurrent
summer influenza and pertussis outbreaks in a nursing home in Sydney, Australia. Infect
49. Addiss DG, Davis JP, Meade BD. A pertussis outbreak in a Wisconsin nursing home. J Infect
Dis. 1991;164:704–710.
50. Loeb M, Simor AE, Mandell L, et al. Two nursing home outbreaks of respiratory infection
with Legionella sainthelensi. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1999;47:547–552.
51. Stout JE, Brennen C, Muder RR. Legionnaires’ disease in a newly constructed long-term care
facility. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48(12):1589–1592.
52. Phares CR, Russell E, Thigpen MC, et al. Legionnaires’ disease among residents of a long-
term care facility: the sentinel event in a community outbreak. Am J Infect Control.
2007;35(5):319–323.
53. Gilmour MW, Bernard K, Tracz DM, et al. Molecular typing of a Legionella pneumophila out-
break in Ontario, Canada. J Med Microbiol. 2007;56(Pt 3):336–341.
54. Seenivasan MH, Yu VL, Muder RR. Legionnaires’ disease in long-term care facilities:
overview and proposed solutions. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(5):875–880.
55. Todd Faulks J, Drinka PJ, Shult P. A serious outbreak of parainfluenza type 3 on a nursing
unit. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48(10):1216–1218.
56. Troy CJ, Peeling RW, Ellis AG, et al. Chlamydia pneumoniae as a new source of infectious
outbreaks in nursing homes. JAMA. 1997;277:1214–1218. [Published erratum appears in
JAMA 1997;278:118].
References 159
57. Nakashima K, Tanaka T, Kramer MH, et al. Outbreak of Chlamydia pneumoniae infection in
a Japanese nursing home, 1999–2000. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006;27(11):1171–
1177.
58. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outbreaks of group B meningococcal disease—
Florida, 1995 and 1997. MMWR. 1998;47:883–837.
59. Ellis SE, Coffey CS, Mitchel EF Jr, Dittus RS, Griffin MR. Influenza and respiratory syncytial
virus-associated morbidity and mortality in the nursing home population. Am Geriatr Soc.
2003;51(6):761–767.
60. Calder JAM, Erdman DD, Ackelsberg J, et al. Adenovirus type 7 genomic-type variant, New
York City, 1999. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004;10:149–152. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol10no1/
02-0605.htm. Accessed November 20, 2007.
61. Uemura T, Kawashitam T, Ostuka Y, Tanaka Y, Kusubae R, Yoshinaga M. A recent outbreak
of adenovirus type 7 infection in a chronic inpatient facility for the severely handicapped.
62. James L, Vernon MO, Jones RC, et al. Outbreak of human adenovirus type 3 infection in a
pediatric long-term care facility Illinois, 2005. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45(4):416–420.
63. Sanchez MP, Erdman DD, Torok TJ, Freeman CJ, Matyas BT. Outbreak of adenovirus 35
pneumonia among adult residents and staff of a chronic care psychiatric facility. J Infect Dis.
1997;176(3):760–763.
64. Gerber S, Erdman DD, Pur PS, et al. Outbreak of adenovirus genome type 7d2 infection in a
pediatric chronic-care facility and tertiary-care hospital. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;32:694–700.
65. Louie JK, Schnurr DP, Chao-Yang Pan, et al. A summer outbreak of human metapneu-
movirus infection in a long-term care facility. J Infect Dis. 2007;196(5):705–708.
66. Falsey AR, Treanor JJ, Betts RF, Walsh EE. Viral respiratory infections in the institutional-
ized elderly: clinical and epidemiologic findings. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1992;40:115–119.
67. Falsey AR. Noninfluenza respiratory virus infection in long-term care facilities. Infect Control
68. Drinka PJ, Gravenstein S, Langer E, Krause P, Shult P. Mortality following isolation of vari-
ous respiratory viruses in nursing home residents. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20:
812–815.
69. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevention of pneumococcal disease: recommen-
dations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR. 1997;46(RR-
8):1–24. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047135.htm. Accessed November
20, 2007.
70. Marrie TJ, Slater KL. Nursing home-acquired pneumonia. Treatment options. Drugs Aging.
1996;8:338–348.
71. Heymann, David L. Control of Communicable Diseases Manual. 18th ed. Washington, DC:
American Public Health Association; 2004.
72. Quick RE, Hoge CW, Hamilton DJ, Whitney CJ, Borge M, Kobayaski JM. Underutilization of
penumococcal vaccine in nursing homes in Washington state: report of a serotype-specific
outbreak and a survey. Am J Med. 1993;94:149–152.
73. CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guidelines for pre-
venting health-care-associated pneumonia, 2003. MMWR. 2004;53(RR03):1-36. http://www
.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/index.html. Accessed November 20, 2007.
tices Advisory Committee. 2007 guideline for isolation precautions: preventing transmission
of infectious agents in healthcare settings. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/index.html.
Accessed November 20, 2007.
75. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevention and control of meningococcal dis-
ease: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
MMWR. 2005;54(RR-7):1–21. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5407a1.htm.
76. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Control and prevention of meningococcal disease
and control and prevention of serogroup C meningococcal disease: evaluation and management
of suspected outbreaks: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Prac-

tices (ACIP). MMWR. 1997;46(No. RR-5):13–21. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/ind97_rr
.html. Accessed November 20, 2007.
77. Edwards KM, Talbot TR. The challenges of pertussis outbreaks in healthcare facilities: is
there a light at the end of the tunnel? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006;27:537–540.
78. Weber DJ, Rutala WA. Pertussis: an underappreciated risk for nosocomial outbreaks. Infect
79. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommended antimicrobial agents for the
treatment and postexposure prophylaxis of pertussis: 2005 CDC guidelines. MMWR.
2005;54(No. RR-14):1–16.
80. Bennett RG. Diarrhea among residents of long-term care facilities. Infect Control Hosp Epi-
demiol. 1993;14:397–404.
81. Levine WC, Smart JF, Archer DL, Bean NH, Tauxe RV. Foodborne disease outbreaks in nurs-
ing homes, 1975 through 1987. JAMA. 1991;266:2105–2109.
82. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Surveillance for foodborne disease outbreaks,
United States, 1998–2002. Surveillance Summaries. MMWR. 2006;55(No. SS-10):1–42.
83. Dominguez-Berjon MF, Hernando-Briongos P, Miguel-Arroyo PJ, Echevarria JE, Casas I.
Adenovirus transmission in a nursing home: analysis of an epidemic outbreak of keratocon-
junctivitis. Gerontology. 2007;53(5):250–254.
84. Garibaldi RA, Brodine S, Matsumiya S. Infections among patients in nursing homes—policies,
prevalence, and problems. N Engl J Med. 1981;305:731–735.
85. Buffington J, Chapman LE, Stobierski MG, et al. Epidemic keratoconjunctivitis in a chronic
care facility: risk factors and measures for control. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1993;41(11):1177–1181.
86. Ruben FL, Norden CW, Heisler B, Korica Y. An outbreak of Streptococcus pyogenes infections
in a nursing home. Ann Intern Med. 1984;101:494–496.
87. Van Dort M, Walden C, Walker ES, Reynolds SA, Levy F, Sarubbi FA. An outbreak of infec-
tions caused by non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae in an extended care facility. J Hosp
Infect. 2007;66(1):59–64.
88. Piednoir E, Bureau-Chalot F, Merle C, Gotzamanis A, Wuibout J, Bajolet O. Direct costs asso-
ciated with a nosocomial outbreak of adenoviral conjunctivitis infection in a long-term care
institution. Am J Infect Control. 2002;30(7):407–410.
89. Sendra-Gutierrez JM, Martin-Rios D, Casas I, Saez P, Tovar A, Moreno C. An outbreak of
adenovirus type 8 keratoconjunctivitis in a nursing home in Madrid. Euro Surveill. 2004;9(3):27–
30. http://www.eurosurveillance.org/em/v09n03/0903-225.asp. Accessed November 20, 2007.
90. Boustcha E, Nicolle LE. Conjunctivitis in a long-term care facility. Infect Control Hosp Epi-
demiol. 1995;16:210–216.
91. Brennen C, Muder RR. Conjunctivitis associated with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus in a long-term care facility. Am J Med. 1990;88:5-14N-5-17N.
92. Schwartz B, Ussery XT. Group A streptococcal outbreaks in nursing homes. Infect Control
Hosp Epidmiol. 1992;13:742–747.
93. Auerbach SB, Schwartz B, Williams D, et al. Outbreak of invasive group A streptococcal infec-
tions in a nursing home: lessons on prevention and control. Arch Intern Med. 1992;152:
1017–1022.
94. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guideline for infection control in health care
personnel, 1998. Am J Infect Control. 1998;26:289-354. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/
index.html. Accessed November 20, 2007.
tings: recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee
and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. MMWR. 2002;51(No. RR-16):
1–45. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/index.html. Accessed November 20, 2007.
96. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Respiratory hygiene/cough etiquette in health
care facilities. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/infectioncontrol/resphygiene.htm. Accessed
November 20, 2007.

California Department of Health Services, Division of Communicable Disease Control, Resources
and Publications. http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/dcdc/disb/disbindex.htm. Accessed April 24, 2008.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable
Diseases. The Pink Book. Atkinson W, Hamborsky J, McIntyre L, Wolfe S, eds. 10th ed. Wash-
ington DC: Public Health Foundation; 2007. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/index.html.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion. Infection
control in healthcare settings resources. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/index.html. Accessed
November 20, 2007.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Respiratory hygiene/cough etiquette in health care
facilities. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/infectioncontrol/resphygiene.htm. Accessed
November 20, 2007
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Protocols for prevention, treatment and
management of infectious diseases for Colorado long term care and rehabilitation facilities.
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hf/protocols.htm. Accessed November 20, 2007.
Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Epidemiology and Disease Control
Programs. Guidelines for long-term care facilities. http://www.edcp.org/html/cd_guide.html.
Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Public Health Division and Long-Term Care
Homes Branch. A guide to the control of respiratory infection outbreaks in long-term care
homes, 2004. http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/pub/pub_menus/pub_pubhealth
.html. Accessed November 20, 2007.
Smith PW, ed. Infection Control in Long-Term Care Facilities. 2nd ed. Albany, NY: Delmar Pub-
lishers; 1994.
Strausbaugh LJ. Emerging health care-associated infections in the geriatric population. Emerg
Infect Dis. 2001;7(2):268–271. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no2/strausbaugh.htm.
Strasbaugh LF, Joseph C. Epidemiology and prevention of infections in long-term care facilities.
In: Mayhall G, ed. Hospital epidemiology. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1996.
Smith PW, Rusnak PG. Infection prevention and control in the long-term care facility. Am J Infect
Control. 1997;25:488–512.
CHAPTER 5
Ambulatory Care Settings
Infection control staff must develop programs that address the special
needs of the ambulatory care setting, because this is where most medical
care will be given in the 21st century.1(p42)
INTRODUCTION
Despite the general belief that the risk of transmission of infectious dis-
eases and other illnesses in the ambulatory healthcare setting is low, numer-
ous outbreaks caused by a variety of bacterial, fungal, viral, and chemical
agents have been reported in outpatient settings.1,2 Many therapeutic, diag-
nostic, and surgical procedures formerly performed in the inpatient hospital
setting are now routinely done in freestanding or hospital-sponsored outpa-
tient facilities such as same-day or ambulatory surgery centers. As more
healthcare services move from inpatient to outpatient facilities, the potential
for healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and other adverse events in the
ambulatory care setting increases.
This chapter reviews outbreaks that have been reported in ambulatory care
settings. One can use the findings of these outbreak investigations to identify
risk factors that may be contributing to a similar outbreak and to identify pre-
vention and control measures. For the purposes of this chapter, the ambula-
tory care setting is defined as one in which a patient does not remain
overnight for healthcare services. Examples include physicians’ offices, ambu-
latory surgery centers, dental offices, hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis cen-
ters, chemotherapy facilities, outpatient clinics, and procedure suites (e.g.,
gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy).
Little is known about the incidence of HAIs in the ambulatory care setting
because infection surveillance is not performed as often in outpatient settings
as it is in the acute care setting, and the populations at risk (i.e., the denomi-
nator numbers needed to calculate rates) are frequently difficult to define.
Unlike the routine surveillance methods used to detect HAIs in hospitalized
patients, no standardized surveillance methodology has yet been developed for
the ambulatory care setting. Therefore, it is likely that many HAIs and other
adverse events in these settings go undetected unless they affect large num-
bers of patients or cause significant morbidity. The risk of disease transmis-
sion in the outpatient setting varies according to the services provided and the
populations served. For instance, the risk of transmission of infectious agents
in an internal medicine practice that does not perform invasive procedures is
163
164 OUTBREAKS REPORTED IN AMBULATORY CARE SETTINGS
lower than the risk of infection in a hemodialysis center, where the transmis-
sion of blood-borne pathogens has been well defined. Table 5–1 contains exam-
ples of outbreaks that have been reported in a variety of ambulatory care
settings.3–23
Table 5–1 Examples of Outbreaks Reported in Ambulatory Care Settings
Year
Reported/
Outbreak Setting Associated With Reference
Burkholderia cepacia Hematology Probable contamination of multi- 2007 3
bloodstream infections oncology clinic dose medication vials due to lack
of aseptic technique, including
use of common needle and
syringe to access multiple
multidose vials
Pseudomonas Urology clinic Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)- 2005 4
aeruginosa infections guided prostate biopsy with TRUS
following prostate equipment that had not been
biopsies adequately cleaned or properly
sterilized; biopsy needle guide was
soaked in high-level disinfectant
and should have been sterilized;
tap water rinse was used after
disinfection
Skin reactions Outpatient Unsafe injection practices by 2005 5
following mesotherapy treatment in unlicensed practitioner; non-FDA-
injections private home approved products
M. tuberculosis infection Renal dialysis Healthcare worker (HCW) with 20046
in personnel and center tuberculosis (TB); HCW had
patients in renal previous positive tuberculin skin
dialysis center test but never received treatment
for TB infection.
Patient fatalities from Hemodialysis Phytoplankton from the dialysis 20017
Cyanobacteria toxins clinic clinic’s water source
Pseudo-outbreak of Outpatient Reuse of single-use plastic 2000 8
Aureobasidium sp. bronchoscopy stopcocks between patients
lower respiratory tract suite undergoing bronchoalveolar lavage
infections
Sterile peritonitis Dialysis center Peritoneal dialysis solution from a 1998 9
among patients at a university single manufacturer; solution
undergoing continuous hospital potentially contained an endotoxin;
cycling peritoneal implicated lots were recalled
dialysis
Introduction 165
Year
Reported/
Outbreak Setting Associated With Reference
Epidemic Eye care clinic Lack of handwashing by person- 1998 10
keratoconjunctivitis nel; inadequate decontamination
(EKC) of diagnostic lenses
Acremonium kiliense Ambulatory Air contaminated by A. kiliense in 1996 11
endophthalmitis surgery center ventilation system humidifier water
Pseudomonas putida Pulmonary clinic Bronchoscope contaminated by 1996 12
pseudo-pneumonia improper maintenance of
automated bronchoscope washer
Pseudomonas Urodynamic Improper reuse and disinfection 1996 13
aeruginosa urinary suite of single-use urodynamic testing
tract infections equipment
Pseudomonas Oncology clinic Contaminated 500 ml bag of 5% 1993 14
(currently Burkholderia) dextrose solution used to prepare
cepacia bacteremia heparin flush solution over a
2-week period
Patient-to-patient Private surgeon’s Unknown 1993 15
transmission of HIV office
Adenovirus type 8 EKC Outpatient eye Inadequate handwashing by 1993 16
clinic personnel; inadequate disinfection
of instruments
Legionella pneumophila Outpatient clinic Contaminated air conditioning unit 1990 17
pneumonia
MDR-TB in healthcare Outpatient HIV Human immunodeficiency virus 1989 18
workers and HIV clinic and (HIV)-infected patients with
infected patients hospital MDR-TB
Septic arthritis caused Physician’s Injection site and multidose vials 1987 19
by Serratia marcescens office cleansed with cotton balls soaked
in contaminated benzalkonium
chloride antiseptic
Hepatitis B Weight reduction Jet injector gun—nozzle tip 1986 20
clinic contaminated with blood was
difficult to disinfect
Hepatitis B Dentist’s office Dentist was asymptomatic carrier 1986 21
of hepatitis B
Group A beta Pediatrician’s Contamination of multidose vial 1985 22
hemolytic streptococcus office of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis
abscesses vaccine
Measles Pediatrician’s 12-year-old boy with cough and 1985 23
office rash was in office for 1 hour
FDA = Food and Drug Administration; MDR-TB = Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis

PHYSICIANS’ OFFICES AND OUTPATIENT CLINICS
In a literature review, Goodman and Solomon characterized 23 reports of

case clusters and outbreaks that occurred in general medical offices, clinics,
and emergency departments from 1961 through 1990.2
• Thirteen episodes involved common source transmission in which the
agent was transmitted by a contaminated medical device (e.g., Salmo-
nella via an endoscope and hepatitis B via acupuncture needles) or by
contaminated fluids (e.g., disinfectants, benzalkonium chloride antiseptic,
multidose medication vials, and multidose vials of influenza or diphtheria-
tetanus-pertussis vaccines); in 10 of these outbreaks the mode of trans-
mission was via injection and the causative agents were Mycobacterium
chelonae, group A beta-hemolytic streptococci, Pseudomonas (now Burk-
holderia) cepacia, Serratia marcescens, Mycobacterium abscessus, or
Mycobacterium fortuitum.19,20,24–34
• Nine episodes involved organisms transmitted via the airborne or droplet
route (Mycobacterium tuberculosis, measles, Epstein-Barr virus, and
rubella).18,23,35–41
• One report documented person-to-person (staff-to-patient) transmission
of epidemic keratoconjunctivitis caused by adenovirus type 8 in an emer-
gency department.42
Outbreaks Associated with Products and Devices

(Common Source Outbreaks)
Many common source outbreaks in outpatient clinics and private physi-

cians’ offices have been associated with the use of intrinsically or extrinsically
contaminated fluids.43–48 Intrinsic contamination (i.e., contamination of the
product before it reaches the consumer) is rarely reported; however, extrinsic
contamination (i.e., that which occurs during use or preparation of a product)
is documented often. Many users are not aware that antiseptic and disinfec-
tant solutions may be intrinsically contaminated or may become extrinsically
contaminated during use.
Intrinsically Contaminated Products

Intrinsic contamination of povidone-iodine solutions has caused outbreaks
and pseudo-outbreaks in healthcare settings.45–47 The first report of intrinsic
contamination of povidone-iodine was in 1981, when Pseudomonas cepacia
pseudobacteremias in four New York City hospitals were associated with use
of a povidone-iodine solution from a single manufacturer.45
Other fluids that are sold as sterile have also been found to be intrinsically con-
taminated. In 1998, 10 children who received outpatient therapy at a
hospital-based hematology/oncology service developed sepsis caused by Enterobac-
ter cloacae.43 The source of the outbreak was traced to intrinsically contaminated
prefilled saline syringes, and the manufacturer initiated a recall of the product.
These incidents illustrate the importance of promptly recognizing clusters
and outbreaks of infection and other adverse events and the possibility that
Physicians’ Offices and Outpatient Clinics 167
they are related to the use of a product. Infections or pseudo-infections be-

lieved to be due to intrinsic (not extrinsic or in-use) contamination of a product
should be reported immediately to the healthcare organization’s pharmacy,
the manufacturer, and MedWatch, the US Food and Drug Administration’s
(FDA) Adverse Event Reporting Program. Reports can be submitted to the
FDA by telephone at 1-800-FDA-1088 or by completing a form on the FDA’s
Web site at http://www.fda.gov/medwatch.
Extrinsically Contaminated Products

Extrinsically contaminated fluids that have been associated with outbreaks
in the ambulatory care setting include vaccines,22 benzalkonium chloride anti-
septic,19 5% dextrose intravenous fluid,14 and gentian violet skin-marking
solution.44 Benzalkonium chloride antiseptic has been responsible for many
outbreaks and is not recommended for use in the healthcare setting because of
the ease with which it may become contaminated during use.19,48–51 One out-
break related to use of benzalkonium chloride involved 10 patients who devel-
oped Serratia marcescens joint infections after being treated by two orthopedic
surgeons who shared an office.19 All of the patients had received injections of
methylprednisolone and lidocaine in the office. The reservoir of the organism
was determined to be a canister of cotton balls soaking in benzalkonium chlo-
ride. Two previously used vials of methylprednisolone were also culture-
positive for S. marcescens. The outbreak terminated when the physicians’
office discontinued the use of the benzalkonium chloride solution. Facilities using
this antiseptic should find an alternative product.
An outbreak of Mycobacterium chelonae postoperative surgical site infec-
tions (SSI) occurred in eight patients who had cosmetic plastic surgery in a
dermatologist’s office. The source of the organism was traced to a contaminated
gentian violet solution used to demarcate the incision site.44 The investigators
concluded that only sterile skin-marking agents should be used in surgical
procedures.
Contaminated Devices
Contaminated medical devices that have been associated with outbreaks in
outpatient care settings include jet gun injectors,20,34 bronchoscopes,12 and uro-
dynamic testing equipment.13 There are several reports of outbreaks associated
with the use of jet gun injectors. Thirty-one cases of hepatitis B occurred over a
23-month period in a weight reduction clinic where attendees received par-
enteral human chorionic gonadotrophin given by jet injection.20 One factor that
contributed to this outbreak was the design of the jet gun nozzle tip, which
made it difficult to clean and disinfect once it became contaminated with blood.
Another outbreak associated with a jet gun injector occurred in a podiatry
practice where eight patients developed Mycobacterium chelonae foot infections
after injection with lidocaine.34 The source of the organism was a distilled
water/quaternary ammonium disinfectant solution in which the jet injector
was soaked between procedures. These two outbreaks emphasize the need to
clean jet gun injectors carefully and to disinfect them appropriately with a
high-level disinfectant and according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
Control Measures for Preventing Product- and Device-Related Outbreaks

The following measures should be used to prevent the transmission of infec-
tion by contaminated products and devices:
• Personnel handling sterile fluids and medications must be instructed in
and adhere to proper aseptic technique to prevent extrinsic (in-use) con-
tamination of solutions.
• To prevent transmission of infectious agents by medical devices, reusable
equipment must be cleaned thoroughly according to the manufacturer’s
directions to remove dirt and organic debris before disinfection or steril-
ization.
• Semicritical items that come in contact with mucous membranes or non-
intact skin must be free of microbial contamination. If reusable, these
items must be either sterilized or disinfected with a high-level disinfec-
tant.49 Examples of semicritical devices are bronchoscopes, gastrointesti-
nal endoscopes, vaginal specula, and cervical diaphragm fitting rings. More
information on disinfection and sterilization of medical devices can be
found in the Resources section at the end of this chapter.
• An appropriate disinfectant should be chosen based on the composition
and the use of the item being disinfected, and the disinfectant manufac-
turer’s instructions for use should be followed.49,52,53
• Devices that enter tissues or the vascular system, such as surgical instru-
ments, cardiac catheters, urinary catheters, and implants and needles,
must be sterile. If these devices are reusable, they must be mechanically
cleaned and then sterilized after each use and wrapped and stored prop-
erly so they are not contaminated by dirt or microorganisms.53,54
• Personnel should be instructed to read the labels on cleansers, antisep-
tics, and disinfectants and to carefully follow the directions. Care must be
taken to ensure that these products are appropriately used52,53:
1. Cleansers are solutions that are formulated to remove dirt and debris
and should be used for cleaning soil from an item or surface. They
will not inactivate microorganisms.
2. Antiseptic solutions are formulated to inactivate microorganisms on
skin and tissues. They should not be used as disinfectants to decon-
taminate devices and equipment because they will not be effective at
destroying microbial pathogens present on these surfaces.
3. Disinfectants are formulated to inactivate microorganisms on inani-
mate surfaces.
• Single-use items, especially needles and syringes, should be used only
once and discarded.
• High-level disinfection and sterilization of medical devices and instru-
ments should be done in accordance with standardized published prac-
tices and manufacturers’ instructions.53
• Wherever high-level disinfection or sterilization of medical devices and
instruments is performed there should be a quality assurance program
that ensures compliance with standardized published protocols.
• Benzalkonium chloride solution should not be used as a skin antiseptic in

the healthcare setting because it is easily contaminated and has been
associated with numerous outbreaks.51 An alternative product should be
chosen.
Outbreaks associated with products and devices are also discussed in Chap-
ter 3. Infection prevention and control personnel should be familiar with prod-
ucts and devices that have been associated with outbreaks in all types of
healthcare settings, since many products and devices are used in a variety of
settings.
Outbreaks Associated with Patient-to-Patient Transmission
In addition to common source transmission, pathogens may also be trans-

mitted from patient-to-patient via direct contact or the airborne route.
Transmission via Direct Contact

Patient-to-patient transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has
been documented in a private surgical practice in Australia, although the
mode of transmission was not identified.15 Investigators concluded that a breach
in infection control precautions was responsible for the transmission of HIV
from an infected patient to four other patients who had minor surgery on the
same day.
Hlady et al. reported a large outbreak of hepatitis B virus (HBV) transmit-
ted to approximately 300 patients in a dermatology practice in Florida from
1985 through 1991.55 The outbreak was detected when personnel at a county
health department recognized that eight patients with acute hepatitis B infec-
tion reported between 1985 and 1991 had visited the same dermatologist prior
to onset of their symptoms. An investigation revealed that the dermatologist
routinely operated without gloves, did not wash his hands between patients,
used a common needle that remained in a multidose vial to access medications
(although he did use a separate syringe for each patient), and reused electro-
cautery tips without cleaning them between patients. Because the dermatolo-
gist was not found to be an HBV carrier, the investigators concluded that
transmission occurred from patient-to-patient due to the physician’s failure to
use standard precautions or sterile surgical technique.
Transmission via Unsafe Injection Practices

The global burden of disease attributable to unsafe injection practices in
healthcare settings is great. Contaminated injections caused an estimated
21 million infections due to HBV, 2 million infections due to hepatitis C virus
(HCV), and 260,000 infections due to HIV in 2000.56 Although many of these
HAIs occurred in resource-poor countries where needle reuse is common
owing to economic and supply constraints, outbreaks of blood-borne viruses
and other infectious agents transmitted via injections also occurred in health-
care settings in developed nations.
Outbreaks associated with unsafe injection practices have occurred in a

variety of outpatient healthcare settings, such as pain remediation clinics,
acupuncture practices, physicians’ offices, and hematology oncology clinics.57–61
In one outbreak, a physician notified the New York City Department of Health
of seven patients who had acute HCV infection and had undergone procedures
at the same private physician’s office.60 An investigation led to the identifica-
tion of five more patients with acute HCV infection and a patient with chronic
HCV infection who had been treated prior to the 12 acute cases. The health
department notified over 2000 clinic patients that they had potentially been
exposed to blood-borne pathogens and offered testing for HCV, HBV, and HIV.
Over 1300 patients were screened and an additional seven patients who were
likely infected at the clinic were detected. No clinic-related HBV or HIV infec-
tions were identified. A case-control study revealed that the most likely route
of transmission was via contaminated multidose vials of anesthesia medica-
tion used in the clinic.60
Transmission of blood-borne pathogens by injections can be prevented if
healthcare providers adhere to basic aseptic technique when preparing and
administering parenteral medications, as outlined in Exhibit 5–1. The follow-
ing measures are recommended in addition to those listed in Exhibit 5–161–64:
• Both initial training and continuing education programs on basic aseptic
technique and safe injection practices are provided for patient care per-
sonnel in ambulatory care settings.
• An infection prevention and control program that is tailored to the indi-
vidual practice setting is implemented and includes the following:
• Written protocols for preventing the transmission of infections in
patients and personnel based on recognized standards and the
requirements of accrediting and government agencies
• Oversight of personnel who provide injections and prepare parenteral
medications, including competency training, a system for reporting
breaches in proper technique, and a mechanism for ensuring that
reported breaches in technique are promptly addressed. Breaches
that are reported but not promptly addressed have resulted in continu-
ing transmission of blood-borne pathogens from patient to patient.60
Transmission via the Airborne Route

Measles and tuberculosis are two diseases spread via the airborne route
that have caused outbreaks in ambulatory and acute care settings.
Measles. Measles is highly communicable from person to person via the air-
borne route, and transmission in medical settings has been well docu-
mented.23,36,37,40,41 The virus that causes measles can remain airborne for
prolonged periods. In an outbreak that occurred in a pediatrician’s office, infec-
tion developed in three children who arrived at the office an hour or more after
a child with measles had left.41
Measles is rarely seen in the United States due to a highly immunized pop-
ulation; however, measles is still endemic in many countries. Measles trans-
mission in the United States is usually associated with an imported case. In
Exhibit 5–1 Infection Control and Safe Injection Practices to Prevent Patient-to-Patient
Transmission of Blood-Borne Pathogens
Injection safety
• Use a sterile, single-use, disposable needle and syringe for each injection and discard
intact in an appropriate sharps container after use.
• Use single-dose medication vials, prefilled syringes, and ampules when possible. Do
not administer medications from single-dose vials to multiple patients or combine
leftover contents for later use.
• If multiple-dose vials are used, restrict them to a centralized medication area or for
single patient use. Never reenter a vial with a needle or syringe used on one patient if
that vial will be used to withdraw medication for another patient. Store vials in
accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations and discard if sterility is
compromised.
• Do not use bags or bottles of intravenous solution as a common source of supply for
multiple patients.
• Use aseptic technique to avoid contamination of sterile injection equipment and
medications.
Patient-care equipment
• Handle patient-care equipment that might be contaminated with blood in a way that
prevents skin and mucous membrane exposures, contamination of clothing, and
transfer of microorganisms to other patients and surfaces.
• Evaluate equipment and devices for potential cross-contamination of blood. Establish
procedures for safe handling during and after use, including cleaning and disinfection
or sterilization as indicated.
Work environment
• Dispose of used syringes and needles at the point of use in a sharps container that is
puncture-resistant and leak-proof and that can be sealed before completely full.
• Maintain physical separation between clean and contaminated equipment and
supplies.
• Prepare medications in areas physically separated from those with potential blood
contamination.
• Use barriers to protect surfaces from blood contamination during blood sampling.
• Clean and disinfect blood-contaminated equipment and surfaces in accordance with
recommended guidelines.
Hand hygiene and gloves
• Perform hand hygiene (i.e., hand washing with soap and water or use of an alcohol-
based hand rub) before preparing and administering an injection, before and after
donning gloves for performing blood sampling, after inadvertent blood contamination,
and between patients.
• Wear gloves for procedures that might involve contact with blood and change gloves
between patients.
Source: Modified from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Transmission of hepatitis B and C
viruses in outpatient settings—New York, Oklahoma, and Nebraska, 2000–2002. MMWR. 2003;
52(38):904. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5238a1.htm. Accessed May 11, 2008.
2005, 66 confirmed cases of measles were reported to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) and 34 of these were from a single outbreak in
Indiana associated with an unvaccinated 17 year old returning home to the
United States from Romania.65,66 Measles outbreaks can cause significant
morbidity and disruption in the healthcare, community, and public health set-
tings. In the Indiana outbreak, three persons were hospitalized, including a
healthcare worker who required treatment in the intensive care unit.
Strategies for preventing transmission of measles in physicians’ offices and
other ambulatory healthcare settings include:
• Prompt recognition of patients with measles (measles should be consid-
ered in any patient, whether an adult or a child, who has fever and a
rash)
• Separation of patients with known or suspected measles from other
patients (this may be difficult due to ease of airborne spread and lack of
adequate ventilation in many ambulatory care settings)
• Postexposure prophylaxis of potentially exposed contacts, such as
patients, persons accompanying patients, and medical personnel
• Postexposure immunization of patients and personnel according to
the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization
Practices.67,68
Transmission of measles can be prevented if recommendations for immu-
nization of children, adolescents, and adults are followed. Guidelines for pre-
venting transmission of measles have been published by the CDC69,70 and the
American Academy of Pediatrics.71 Measles outbreaks and prevention and con-
trol measures are discussed in detail in Chapter 3. Because the incidence of
measles in the United States is low,68 one case of measles should be considered
an outbreak and should promptly be reported by telephone to the local health
department so that measures to prevent further spread can be implemented
as soon as possible. Appendix C contains a protocol for controlling an outbreak
of measles in a healthcare facility, including a physician’s office (Appendix C is
available for download at this text’s Web site: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/
9780763757793/).
Tuberculosis. Transmission of tuberculosis (TB) in the ambulatory care set-
ting is well recognized.18,35,72–74 Multiple outbreaks of TB infection and disease,
including multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, occurred in the United States in
the late 1980s and early 1990s. Several of these outbreaks involved patients
and personnel in outpatient settings.18,35,74 There are also reports of TB out-
breaks among emergency room personnel 73,75 and among patients and staff at
an outpatient methadone clinic72 following exposure to patients with pul-
monary TB.
The epidemiology and mode of transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis
and control measures used to prevent the spread of TB are discussed in Chap-
ter 7. Recommendations for preventing the spread of TB in the healthcare set-
ting have been published by the CDC and include the following76:
• Prompt recognition of persons (patients and personnel) that have signs
and symptoms suggestive of pulmonary TB
Dental Settings 173
• Prompt isolation of persons with known or suspected pulmonary TB in a

private room with negative airflow and air exhausted to the outside
• Prompt and appropriate diagnostic workup for persons with signs and
symptoms of pulmonary TB (i.e., medical history and physical, chest radi-
ograph, tuberculin skin testing, and smear and culture of sputum for
acid-fast bacilli)
• Use of respiratory protection by personnel caring for a patient with
known or suspected TB
• Prompt treatment of infected persons with antituberculosis medications
Patients who come to an ambulatory care facility with signs and symptoms
suggestive of pulmonary TB should be instructed to wear a mask and should
be separated from other patients until the diagnosis is confirmed or ruled
out.
DENTAL SETTINGS
Outbreaks in dental settings have long been recognized.1,21,77 Goodman and

Solomon reviewed 13 reports of infectious disease transmission that occurred
in dental practices between 1961 and 1990.2 They noted the following:
• Nine were reports of transmission of HBV from an infected dentist or oral

surgeon to patients.21,77–84
• One involved gingivostomatitis caused by herpes simplex transmitted by
a dental hygienist with herpetic whitlow.85
• One investigated a presumed transmission of HIV from an infected den-
tist to his patients.86
• One involved oral abscesses caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa from a
contaminated dental unit water system.87
• One involved intraoral and pulmonary TB transmitted by a dentist with
infectious pulmonary TB.88
Hepatitis B virus is the most common agent involved in reported outbreaks

in the dental setting. Investigations of these HBV outbreaks found that HBV
was transmitted directly from an infected dentist or oral surgeon to the
patient(s).21,77–84 There was no evidence in these reports of transmission from
patient-to-patient via contaminated instruments or equipment. There have
been no reported cases of dentist-to-patient HBV transmission in the United
States since 1987.89 This is a result of the widespread implementation of stan-
dard precautions in US dental practices and the increasing rates of HBV
immunization in dental personnel and patients. However, in 2007 Redd et al.
reported the first documented case of patient-to-patient transmission of HBV
in a dental setting.89 The investigation began following the report of a 60-year-
old woman who developed acute hepatitis B but had none of the traditional
risk factors. Using molecular epidemiologic techniques, the investigators
determined that HBV transmission occurred between this patient and another
patient with chronic HBV infection who had surgery less than 3 hours earlier
in the same outpatient oral surgery center. The HBV isolates from the two
patients were found to be identical using DNA sequencing. None of the dental
practice staff had HBV infection and no lapse in infection control technique
was found. Although the mode of transmission could not be determined, cross-
contamination via an environmental surface soiled with the blood of the HBV-
infected patient was suspected.
One of the most highly publicized events involving transmission of an infec-
tion from a healthcare provider to a patient was the 1990 report of HIV trans-
mitted to a patient by a dentist with acquired immune deficiency syndrome.90
Further investigation linked the Florida dentist to HIV infection in six of his
patients86,91,92; however, the mode of transmission of HIV was not able to be
determined.

Dental Settings
Control measures for preventing transmission of infectious agents, includ-

ing HIV, HBV, and other bloodborne pathogens, in the dental setting have
been published by the CDC,93,94 the American Dental Association95,96 and the
Organization for Safety and Asepsis Procedures.97 These recommendations
include:
• Development and implementation of a comprehensive, infection preven-
tion and control program that includes personnel health policies and pro-
cedures and is specific for the particular dental setting94
• A mechanism for routinely evaluating the infection prevention and con-
trol program. Examples of methods for evaluating infection control pro-
grams can be found in Table 5–2.94
• Education and training of dental healthcare personnel at initial employ-
ment and periodically thereafter94
• Use of personal protective equipment, gloves, and standard precautions
by personnel93,94,96
• Use of aseptic technique by personnel, including safe injection practices
for parenteral medication94
• Use of appropriate hand hygiene practices64,94,96
• HBV immunization of susceptible dental personnel67,94
• Appropriate cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization of instruments and
equipment including dental handpieces and other devices attached to air
and water lines94(Appendix A) (Appendix A is available for download at this
text’s Web site: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/9780763757793/)
• Use of mechanical, chemical, and biological monitors according to manu-
facturers’ instructions to ensure the sterilization process94
• Decontamination of environmental surfaces using appropriate cleaning
and disinfecting products94(Appendix A)
• Implementation of a program to ensure the quality of dental unit water
and water lines94,96,98
Dental Settings 175
Table 5–2 Examples of Methods for Evaluating Infection Control Programs
Program Element Evaluation Activity

Appropriate immunization of dental Conduct annual review of personnel
healthcare personnel (DHCP) records to ensure up-to-date immunizations.
Assessment of occupational exposures to Report occupational exposures to infectious
infectious agents agents. Document the steps that occurred
around the exposure and plan how such
exposure can be prevented in the future.
Comprehensive postexposure Ensure the postexposure management plan
management plan and medical follow-up is clear, complete, and available at all times
program after occupational exposures to to all DHCP. All staff should understand the
infectious agents plan, which should include toll-free phone
numbers for access to additional information.
Adherence to hand hygiene before and Observe and document circumstances of
after patient care appropriate or inappropriate handwashing.
Review findings in a staff meeting.
Proper use of personal protective Observe and document the use of barrier
equipment to prevent occupational precautions and careful handling of sharps.
exposures to infectious agents Review findings in a staff meeting.
Routine and appropriate sterilization of Monitor paper log of steam cycle and
instruments using a biologic monitoring temperature strip with each sterilization load,
system and examine results of weekly biologic
monitoring. Take appropriate action when
failure of sterilization process is noted.
Evaluation and implementation of safer Conduct an annual review of the exposure
medical devices control plan and consider new developments
in safer medical devices.
Compliance of water in routine dental Monitor dental water quality as
procedures with current drinking US recommended by the equipment
Environmental Protection Agency water manufacturer, using commercial self-
standards (fewer than 500 CFU of contained test kits, or commercial water-
heterotrophic water bacteria) testing laboratories.
Proper handling and disposal of medical Observe the safe disposal of regulated and
waste nonregulated medical waste and take preven-
tive measures if hazardous situations occur.
Healthcare-associated infections Assess the unscheduled return of patients
after procedures and evaluate them for an
infectious process. A trend might require
formal evaluation.
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for Infection Control in Dental Health-
Care Settings, 2003. MMWR. 2003;52(RR-17):37. http://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/infectioncontrol/
guidelines/index.htm. Accessed May 11, 2008.
HEMODIALYSIS AND PERITONEAL DIALYSIS CENTERS
Numerous outbreaks have been reported in hemodialysis and peritoneal

dialysis centers. Many of the infectious disease-related outbreaks have been
caused by the HBV, although HCV, HIV, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and a
variety of bacteria and bacterial endotoxins have also been responsible.99–119
Numerous noninfectious disease outbreaks have been reported,120–127 includ-
ing anaphylactoid reactions associated with improperly processed hemodialyz-
ers,120 hypotension associated with improperly installed filters in a water
treatment system,122 sterile peritonitis resulting from chemical agents used in
peritoneal dialysis and intrinsic endotoxin contamination of peritoneal dialy-
sis solution,9,125 and reactions to toxins in hemodialysis water systems and flu-
ids.7,124 Table 5–3 contains examples of outbreaks reported in dialysis centers.
Table 5–3 Examples of Outbreaks Reported in Dialysis Centers
Year Reported/
Outbreak Comments/Associated With Reference
Tuberculosis Exposure to hemodialysis technician with 20046
pulmonary tuberculosis
Sterile (culture- Use of dialysate containing icodextrin; 2003126
negative) peritonitis such reactions could be due to a substance
following peritoneal contaminating the icodextrin or to
dialysis hypersensitivity to icodextrin
Vascular access site Malfunctioning catheters from a single 2002119
infections manufacturer; manufacturer later recalled
catheter
Acute illness and Cases occurred on a single day in the same 2002124
hospitalization shortly outpatient dialysis center; most likely due to
following hemodialysis parenteral exposure to volatile sulfur-containing
compounds from the water near the reverse
osmosis (RO) unit; improperly maintained RO
membrane allowed sulfur-reducing bacteria to
grow and produce toxic levels of disulfides; re-
sulted in 16 patients hospitalized and 2 deaths
Pyrogenic reactions Extrinsic (in-use) contamination of medication 2001115
and Serratia (epoetin alfa) due to repeated use of single-use
liquefaciens vials to obtain multiple doses and pooling of
bloodstream infections residual epoetin alpha from single-use vials
for later use
Acute liver failure Parenteral exposure to cyanotoxins from 1998127
causing morbidity phytoplankton in water source used by 20017
and mortality dialysis center
Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis Centers 177
Year Reported/
Outbreak Comments/Associated With Reference
Hemolysis following Blood tubing sets produced by a single 1998123
hemodialysis manufacturer had a narrow aperture that
caused mechanical lysis of red blood cells
Bacterial bloodstream Contamination of the waste drain ports in the 1998113
infections—Canada, same model of hemodialysis machine 1999114
United States, Israel
Bloodstream Contamination of newly installed attachment 1998112
infections caused by used to drain spent priming saline in
multiple pathogens hemodialysis system
Hepatitis B virus Lack of separation of patients with chronic HBV 199699
(HBV) infection, Texas infection from HBV-negative patients; lack of
review of monthly HBsAg* results; lack of use of
standard precautions; poor compliance with
recommendations for HBV prevention
Human immuno- Reusable needle used on patient with HIV 1995108
deficiency virus (HIV) improperly processed with benzalkonium
infection chloride by soaking in a common pan with
needles used on other patients
Anaphylactoid Reuse of hollow-fiber hemodialyzers repro- 1992120
reactions cessed with automated reprocessing system
Bacteremia with Venous blood tubing cross-contaminated with 1992109
gram-negative ultrafiltrate waste
organisms and
Enterococcus
casseliflavus
Hepatitis C virus No common source or person-to-person mode 1992103
infection of transmission documented; probable cause
was lack of adequate infection prevention and
control precautions
Hypotension Ultrafilters preserved in sodium azide were not 1990122
rinsed prior to installation in dialysis center
water treatment system; dialysis water became
contaminated with sodium diazide
Hepatitis B virus Failure to isolate patient with chronic HBV; 1989100
infection shared equipment and staff
Hepatitis B virus Associated with shared multidose vial used by 1983101
infection patient with chronic HBV
*HBsAg= hepatitis B surface antigen

Transmission of HBV in hemodialysis centers has long been recognized.100

Several factors help to promote the transmission of HBV in the dialysis
setting:
• HBV may be present in high titers (≥109 virus particles per milliliter) in
the blood and body fluids of infected patients.99
• HBV can survive for a prolonged period in the environment.128
• Equipment and surfaces in dialysis settings can easily become contami-
nated with blood.128
The majority of outbreaks of hepatitis B infection in hemodialysis facilities

are associated with lack of adherence to recommended infection prevention
and control practices for preventing the transmission of blood-borne
pathogens. The following factors have contributed to HBV outbreaks:99,128
• Failure to use separate rooms for hemodialyzing patients with chronic

HBV infection
• Cross-contamination due to failure to use dedicated machines, medica-
tions, supplies, and staff for patients with chronic hepatitis B infection
• Lack of adherence to standard precautions
• Deficiencies in cleaning and disinfection procedures for equipment and
environmental surfaces
• Failure to restrict sharing of medications and supplies between patients.
Patient-to-patient transmission of HCV in hemodialysis centers has been

documented, but the exact mode for transmission has not been elucidated.
Possible modes of transmission include carriage on the hands of healthcare
workers and contamination of the hemodialysis machine.104,105,107

Dialysis Centers
Recommendations and guidelines for preventing the transmission of infec-
tion in dialysis settings have been published by the CDC and the National
Kidney Foundation.99,128–131 The Association for the Advancement of Medical
Instrumentation (AAMI) provides standards for dialysis water purity and
water distribution and storage systems,132 and the CDC Guidelines for Envi-
ronmental Infection Control in Health-care Facilities provides an overview of
dialysis water quality and dialysate.49 The International Society for Peritoneal
Dialysis provides treatment and infection prevention guidelines for peritoneal
dialysis.133 The CDC recommendations are outlined in Exhibit 5–2.
Recommendations for preventing the transmission of blood-borne pathogens
in hemodialysis centers include the following:
• Implementation of a comprehensive infection surveillance, prevention,

and control program specifically designed for the hemodialysis setting
that includes the elements shown in Exhibit 5–3
• Use of standard precautions by personnel
Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis Centers 179
Exhibit 5–2 Recommended Infection Control Practices for Hemodialysis Units

at a Glance
Infection Control Precautions for All Patients

• Wear disposable gloves when caring for the patient or touching the patient’s equipment
at the dialysis station; remove gloves and wash hands between each patient or station.
• Items taken into the dialysis station should either be disposed of, dedicated for use
only on a single patient, or cleaned and disinfected before being taken to a common
clean area or used on another patient.
– Nondisposable items that cannot be cleaned and disinfected (e.g., adhesive tape,
cloth-covered blood pressure cuffs) should be dedicated for use only on a single
patient.
– Unused medications (including multiple dose vials containing diluents) or supplies
(e.g., syringes, alcohol swabs) taken to the patient’s station should be used only for
that patient and should not be returned to a common clean area or used on other
patients.
• When multiple dose medication vials are used (including vials containing diluents),
prepare individual patient doses in a clean (centralized) area away from dialysis
stations and deliver separately to each patient. Do not carry multiple dose medication
vials from station to station.
• Do not use common medication carts to deliver medications to patients. Do not carry
medication vials, syringes, alcohol swabs, or supplies in pockets. If trays are used to
deliver medications to individual patients, they must be cleaned between patients.
• Clean areas should be clearly designated for the preparation, handling, and storage of
medications and unused supplies and equipment. Clean areas should be clearly
separated from contaminated areas where used supplies and equipment are handled.
Do not handle and store medications or clean supplies in the same or an adjacent area
to where used equipment or blood samples are handled.
• Use external venous and arterial pressure transducer filters/protectors for each patient
treatment to prevent blood contamination of the dialysis machines’ pressure monitors.
Change filters/protectors between each patient treatment, and do not reuse them.
Internal transducer filters do not need to be changed routinely between patients.
• Clean and disinfect the dialysis station (e.g., chairs, beds, tables, machines) between
patients.
– Give special attention to cleaning control panels on the dialysis machines and
other surfaces that are frequently touched and potentially contaminated with
patients’ blood.
– Discard all fluid, and clean and disinfect all surfaces and containers associated
with the prime waste (including buckets attached to the machines).
• For dialyzers and blood tubing that will be reprocessed, cap dialyzer ports and clamp
tubing. Place all used dialyzers and tubing in leak-proof containers for transport from
station to reprocessing or disposal area.
Hepatitis B Vaccination
• Vaccinate all susceptible patients against hepatitis B.
• Test for anti-HBs 1–2 months after last dose.
– If anti-HBs is <10 mIU/mL, consider patient susceptible, revaccinate with an
additional three doses, and retest for anti-HBs.
– If anti-HBs is >10 mIU/mL, consider patient immune, and retest annually.
– Give booster dose of vaccine if anti-HBs declines to <10 mIU/mL and continue to
retest annually.
Continued
Exhibit 5–2 (Continued )
Management of HBsAg-Positive Patients

• Follow infection control practices for hemodialysis units for all patients.
• Dialyze HBsAg-positive patients in a separate room using separate machines,
equipment, instruments, and supplies.
• Staff members caring for HBsAg-positive patients should not care for HBV-susceptible
patients at the same time (e.g., during the same shift or during patient changeover).
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendations for preventing transmission of
infections among chronic hemodialysis patients. MMWR. 2001;50(RR-05):20–21. http://www.cdc.gov/
mmwr/PDF/rr/rr5005.pdf or http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5005a1.htm. Accessed
May 11, 2008.
Schedule for Routine Testing for Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) and

Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) Infections
Patient Status On Admission Monthly Semiannual Annual
All patients HBsAg,*
Anti-HBc* (total),
Anti-HBs,*
Anti-HCV, ALT†
HBV-susceptible, HBsAg
including
nonresponders
to vaccine
Anti-HBs positive Anti-HBs
(>10 mIU/mL),
anti-HBc negative
Anti-HBs and anti-
HBc positive No additional HBV testing needed
Anti-HCV negative ALT Anti-HCV
* Results of HBV testing should be known before the patient begins dialysis.
† HBsAg=hepatitis B surface antigen; anti-HBc=antibody to hepatitis B core antigen;
anti-HBs=antibody to hepatitis B surface antigen; anti-HCV=antibody to hepatitis C virus;
ALT=alanine aminotransferase.
• Requirement for monthly testing of serum specimens from all susceptible

patients for hepatitis B surface antigen (HbsAg) and prompt review of the
results of this testing
• Hepatitis B immunization of susceptible hemodialysis patients
• Isolation of HbsAg-positive patients by room, machines, instruments,
medications, supplies, and staff
• Avoidance of sharing instruments, medications, and supplies between
patients
• Preparation of multidose medication vials in a clean centralized area
away from areas used for patient care, laboratory work, or waste disposal
Opthalmology Offices and Clinics 181
Exhibit 5–3 Components of a Comprehensive Infection Control Program to Prevent

Transmission of Infections Among Chronic Hemodialysis Patients
• Infection control practices for hemodialysis units:

– Infection control precautions specifically designed to prevent transmission of
blood-borne viruses and pathogenic bacteria among patients
– Routine serologic testing for hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus infections
– Vaccination of susceptible patients against hepatitis B
– Isolation of patients who test positive for hepatitis B surface antigen
• Surveillance for infections and other adverse events
• Infection control training and education
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendations for preventing transmission of
infections among chronic hemodialysis patients. MMWR. 2001;50(RR-05):18. http://www.cdc.gov/
mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5005a1.htm. Accessed April 11, 2008.
• Implementation of routine cleaning and disinfection protocols for equip-

ment and environmental surfaces
• Separation of areas used to store clean supplies and handle contaminated
items
• Storage of blood specimens in designated areas away from medication
preparation or clean supply areas
• A program for monitoring and maintenance of water treatment systems
in hemodialysis centers in accordance with recognized standards128,132
• A surveillance program that monitors dialysis-related infections and other
adverse events and reports results to the center’s staff and management134
For additional information on infection prevention and control practices in
the dialysis setting, the reader is referred to Chapter 3 in this text and to the
resources and recommended reading sections at the end of this chapter.
OPHTHALMOLOGY OFFICES AND CLINICS
Many reports of outbreaks of healthcare-associated epidemic keratoconjunc-

tivitis (EKC) have been published.1,2,10,16,135–149 Goodman and Solomon
reviewed 11 reports of infectious disease outbreaks in ophthalmology offices
and eye clinics2: 10 were outbreaks of EKC caused by adenovirus transmitted
by inadequately disinfected equipment (frequently a tonometer) and/or by
poor hand hygiene practices by physicians and other healthcare person-
nel,137–146 and one episode was a cluster of cases of Mycobacterium chelonei
keratitis associated with invasive procedures in which a contaminated solu-
tion was the likely source of the organism.147
Adenovirus can survive for prolonged periods on instruments and environ-
mental surfaces. Person-to-person transmission of adenovirus can occur via
direct contact with an infected person or with infective secretions, such as
those on the hands of a healthcare worker or contaminated instruments or
medications. In a report of an outbreak involving 63 patients at a large uni-

versity medical center ophthalmology clinic, the CDC noted that exposure to a
particular healthcare worker or exposure to pneumotonometry were risk fac-
tors for acquiring EKC.148 Contaminated ocular devices, particularly tonome-
ters, are frequently implicated in healthcare-associated outbreaks. Since
tonometers vary in design, it is important that methods used for cleaning and
disinfecting or sterilizing these instruments allow for adequate disinfection
and sterilization of the instrument’s tip and adjacent parts after each patient
use.148–150
Measures Used to Prevent Spread of Epidemic Keratoconjunctivitis
Recommendations for preventing the spread of infection and for controlling

EKC outbreaks in ophthalmology practices have been published by the Ameri-
can Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) (available for download from the AAO
Web site),150 the CDC,148 Buehler et al.,138 Montessori et al.,10 and Gottsch et
al.151 Prevention and control measures to limit the spread of adenovirus and
other infectious agents in ophthalmology practices include the following:
• Proper hand hygiene practices both before and after examining patients64
• Appropriate cleaning and disinfection or sterilization protocols for the
types of equipment used148,150
• Implementation of routine protocols for cleaning and disinfection or ster-
ilization of equipment after each patient
• Triage of patients with signs and symptoms of conjunctivitis (e.g., eye dis-
charge or redness)
• Meticulous administration of eye drops to avoid contaminating the drop-
per and the medication
• Careful cleaning and disinfection of environmental surfaces49
• Use of gloves for contact with infective eye secretions (e.g., when a patient
has clinical signs and symptoms of conjunctivitis and during an EKC out-
break)
• Restriction of personnel with conjunctivitis from direct contact with
patients (for up to 14 days for personnel with viral conjunctivitis)148
The CDC recommends the following regarding tonometer tips:
[They] be cleaned with soap and water or with another cleansing
agent suggested by the manufacturer and disinfected by soaking for
at least 10 minutes in a solution containing 500–5000 ppm chlorine
(e.g., a 1:100–1:10 dilution of household bleach) or in any commercial
germicidal solution that is registered with the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency as a “sterilant” and is compatible with the tonometer. The
soaking time in commercial germicides necessary to achieve high-
level disinfection (which includes inactivation of adenovirus type 8
and bacteria that are pathogenic to the eye) varies by type and con-
centration of solution and should be indicated by the germicide man-
ufacturer on the product label.148(p600)
Ambulatory Surgery Centers 183
When using any commercially available cleaner or disinfectant, it is impor-

tant to read carefully the indications for use and to follow the directions on the
label.
GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY AND BRONCHOSCOPY

PROCEDURE SUITES
Numerous outbreaks associated with bronchoscopy and gastrointestinal

endoscopic procedures have been reported in inpatient and outpatient set-
tings. Most of these were caused by failure to adequately clean and disinfect
endoscopes or by contamination of automated endoscope processors. Out-
breaks related to endoscopic procedures, including prevention and control
measures, are discussed in Chapter 3.
AMBULATORY SURGERY CENTERS
According to the National Survey of Ambulatory Surgery conducted by the

National Center for Health Statistics, an estimated 71.9 million procedures
were performed on 39.9 million discharges from hospitals and freestanding
ambulatory surgery centers during 1996: 40.4 million procedures were for
inpatients and 31.5 million were for ambulatory patients.152 An estimated 17.5
million (84%) of the ambulatory surgery visits were in hospital-based outpa-
tient surgery departments, and 3.3 million (16%) occurred in freestanding cen-
ters. This survey was repeated in 2006; however, the results were not available
as of April 2008.153
Despite the large number of procedures performed in ambulatory surgery
centers, there are few reports of outbreaks in these settings. A review of text-
books and references related to ambulatory surgery and a search of the MED-
LINE database from1985 through March 2008 revealed reports of outbreaks
that were associated with cataract surgery, podiatric surgery, and contami-
nated betamethasone injections in an ambulatory surgery center, in addition
to several reports noted earlier in this chapter.44
Cataract extraction is one of the most common surgeries performed in the
United States.154 Cataract surgery is performed in freestanding ambulatory
surgery centers and hospital inpatient and outpatient surgery departments.
Outbreaks of toxic anterior segment syndrome (TASS) associated with
cataract surgery have been reported in all of these settings.154–157 TASS, an
acute, noninfectious inflammation of the anterior segment of the eye, has been
associated with the following
(1) contaminants on surgical instruments, resulting from improper
or insufficient cleaning; (2) products introduced into the eye during
surgery, such as irrigating solutions or ophthalmic medications; or
(3) other substances that enter the eye during or after surgery, such
as topical ointments or talc from surgical gloves.154
An outbreak of Acremonium kiliense endophthalmitis occurred following
cataract surgery in four patients in an ambulatory surgical center.11 An epi-
demiologic study discovered that the infected patients had surgery either on
the first operative day of the week or soon after the operating room opened.
Cultures of perioperative medications and environmental samples were nega-
tive for A. kiliense except for water from a grossly contaminated humidifier
reservoir in the heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) system.
Further investigation revealed that the HVAC system was routinely turned
off after the last case on Thursday and switched back on when surgery
resumed the following Tuesday. The investigators concluded that the HVAC
system was contaminated by the humidifier water, and agitation of the system
probably dislodged fungal spores when the system was turned on. The spores
were then carried on air currents into the operating room. No further cases
occurred after the HVAC system was left running 7 days a week and the
humidifier was removed.
An outbreak of Proteus mirabilis surgical site infections occurred in pa-
tients who underwent outpatient podiatric surgery.158 An investigation traced
the source to inadequately sterilized bone drills. The cluster of infections
was recognized in part because it was caused by an uncommon strain of
P. mirabilis.
An outbreak of Serratia marcescens infections occurred in 2001 in 11 patients
who had procedures in a hospital-affiliated ambulatory surgery center (five cases
with meningitis, one with septic arthritis, and five with epidural abscess).159 An
investigation revealed that all of the patients had received epidural or joint
injections with contaminated betamethasone that had been compounded at a
local pharmacy. This appears to be the first reported outbreak of infections asso-
ciated with improper pharmacy compounding.159
Preventing Infections in Ambulatory Surgery Settings
In 2007 the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery and the
American Society of Ophthalmic Registered Nurses published recommended
practices for cleaning and sterilizing intraocular surgical instruments.160 To
prevent infections and other adverse events associated with improperly
processed intraocular surgical instruments, infection control professionals
(ICPs) should refer to these guidelines when developing infection prevention
programs for cataract surgery centers.
The CDC published guidelines for preventing surgical site infections in
ambulatory, same-day, and outpatient operating rooms as well as conventional
inpatient operating rooms,161 and these should be used when developing infec-
tion surveillance, prevention, and control programs for the ambulatory
surgery setting.
Because the incidence of SSIs associated with the types of procedures per-
formed in outpatient surgery centers is low, many ambulatory surgical centers
do not routinely conduct surveillance for SSIs. Therefore, it is likely that clus-
ters and outbreaks of infection in this setting are not detected unless they are
caused by an unusual organism or result in significant morbidity or mortality.
As more procedures are moved from the inpatient to the outpatient setting,
surveillance programs for HAIs and other adverse events in ambulatory
surgery settings should be implemented to detect adverse events in these set-
tings so that risk factors and preventive measures can be identified.161–163 The
Conclusions 185
surveillance program should include the use of standardized data collection

methods and definitions for SSIs, stratification of SSI rates according to risk
factors associated with SSIs, and data feedback to perioperative and perfor-
mance improvement personnel.
Outbreaks occurring in inpatient surgical settings are discussed in Chapter 3.
THE CHANGING FACE OF HEALTH CARE
In the past few decades the majority of health care in the United States has
transitioned from the acute care hospital setting to outpatient and ambula-
tory care, long-term care, and home care settings.164 Many ICPs have
expanded their infection surveillance, prevention, and control programs to
include these settings. As discussed in this chapter, guidelines for developing
infection surveillance, prevention, and control programs in ambulatory care
settings have been published by individuals, professional organizations, and
government agencies, and there are many resources on professional and gov-
ernment agency Web sites.
Information on developing and implementing surveillance programs in a
variety of healthcare settings, including ambulatory care, can be found in
Chapter 2.
In a study conducted by the Association for Professionals in Infection Con-
trol and Epidemiology on the status of infection surveillance, prevention, and
control programs in the United States from 1992 through 1996, the number of
facilities performing surveillance for HAIs in outpatient settings increased by
44.0%, from 100 to 144.165 However, surveillance programs for ambulatory
care settings are not as well developed as those for acute care settings, and the
epidemiology of HAIs in the outpatient setting has not been well character-
ized. The CDC National Healthcare Safety Network will be expanding to
include data on HAIs associated with outpatient care.166 This should help to
characterize the epidemiology of HAIs in ambulatory care settings.
CONCLUSIONS
Risk Factors Associated with Infectious Disease Outbreaks in the

Ambulatory Care Setting
Many outbreaks in ambulatory care settings occur because (1) the responsi-
bility for implementing an infection surveillance, prevention, and control pro-
gram is often not assigned to a specific individual, and (2) personnel working
in outpatient care settings are frequently not familiar with basic infection con-
trol practices.
Based on the reports of the outbreaks discussed in this chapter, one can
identify the following risk factors as causing or contributing to infectious dis-
ease outbreaks in the ambulatory care setting:
• Inadequate cleaning, disinfection, sterilization, and storage of instru-
ments and equipment
• Inappropriate use of barrier precautions, such as gloves, by healthcare
personnel
• Inadequate hand hygiene practices by healthcare workers

• Failure to use aseptic technique
• Failure to use appropriate isolation precautions for patients who have, or
are suspected of having, an infection that can be transmitted to others
• Lack of temporary work restriction of infected healthcare personnel
• Lack of familiarity with established infection prevention and control
practices on the part of ambulatory care personnel
Measures Used to Prevent Transmission of Infectious Agents in the

Ambulatory Care Setting
The specific measures that should be implemented to prevent the transmis-

sion of infectious agents in each outpatient practice setting will depend on the
types of patients, the procedures and treatments performed, and the equip-
ment and devices that are used.
To prevent the transmission of infection to patients and personnel, each
ambulatory care setting should have an infection surveillance, prevention, and
control program that addresses the following:
• Assignment of responsibility for coordinating and implementing the pro-
gram to specific individuals
• Processes for identifying the types of patients and procedures performed
and the risk for infection and other adverse events
• Infection prevention and control policies and procedures that are specific
for the healthcare setting
• Protocols for implementing standard precautions70,93
• Identification of the types of reusable devices and instruments used and
determination of whether they must be disinfected or sterilized49,53
• Protocols for cleaning and disinfection or sterilization of reusable devices
and instruments in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and
the recommendations of relevant organizations, such as the Association of
periOperative Registered Nurses,167 the AAO,149 the American Dental Asso-
ciation,98 and the AAMI168
• Protocols for monitoring the effectiveness of the sterilization process,
wherever a sterilizer is used167,168
• Protocols for identifying and isolating persons known to have, or sus-
pected of having, a transmissible infection70,71,76
• Protocols for restricting infected personnel from direct patient contact69
• Policies for the immunization of healthcare workers67
• Protocols for handling multidose medication vials
• Education and training of ambulatory care personnel, upon hire and peri-
odically thereafter, on basic infection prevention and control practices
such as standard precautions; triage and isolation of infected patients;
separation of clean and dirty items; the use of aseptic technique; and
cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization practices, as appropriate for the
setting.
References 187
REFERENCES
1. Herwaldt LA, Smith LA, Carter CD. Infection control in the outpatient setting. Infect Control
2. Goodman RA, Solomon SL. Transmission of infectious diseases in outpatient health care set-
tings. JAMA. 1991;265:2377–2381.
3. Abe K, Tobin M, Sunenshine R, et al. Outbreak of Burkholderia cepacia bloodstream infection
at an outpatient hematology and oncology practice. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;
28:1311–1313.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections associated
with transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies—Georgia, 2005. MMWR. 2006; 55:
776–777.
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outbreak of mesotherapy-associated skin reac-
tions—District of Columbia Area, January–February 2005. MMWR. 2005; 54(44);1127–1130.
6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tuberculosis transmission in a renal dialysis
center—Nevada, 2003. MMWR. 2004;53(37):873–875.
7. Carmichael WW, Azevedo SMFO, An JS, et al. Human fatalities from cyanobacteria: chemical
and biological evidence for cyanotoxins. Environ Health Perspect. 2001;109:663–668.
http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2001/109p663-668carmichael/abstract.html. Accessed April
4, 2008.
8. Wilson SJ, Evert RJ, Kirkland KB, Sexton DJ. A pseudo-outbreak of Aureobasidium species
lower respiratory tract infections caused by reuse of single-use stopcocks during bron-
choscopy. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2000;21(7):470–472.
9. Mangram AJ, Archibald LK, Hupert M et al. Outbreak of sterile peritonitis among continu-
ous cycling peritoneal dialysis patients. Kidney Int. 1998;54:1367–1371. http://www.nature
.com/ki/journal/v54/n4/full/4490374a.html. Accessed April 14, 2008.
10. Montessori V, Scharf S, Holland S, Werker DH, Roberts FJ, Bryce E. Epidemic keratocon-
junctivitis outbreak at a tertiary referral eye care clinic. Am J Infect Control. 1998;26:
399–405.
11. Fridkin SK, Kremer FB, Bland LA, Padhye A, McNeil MM, Jarvis WR. Acremonium kiliense
endophthalmitis that occurred after cataract extraction in an ambulatory surgical center and
was traced to an environmental reservoir. Clin Infect Dis. 1996;22:222–227.
12. Umphrey J, Raad I, Tarrand J, Hill LA. Bronchoscopes as a contamination source of
Pseudomonas putida. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;17(suppl):P42. Abstract M2.
13. Climo M, Pastor A, Wong E. Outbreak of P. aeruginosa infections related to contaminated
urodynamic testing equipment. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;17(suppl):P48. Abstract
M58.
14. Pegues DA, Carson LA, Anderson RI, et al. Outbreak of Pseudomonas cepacia bacteremia in
oncology patients. Clin Infect Dis. 1993;16:407–411.
15. Chant K, Lowe D, Rubin G, et al. Patient-to-patient transmission of HIV in private surgical
consulting rooms [letter]. Lancet. 1993;342:1548–1549.
16. Jernigan JA, Lowry BS, Hayden FG, et al. Adenovirus type 8 epidemic keratoconjunctivitis in
an eye clinic: risk factors and control. J Infect Dis. 1993;167:1307–1313.
17. O’Mahoney MC, Stanwell-Smith RE, Tillett HE, et al. The Stafford outbreak of Legionnaires’
disease. Epidemiol Infect. 1990;104:361–380.
18. Centers for Disease Control. Nosocomial transmission of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis to
health care workers and HIV-infected patients in an urban hospital—Florida. MMWR.
1990;39:718–722.
19. Nakashima AK, McCarthy MA, Martone WJ, Anderson RL. Epidemic septic arthritis caused
by Serratia marcescens and associated with a benzalkonium chloride antiseptic. J Clin
Microbiol. 1987;25:1014–1018.
20. Centers for Disease Control. Hepatitis B associated with jet gun injection. MMWR. 1986;
35:373–376.
21. Shaw F Jr, Barrett CL, Hamm R, et al. Lethal outbreak of hepatitis B in a dental practice.
JAMA. 1986;255:3260–3264.
22. Stetler HC, Garbe PL, Dwyer DM, et al. Outbreaks of group A streptococcal abscesses follow-
ing diphtheria-tetanus toxoid-pertussis vaccination. Pediatr. 1985;75:299–303.
23. Bloch AB, Orenstein WA, Ewing WM, et al. Measles outbreak in a pediatric practice: airborne
transmission in an office setting. Pediatr. 1985;75:676–683.
24. Beecham HJ, Cohen ML, Parkin WE. Salmonella typhimurium transmission by fiberoptic
upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. JAMA. 1979;241:1013–1015.
25. Borghans JGA, Stanford JL. Mycobacterium chelonei in abscesses after injection of diphtheria-
pertussis-tetanus-polio vaccine. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1973;107:1–8.
26. Edell TA. Serratia marcescens abscesses in soft tissue associated with intramuscular methyl-
prednisolone injections. In: Program and Abstracts of the 28th Annual Epidemic Intelligence
Service Conference; April 2–6, 1979; Atlanta, GA.
27. Georgia Department of Human Resources. Abscesses in an allergy practice due to Mycobac-
terium chelonae. Ga Epidemiol Rep. April 1990.
28. Greaves WL, Hinman AR, Facklam RR, et al. Streptococcal abscesses following diphtheria-
tetanus toxoid-pertussis vaccination. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1982;1:388–390.
29. Inman PM, Beck A, Brown AE, Stanford JL. Outbreak of injection abscesses due to Mycobac-
terium abscessus. Arch Dermatol. 1969;100:141–147.
30. Kobler E, Schmuziger P, Hartmann G. Hepatitis nach Akupunktur. Schweizerische Medi-
zinische Woschenschrift. 1979;109:1828–1829.
31. Kothari T, Reyes MP, Brooks N, Brown WJ, Lerner AM. Pseudomonas cepacia septic arthritis
due to intra-articular injections of methylprednisolone. Can Med Assoc J. 1977;116:1230–
1235.
32. Lowry PW, Jarvis WR, Oberle AD, et al. Mycobacterium chelonae causing otitis media in an
ear, nose, and throat practice. N Engl J Med. 1968;319:978–982.
33. Owen M, Smith A, Coultras J. Granulomatous lesions occurring at site of injections of vac-
cines and antibiotics. South Med J. 1963;56:949–952.
34. Wenger JD, Spika JS, Smithwick RW, et al. Outbreak of Mycobacterium chelonae infection
associated with use of jet injectors. JAMA. 1990;264:373–376.
35. Centers for Disease Control. Mycobacterium tuberculosis transmission in a health clinic–
Florida, 1988. MMWR. 1989;38:256–258, 263–264.
36. Centers for Disease Control. Measles—Washington, 1990. MMWR. 1990;39:473–476.
37. Davis RM, Orenstein WA, Frank JA Jr. Transmission of measles in medical settings, 1980
through 1984. JAMA. 1986;255:1295–1298.
38. Ginsburg CM, Henle G, Henle W. An outbreak of infectious mononucleosis among the person-
nel of an outpatient clinic. Am J Epidemiol. 1976;104:571–575.
39. Greaves WL, Orenstein WA, Stetler HC, et al. Prevention of rubella transmission in medical
facilities. JAMA. 1982;248:861–864.
40. Istre GR, McKee PA, West GR, et al. Measles spread in medical settings: an important focus
of disease transmission? Pediatr. 1987;79:356–358.
41. Remington PL, Hall WN, Davis IH, Herald A, Gunn RA. Airborne transmission of measles in
a physician’s office. JAMA. 1985;253:1574–1577.
42. Richmond S, Burman R, Crosdale E, et al. A large outbreak of keratoconjunctivitis due to
adenovirus type 8. J Hygiene. 1984;93:285–291.
43. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Enterobacter cloacae bloodstream infections
associated with contaminated prefilled saline syringes—California, November 1998. MMWR.
1998;47:959–960.
44. Safranek TJ, Jarvis WR, Carson LA, et al. Mycobacterium chelonae wound infections after
plastic surgery employing contaminated gentian violet skin-marking solution. N Engl J Med.
1987;317:197–201.
References 189
iodine solution contaminated with Pseudomonas cepacia. Clin Inf Dis. 1992;14:1078–1083.
48. Sautter RL, Mattman LH, Legaspi RC. Serratia marcescens meningitis associated with a con-
taminated benzalkonium chloride solution. Infect Control. 1984;5:223–225.
49. Sehulster LM, Chinn RYW, Arduino MJ, et al. Guidelines for environmental infection control
in health-care facilities, 2003. Recommendations of CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control
Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). MMWR. 2003;52(RR-10):1–42. http://www.cdc.gov/
ncidod/dhqp/gl_environinfection.html. Accessed May 11, 2008.
50. Dixon RE, Kaslow RA, Mackel DC, Fulkerson CC, Mallinson GF. Aqueous quaternary ammo-
nium antiseptics and disinfectants: use and misuse. JAMA. 1976;236:2415–2417.
51. Donowitz LG. Benzalkonium chloride is still in use. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1991;12:186–187.
52. McDonnell G, Russell AD. Antiseptics and disinfectants: activity, action, and resistance. Clin
Microbiol Rev. 1999;12(1):147–179. http://cmr.asm.org/cgi/content/full/12/1/147. Accessed
April 14, 2008.
53. Rutala WA, Weber DJ. Disinfection and sterilization in health care facilities: what clinicians
need to know. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39(5):702–709. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/
10.1086/423182. Accessed April 5, 2008.
54. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Notice to readers: medical equipment malfunc-
tions associated with inappropriate use of cleaning and disinfecting liquids—United States,
2007. MMWR. 2008;57(06):152. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5706a6.htm.
55. Hlady WG, Hopkins RS, Ogilby TE, Allen ST. Patient-to-patient transmission of hepatitis B
in a dermatology practice. Am J Public Health. 1993;83:1689–1693.
56. Hauri AM, Armstrong GL, Hutin YJF. The global burden of disease attributable to contami-
nated injections given in health care settings. Inte J STD & AIDS. 2004;15(1):7–16.
57. Comstock RD, Malknee S, Fox JL, et al. A large nosocomial outbreak of hepatitis C and
hepatitis C among patients receiving pain remediation treatments. Infect Control Hosp Epi-
demiol. 2004;25:576–583.
58. Walsh B, Maguire H, Carrington D. Outbreak of hepatitis B in an acupuncture clinic. Com-
mun Dis Public Health. 1999;2(2):137–140.
59. DeOliveira AM, White K, Leschinsky DP, et al. An outbreak of hepatitis C virus infections
among outpatients at a hematology/oncology clinic. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:898–902.
60. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Transmission of hepatitis B and C viruses in
outpatient settings—New York, Oklahoma, and Nebraska, 2000–2002. MMWR. 2003;52(38):
901–906. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5238a1.htm. Accessed April 5,
2008.
61. Williams IT, Perz JF, Bell BP. Viral hepatitis transmission in ambulatory health care set-
tings. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38:1592–1598. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/
420935. Accessed April 11, 2008.
62. Chiarello LA. Prevention of patient to patient transmission of bloodborne viruses. Sem Infect
Contr. 2001;1:44–48.
63. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. O’Grady NP, Alexander M, Dellinger EP, et al.
Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. MMWR. 2002;51(No.
RR-10). http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5110a1.htm. Accessed April 5, 2008.
tings. Recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee
and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. MMWR. 2002;51(No. RR-16).
65. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Import-associated measles outbreak—Indiana,
May–June 2005. MMWR. 2005;54(42):1073–1075. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/
66. Parker AA, Staggs W, Dayan GH, et al. Implications of a 2005 measles outbreak in Indiana
for sustained elimination of measles in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(5):447–
455. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/355/5/447. Accessed April 5, 2008.
67. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Immunization of health-care workers: recom-
mendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and the Hospi-
tal Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). MMWR. 1997;6(RR-18):
1–42. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00050577.htm. Accessed April 6, 2008.
68. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Measles, mumps, and rubella—vaccine use and
strategies for elimination of measles, rubella, and congenital rubella syndrome and control of
mumps: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR.
1998;47(RR-08):1–57. http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/MMWRhtml/00053391.htm. Ac-
cessed April 6, 2008.
69. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guideline for infection control in health care
personnel, 1998. Am J Infect Control. 1998;26:289–354. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/
gl_hcpersonnel.html. Accessed April 6, 2008.
tices Advisory Committee. Guideline for isolation precautions: preventing transmission of
infectious agents in healthcare settings, June 2007. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/gl_isolation
71. American Academy of Pediatrics. Measles. In: Peter G, ed. 2006 Red Book: Report of the Com-
mittee on Infectious Diseases. 24th ed. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics;
2006.
72. Conover C, Ridzon R, Valway S, et al. Outbreak of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis at a
methadone treatment program. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2001;5(1):59–64.
73. Griffith DE, Hardeman JL, Zhang Y, Wallace RJ, Mazurek GH. Tuberculosis outbreak among
healthcare workers in a community hospital. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995;152:
808–811.
74. Couldwell DL, Dore GJ, Harkness JL, et al. Nosocomial outbreak of tuberculosis in an outpa-
tient HIV treatment room. AIDS. 1996;10:521–525.
75. Sokolove PE, Mackey D, Wiles J, Lewis RJ. Exposure of emergency department personnel to
tuberculosis: PPD testing during an epidemic in the community. Ann Emerg Med.
1994;24:418–421.
76. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for preventing the transmission
of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in health-care settings, 2005. MMWR. 2005;54(RR-17):1–141.
77. Ahtone JL, Goodman RA. Hepatitis B and dental personnel: transmission to patients and
prevention issues. J Am Dent Assoc. 1983;106:219–222.
78. Centers for Disease Control. Outbreak of hepatitis B associated with an oral surgeon—New
Hampshire. MMWR. 1987;36:132–133.
79. Goodman RA, Ahtone JL, Flinton RJ. Hepatitis B transmission from dental personnel to
patients: unfinished business. Ann Intern Med. 1982;96:119.
80. Goodwin D. An oral surgeon-related hepatitis B outbreak. Calif Morbid. April 16, 1976.
81. Hadler SC, Sorley DL, Acree KH, et al. An outbreak of hepatitis B in a dental practice. Ann
Intern Med. 1981;95:133–138.
82. Levin ML, Maddrey WC, Wanda JR, Mendeloff AI. Hepatitis B transmission by dentists.
JAMA. 1974;228:1139–1140.
83. Reingold AL, Kane MA, Murphy BL, et al. Transmission of hepatitis B by an oral surgeon. J
Infect Dis. 1982;145:262–268.
84. Rimland D, Parkin WE, Miller GB Jr, Schrack WD. Hepatitis B outbreak traced to an oral
surgeon. N Engl J Med. 1977;296:953–958.
85. Manzella JP, McConville JH, Valenti W, et al. An outbreak of herpes simplex virus type I gin-
givostomatitis in a dental hygiene practice. JAMA. 1984;252:2019–2022.
86. Centers for Disease Control. Update: transmission of HIV infection during an invasive dental
procedure. MMWR. 1991;40:21–27, 33.
References 191
87. Martin MV. The significance of the bacterial contamination of dental unit water systems. Br
Dent J. 1987;183:152–154.
88. Smith WHR, Mason KD, Davies D, Onions JP. Intraoral and pulmonary tuberculosis follow-
ing dental treatment. Lancet. 1982;1:842–844.
89. Redd JT, Baumbach J, Kohn W, Nainan O, Khristova M, Williams I. Patient-to-patient trans-
mission of hepatitis B virus associated with oral surgery. J Infect Dis. 2007;95:1311–1314.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/513435. Accessed April 11, 2008.
90. Centers for Disease Control. Possible transmission of human immunodeficiency virus to a
patient during an invasive dental procedure. MMWR. 1990;39:489–493.
91. Ciesielski CA, Marianos DW, Ou CY, et al. Transmission of human immunodeficiency virus to
a patient during an invasive dental procedure. MMWR. 1990;39:489–493.
92. Ciesielski CA, Marianos DW, Schochetman G, Witte JJ, Jaffe J. The 1990 Florida dental
investigations: the press and the science. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121:886–888.
93. Centers for Disease Control. Update: universal precautions for prevention of transmission of
human immunodeficiency virus, and other bloodborne pathogens in health-care settings. MMWR.
1988;37:377–382, 387–388.
94. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for infection control in dental health-
care settings—2003. MMWR. 2003;52(No. RR-17) http://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/infectioncon-
trol/guidelines/index.htm. Accessed April 11, 2008.
95. DePaola LG. Managing the care of patients infected with bloodborne diseases. J Am Dent
Assoc. 2003;134:350–358. http://jada.ada.org/cgi/content/full/134/3/350. Accessed April 11,
2008.
96. Kohn WG, Harte JA, Malvitz DM, et al. Guidelines for infection control in dental health care
settings—2003. J Am Dent Assoc. 2004;135;33–47. http://jada.ada.org. Accessed April 11,
2008.
97. Organization for Safety and Asepsis Procedures (OSAP). From Policy to Practice: OSAP’s
Interactive Guide to the CDC Guidelines. http://osaplms.ts.karta.com. Accessed April 11,
2008.
98. American Dental Association. ADA statement on dental unit waterlines. July 2004.
http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/positions/statements/lines.asp. Accessed April 11, 2008.
99. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outbreaks of hepatitis B virus infection among
hemodialysis patients—California, Nebraska, and Texas, 1994. MMWR. 1996;45:285–289.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00040762.htm. Accessed April 11, 2008.
100. Niu MT, Penberthy LT, Alter MJ, Armstrong CW, Miller GB, Hadler SC. Hemodialysis-associated
hepatitis B: report of an outbreak. Dial Transplantation. 1989;18:542–555.
101. Alter MJ, Ahtone J, Maynard JE. Hepatitis B virus transmission associated with a multiple-
dose vial in a hemodialysis unit. Ann Intern Med. 1983;99:330–333.
102. Favero MS, Tokars JI, Arduino MJ, Alter MJ. Nosocomial infections associated with
hemodialysis. In: Mayhall CG, ed. Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control. 2nd ed.
Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 1999:897–917.
103. Niu MT, Alter MJ, Kristensen C, Margolis HS. Outbreak of hemodialysis-associated non-A,
non-B hepatitis and correlation with antibody to hepatitis C virus. Am J Kidney Dis.
1992;19:345–352.
104. Katsoulidou A, Paraskevis D, Kalapothaki V, et al. Molecular epidemiology of a hepatitis C
outbreak in a hemodialysis unit. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1999;14:1188–1194. http://ndt
.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/14/5/1188. Accessed April 14, 2008.
105. Savey A, Simon F, Izopet J, Lepoutre A, Fabry J, Desenclos JC. A large outbreak of hepatitis C
virus infections at a hemodialysis center. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2005;26:752–760.
106. Ansadli F, Bruzzone B, DeFlorentiis D, et al. An outbreak of hepatitis C virus in a haemodial-
ysis unit: molecular evidence of patient-to-patient transmission. Ann Ig. 2003;15(5):6856–
6891.
107. Delarocque-Astagneau E, Baffoy N, Thiers V, et al. Outbreak of hepatitis C infection in a
hemodialysis unit: potential transmission by the hemodialysis machine? Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol. 2002;23:328–334.
108. Velandi M, Fridkin SK, Cardenas V, et al. Transmission of HIV in dialysis centre. Lancet.
1995;345:1417–1422.
109. Longfeld RN, Wortham WG, Fletcher LL, Nauscheutz WF. Clustered bacteremias in a
hemodialysis unit: cross-contamination of blood tubing from ultrafiltrate waste. Infect Con-
110. Flaherty JP, Garcia-Houchins S, Chudy R, Arnow PM. An outbreak of gram-negative bac-
teremia traced to contaminated O-rings and reprocessed dialysers. Ann Intern Med.
1993;119:1072–1078.
111. Beck-Sague CM, Jarvis WR, Bland LA, Arduino MJ, Aguero SM, Verosic G. Outbreak of
gram-negative bacteremia and pyrogenic reactions in a hemodialysis center. Am J Nephrol.
1990;10:397–403.
112. Arnow PM, Garcia-Houchins S, Neagle MB, Bova JL, Dillon JJ, Chou T. An outbreak of blood-
stream infections arising from hemodialysis equipment. J Infect Dis. 1998;178:783–791.
113. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outbreaks of gram-negative bacterial blood-
stream infections traced to probable contamination of hemodialysis machines—Canada, 1995
United States, 1997; and Israel, 1997. MMWR. 1998;47(03);55–58. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/
preview/mmwrhtml/00051244.htm. Accessed April 11, 2008.
114. Wang SA, Levine RB, Carson L, et al. An outbreak of gram-negative bacteremia in waste
drain ports in hemodialysis patients traced to hemodialysis waste drain ports. Infect Control
115. Grohskopf LA, Roth VR, Feikin DR, et al. Serratia liquefaciens bloodstream infections from
contamination of epoetin alfa at a hemodialysis center. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(20):1491–
1497. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/344/20/1491.pdf. Accessed April 12, 2008.
116. Jochimsen EM, Frenette C, Delorme M, et al. A cluster of bloodstream infections and pyro-
genic reactions among hemodialysis patients traced to dialysis machine waste-handling
option units. Am J Nephrol. 1998;18(6):485–489.
117. Price CS, Hacek D, Noskin GA, Peterson LR. An outbreak of bloodstream infections in an out-
patient hemodialysis center. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2002;23:725–729.
118. Tuberculosis transmission in a renal dialysis center—Nevada, 2003. MMWR. 2004;53(37):
873–875. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a4.htm. Accessed April 11,
2008.
119. Hannah EL, Stevenson KB, Lowder CA, et al. Outbreak of hemodialysis vascular access site
infections related to malfunctioning permanent tunneled catheters: making the case for
active surveillance. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2002;23:538–541.
120. Pegues DA, Beck-Sague CM, Woolleen SW, et al. Anaphylactoid reactions associated with
reuse of hollow-fiber hemodialyzers and ACE inhibitors. Kidney Int. 1992;42:1232–1237.
121. Centers for Disease Control. Update: acute allergic reactions associated with reprocessed
hemodialyzers—United States, 1989–1990. MMWR. 1991;40:147, 153–154.
122. Gordon SM, Drachman J, Bland LA, Reid MH, Favero M, Jarvis WR. Epidemic hypotension
in a dialysis center caused by sodium azide. Kidney Int. 1990;37:110–115.
123. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Multistate outbreak of hemolysis in hemodialy-
sis patients—Nebraska and Maryland, 1998. MMWR. 1998;47(23);483–484. http://www.cdc.
gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00053608.htm. Accessed April 11, 2008.
124. Selenic D, Alvarado-Ramy F, Arduino M, et al. Epidemic parenteral exposure to volatile
sulfur-containing compounds at a hemodialysis center. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
2004;25(3):256–261.
125. Martin J, Sansone G, Cirugeda A, Sanchez-Tomero JA, Munoz C, Selgas R. Severe peritoneal
mononucleosis associated with icodextrin use in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis.
Adv Perit Dial. 2003;19:191–194.
126. Boer WH, Vos PF, Fieren MW. Culture-negative peritonitis associated with the use of icodextrin-
containing dialysate in twelve patients treated with peritoneal dialysis. Perit Dial Int.
2003;23(1):33–38.
127. Pouria S, Andrade A, Barbosa J, et al. Fatal microcystin intoxication in haemodialysis unit in
Caruaru, Brazil. Lancet. 1998;352:21–26.
References 193
128. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendations for preventing transmission
of infections among chronic hemodialysis patients. MMWR. 2001;50(RR-05):1–43. http://www
.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5005a1.htm. Accessed April 11, 2008.
129. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular
catheter-related infections. MMWR. 2002;51(No.RR-10):1–34. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/
PDF/rr/rr5110.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2008.
130. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for Vaccinating Kidney Dialysis
Patients and Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease. June 2006. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/
pubs/downloads/b_dialysis_guide.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2008.
131. National Kidney Foundation. Dialysis outcomes quality initiative: clinical practice guidelines.
Am J Kidney Dis. 1997;30:S137–S240.
132. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. Dialysis. Arlington, VA: AAMI.
2007. http://www.aami.org/publications/standards/dialysis.html. Accessed April 12, 2008.
133. Piraino B, Bailie GR, Bernardini J, et al. Peritoneal dialysis-related infections recommenda-
tions: 2005 Update. Perit Dial Int. 2005;25:107–131. http://www.ispd.org/treatment_
guidelines.html. Accessed April 13, 2008.
134. Klevens RM, Edwards JR, Andrus ML, et al. Dialysis Surveillance Report: National Health-
care Safety Network (NHSN)—data summary for 2006. Semin Dial. 2008;21(1):24–48.
135. Cheung D, Bremner J, Chan JT. Epidemic kerato-conjunctivitis—do outbreaks have to be epi-
demic? Eye. 2003;17(3):356–363.
136. Viney KA, Petsoglou C, Doyle BK. Bug breakfast in the bulletin: epidemic keratoconjunctivi-
tis: an outbreak in New South Wales. NSW Public Health Bull. 2006;17(11–12):180. http://
www.health.nsw.gov.au/public-health/phb/HTML2006/novdec06html/article6p180.html.
137. Engelmann I, Madishc I, Pommer H, Heim A. An outbreak of epidemic keratoconjunctivitis
caused by a new intermediate adenovirus 22/H8 identified by molecular typing. Clin Infect
Dis. 2006;43(7):e64–36. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/507533. Accessed
April 13, 2008.
138. Buehler JW, Finton RF, Goodman RA, et al. Epidemic keratoconjunctivitis: report of an out-
break in an ophthalmology practice and recommendations for prevention. Infect Control
139. Keenlyside RA, Hierholzer JC, D’Angelo LJ. Keratoconjunctivitis associated with adenovirus
type 37: an extended outbreak in an ophthalmologist’s office. J Infect Dis. 1983;147:191–198.
140. Koo D, Bouvier B, Wesley M, et al. Epidemic keratoconjunctivitis in a university medical cen-
ter ophthalmology clinic: need for re-evaluation of the design and disinfection of instruments.
141. Murrah WF. Epidemic keratoconjunctivitis. Am J Ophthalmol. 1988;20:36–38.
142. Nagington J, Sutehall GM, Whipp P. Tonometer disinfection and viruses. Br J Ophthalmol.
1983;67:674–676.
143. Warren D, Nelson KE, Farrar JA, et al. A large outbreak of epidemic keratoconjunctivitis:
problems in controlling nosocomial spread. J Infect Dis. 1989;160:938–943.
144. Wegman DH, Guinee VF, Millian SJ. Epidemic keratoconjunctivitis. Am J Public Health.
1970;60:1230–1237.
145. Darougar S, Grey RHB, Thaker U, McSwiggan DA. Clinical and epidemiological features of
adenovirus keratoconjunctivitis in London. Br J Ophthalmol. 1985;67:1–7.
146. Vastine DW, West CE, Yamashiroya H, et al. Simultaneous nosocomial and community out-
break of epidemic keratoconjunctivitis with types 8 and 19 adenovirus. Trans Am Acad Oph-
thalmol Otolaryngol. 1976;81:826–840.
147. Newman PE, Goodman RA, Waring GO, et al. A cluster of cases of Mycobacterium chelonei
keratitis associated with outpatient office procedures. Am J Ophthalmol. 1984;97:344–348.
148. Centers for Disease Control. Epidemic keratoconjunctivitis in an ophthalmology clinic–Cali-
fornia. MMWR. 1990;39:598–601. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001741.
htm. Accessed April 13, 2008.
149. D’Angelo LJ, Hierholzer JC, Holman RC, Smith JD. Epidemic keratoconjunctivitis caused by
adenovirus type 8: epidemiologic and laboratory aspects of a large outbreak. Am J Epidemiol.
1981;113:44–49.
150. American Academy of Ophthalmology. Clinical statement. Minimizing transmission of blood-
borne pathogens and surface infectious agents in ophthalmic offices and operating rooms.
San Francisco: American Academy of Ophthalmology; 2002. http://one.aao.org/CE/
PracticeGuidelines/ClinicalStatements_Content.aspx?cid=bfa87dce-adc9-4450-94a2-
e49493154238. Accessed April 13, 2008.
151. Gottsch JD, Froggatt W III, Smith DM, et al. Prevention and control of epidemic keratocon-
junctivitis in a teaching eye institute. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1999;6(1):29–39.
152. Owings MF, Kozak LJ. Ambulatory and inpatient procedures in the United States, 1996.
National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat. 1998;13(139). http://www.cdc.gov/
nchs/data/series/sr_13/sr13_139.pdf. Accessed April 13, 2008.
153. National Center for Health Statistics. National hospital discharge and ambulatory surgery
data. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsas.htm#new. Accessed April 13, 2008.
154. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Toxic anterior segment syndrome after cataract
surgery—Maine, 2006. MMWR. 2007;56(25):629–630. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/
mmwrhtml/mm5625a2.htm. Accessed April 13, 2008.
155. Hellinger WC, Hasan SA, Bacalis LP, et al. Outbreak of toxic anterior segment syndrome fol-
lowing cataract surgery associated with impurities in autoclave steam moisture. Infect Con-
156. Unal M, Yucel I, Akar Y, Oner A, Altin M. Outbreak of toxic anterior segment syndrome asso-
ciated with glutaraldehyde after cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006;32:1696–701.
157. Werner L, Sher JH, Taylor JR, et al. Toxic anterior segment syndrome and possible associa-
tion with ointment in the anterior chamber following cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract
Surg. 2006;32:227–235.
158. Rutala WA, Weber DJ, Thomann CA. Outbreak of wound infections following podiatric
surgery due to contaminated bone drills. Foot Ankle. 1987;7:350–354.
159. Civen R, Vugia DJ, Alexander R, et al. Outbreak of Serratia marcescens infections following
injection of betamethasone compounded at a community pharmacy. Clin Infect Dis.
2006;43(7):831–837. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/507336. Accessed
April 13, 2008.
160. American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, American Society of Ophthalmic Regis-
tered Nurses. Recommended practices for cleaning and sterilizing intraocular surgical
instruments. Fairfax, VA: American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery; 2007.
http://www.ascrs.com/upload/asornspecialtaskforcereport.pdf. Accessed April 14, 2008.
161. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Guideline for Prevention of Sur-
gical Site Infection, 1999. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hospital Infection
Control Practices Advisory Committee. http://www.ascrs.com/upload/asornspecialtaskforcereport
.pdf. Accessed April 14, 2008.
162. Manian FA. Surveillance of surgical site infections in alternative settings: exploring the cur-
rent options. Am J Infect Control. 1997;25:102–105.
163. Manian FA, Meyer L. Comprehensive surveillance of surgical wound infections in outpatient
and inpatient surgery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1990;11:515–520.
164. Jarvis WR. Infection control and changing health-care delivery systems. Emerg Infect Dis.
2001;7:170–173.
165. Nguyen GT, Proctor SE, Sinkowitz-Cochran RL, Garrett DO, Jarvis WR, and the Associa-
tion for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology. Status of infection surveillance
and control programs in the United States, 1992–1996. Am J Infect Control. 2000;28(6):
392–400.
Report, data summary for 2006, issued June 2007. Am J Infect Control. 2007;35:290–301.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/pdf/nhsn/2006_NHSN_Report.pdf. Accessed April 13, 2008.
167. Association of PeriOperative Registered Nurses (AORN). Perioperative Standards and Rec-
ommended Practices. 2008 ed. Denver, CO: AORN; 2008. http://www.aorn.org/AORNStore.
168. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. Sterilization in health care
facilities, 2006–2007. Arlington, VA: AAMI. 2006. http://www.aami.org.
SUGGESTED READINGS AND RESOURCES
Suggested Readings
Garcia-Houchins S. Dialysis. In: APIC Text of Infection Control and Epidemiology. Washington,
DC: Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology. 2005:49-1–49-17.
Goodman RA, Solomon SL. Transmission of infectious diseases in outpatient health care settings.
JAMA. 1991;265:2377–2381.
Herwaldt LA, Smith SD, Carter CD. Infection control in the outpatient setting. Infect Control
Additional Information on Outbreaks and Infection Prevention and

Control in Ambulatory Care Settings
For comprehensive reviews of outbreaks that have been reported in a variety of outpatient set-
tings, including the infection control deficiencies that contributed to their occurrence and mea-
sures that can be used to prevent them, the reader is referred to the articles by Goodman and
Solomon1 and by Herwaldt, Smith, and Carter.2
Resources
The following national agencies and organizations have guidelines, position papers, or stan-
dards that can be used for developing infection surveillance, prevention and control programs in
the ambulatory care setting.
American Academy of Ophthalmology: Resources, guidelines, and training courses on infection

prevention and control. http://www.aao.org.
American Academy of Pediatrics: 2006 Red Book: Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases.
Peter G, ed. 24th ed. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2006. http://
www.aap.org.
American Dental Association: Resources and publications http://www.ada.org.
Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. Standards for dialysis water qual-
ity, storage, and distribution and standards for disinfection and sterilization in health care
settings. www.aami.org.
Association of Perioperative Registered Nurses: Standards for operating rooms and cleaning, dis-
infection and sterilization of equipment. www.aorn.org.
CDC Home page: www.cdc.gov. The Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) and most of
the CDC guidelines noted in this chapter can be downloaded from this Web site.
CDC Recommended Infection Control Guidelines for Dentistry. Information on dental infection
control issues as well as consensus evidence-based recommendations. See also the slide set
and accompanying speaker notes. http://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/. Accessed April 14, 2008.
CDC. General recommendations on immunization: recommendations of the Advisory Committee
on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR. 2006;55(No. RR-15).
CDC. Prevention of varicella: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization
Practices (ACIP). MMWR. 2007;56(No. RR-4).
CDC Infection Control in Health Care Settings website: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/.
CDC Dialysis-Associated Infections: infection prevention and control guidelines and links to out-
break reports and surveillance data. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/dpac_dialysis_pc.html.
DisinfectionandSterilization.org: Guidelines and resources on cleaning, disinfection and steriliza-
tion in health care settings. http://disinfectionandsterilization.org/.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System. MedWatch—The FDA
Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting System. http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/.
General vaccine and immunization information: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/default.htm.
Immunization schedules, recommendations and guidelines, and information for Health Care
Workers: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/default.htm. Accessed April 6, 2008.
Organization for Safety and Asepsis Procedures: provides resources on infection control for the
dental community. http://www.osap.org/index.cfm.
CHAPTER 6
Pseudo-Outbreaks Reported
in Healthcare Settings
Simple people . . . are very quick to see the live facts which are going on
about them.
—Oliver Wendell Holmes
INTRODUCTION
Healthcare-associated pseudo-outbreaks, or pseudoepidemics, have long

been recognized in the healthcare setting.1–5 As used in this chapter, a pseudo-
outbreak is defined as a real clustering of false infections or an artefactual
clustering of real infections. Twenty-nine (11%) of the 265 nosocomial epi-
demics investigated by the Hospital Infections Program of the Centers for Dis-
ease Control and Prevention (CDC) between 1956 and 1979 were actually
pseudo-outbreaks.3 A review of those pseudo-outbreaks found that the major-
ity were traced to errors in collecting, handling, or processing specimens.3 The
processing errors that occurred in the laboratory were most frequently associ-
ated with a change in personnel, technique, or culture media.
Table 6–1 lists examples of pseudo-outbreaks that have been reported in
healthcare settings.6–33
In addition to errors in collecting and processing specimens, healthcare-
associated pseudo-outbreaks have been traced to intrinsically contaminated
iodine solutions6,12,34 and organisms in hospital tap water.28,29 Pseudo-outbreaks
have also resulted from the improper categorization of an infection or other
condition as being nosocomial rather than community aquired.1,23,30
Pseudoepidemics have been associated with a variety of microorganisms
(bacteria, viruses, and fungi) and frequently involve blood cultures and respi-
ratory tract specimens. False-positive cultures of blood or other normally ster-
ile sites are more likely to be recognized because infections at these sites are
closely monitored by clinicians and infection prevention and control personnel.
For instance, in one report vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) was iso-
lated from sterile body sites collected from five patients over a 3-day period.
Because this was an increase in the number of cases of VRE, an epidemiologic
investigation was conducted. When a review of the patients’ records showed
that none had signs or symptoms of VRE infection, specimen contamination
and a pseudo-outbreak were suspected.34 Further investigation led to the con-
clusion that cross-contamination in the laboratory occurred when a technician
was processing the patients’ cultures along with a stored isolate of VRE that
had been retained for analysis. Comparison of the stored and patient isolates
197
198 PSEUDO-OUTBREAKS REPORTED IN HEALTHCARE SETTINGS
Table 6–1 Examples of Pseudo-Outbreaks Reported in Healthcare Settings
Year Reported/
Pseudo-Outbreak Associated With Reference
Ochrobactrum anthropi in Improper specimen collection 2007 6
blood cultures from inpatients allowed cross-contamination of
and outpatients blood cultures at time of collection
from nonsterile erythrocyte sedimen-
tation rate blood collection tubes
Acinetobacter lwoffii in a Introduction of new automated 2007 7
variety of specimens from laboratory system for identifying
five inpatient units gram-negative organisms
Hepatitis B virus infection in Cross-contamination in lab following 2006 8
pregnant woman undergoing introduction and use of semiautomatic
routine screening cap remover for blood collection tubes
Increase in several types of Failure to use appropriate criteria to 20079
healthcare-associated diagnose and classify HAIs
infections (HAIs)
Chlamydia trachomatis in False-positive test results for 200210
state residential facility possible genital infections
Mycobacterium chelonae Automated washers contaminated 200111
and Methylobacterium with biofilm that rendered them
mesophilicum in broncho- resistant to decontamination;
scopy specimens washers contaminated
endoscopes and bronchoscopes
Pseudomonas putida in Intrinsically contaminated 2000 12
outpatient ENT clinic antifog solution
Mycobacterium tuberculosis Specimen cross-contamination due to 199813
faulty ventilation in the laboratory
Cluster of Alcaligenes Contaminated saline used in laboratory 199814
xylosoxidans as diluent in processing specimens
M. chelonae respiratory tract Contaminated multidose 1997 15
pseudoinfections lidocaine sprayers
Respiratory tract infections Laboratory errors in processing 1997 16
with Acinetobacter species respiratory specimens
PPD skin-test conversions Use of 250 tuberculin units (TU) of 1997 17
PPD instead of 5 TU
Multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas Improper stool collection technique 1997 18
aeruginosa in a hematology
oncology unit
Multidrug-resistant False-positive cultures due to 1997 19
Mycobacterium tuberculosis inadequate cleaning and disinfection
of bronchoscope
Pseudomonas (now Burkholderia) Contaminated blood gas analyzer 1996 20
cepacia pseudobacteremia
Introduction 199
Year Reported/
Pseudo-Outbreak Associated With Reference
Rhodotorula rubra Improper disinfection and drying of 1995 21
bronchoscopes
Nontuberculous mycobacteria Contaminated probe on automated 1995 22
lab instrument
Cluster of methicillin-resistant Cluster suggesting nosocomial 1995 23
Staphylococcus aureus infection found to be coincidental
Pseudomonas aeruginosa Contaminated saline used in laboratory 1994 24
orthopedic infections as diluent in processing specimens
Enterobacter cloacae Laboratory contamination during use 1993 25
pseudobacteremia of a new blood culturing system
Mycobacterium xenopi Specimen contamination by potable 1993 26
water containing M. xenopi
Respiratory tract infections Contaminated bronchoscope cleaning 1992 27
caused by nontuberculous machine and laboratory contamination
mycobacteria of an antimicrobial solution
Copepod pseudo-outbreak Copepods in hospital tap water 1992 28
in stool specimens
Pseudocontamination of Presence of nonpathogenic 1992 29
hospital drinking water freshwater organisms
Senile hemangioma in a Incorrect perception that lesions had 199130
nursing home recent and rapid onset
Pseudobacteremia with Contaminated radiometric blood 1987 31
enterococcus and culture device
Influenza A Cross-contamination in the laboratory 1984 32
Pseudomonas (now Povidone iodine intrinsically 1981 33
Burkholderia ) cepacia contaminated at manufacturing plant
pseudobacteremia
ENT = ears, nose, throat; PPD = purified protein derivative
showed similar susceptibility patterns and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis

demonstrated that they were a single strain.
Many pseudoepidemics are the result of contamination of clinical specimens or
cultures. Specimens may be contaminated at the time of collection, during trans-
port, or during processing in the laboratory. An example of a pseudo-outbreak that
resulted from specimen contamination at the point of collection was reported by
Verweij et al.,18 who investigated a cluster of multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas
aeruginosa involving 10 neutropenic patients in a hematology unit. The epi-
demic strain was isolated from surveillance stool cultures. An epidemiologic
investigation revealed that healthcare workers had collected the surveillance

stool cultures by sampling feces that were in the toilet and were therefore con-
taminated by the toilet water. Isolates of P. aeruginosa from the stool samples
in the outbreak and from the toilet water were shown to be identical by geno-
typing. The “outbreak” subsided when personnel were instructed how properly
to collect stool specimens for culture.
Common causes of pseudo-outbreaks include the following:
• Errors in specimen collection or processing6,14,16,18,24,26,35–37
• Cross-contamination in the laboratory13,20,23,31,32,34,38
• Contaminated equipment, medical devices, or solutions12,15,19,21,27,33,39–42
• Failure to recognize that patients’ infections are community acquired
rather than nosocomial1,23
• Failure to use appropriate criteria to diagnose healthcare-associated
infection (HAI)9,43
• Failure to recognize that an organism causing an outbreak or cluster may
actually be several unrelated strains44
• Contaminated tap water and ice28,29,45–48
PSEUDO-OUTBREAKS INVOLVING MYCOBACTERIUM SPECIES
There are multiple reports in the literature of clusters and pseudoepidemics

involving Mycobacterium tuberculosis and nontuberculous mycobacteria
(NTM).49 The majority of the reported pseudo-outbreaks have been caused by
laboratory errors,13,22,50–52 false-positive tuberculin skin tests,17 and contami-
nated bronchoscopes.19,27,41,42
Pseudo-Outbreaks of Mycobacterium tuberculosis
Pseudo-outbreaks of tuberculosis (TB) have been associated with false-positive

M. tuberculosis cultures resulting from laboratory errors. Opportunities for
laboratory contamination occur during the many steps involved in process-
ing specimens and the prolonged incubation period necessary for isolating
M. tuberculosis from culture. Laboratory contamination of TB specimens and
cultures has been shown to occur during the initial specimen processing, incu-
bation, reading or sampling of the cultures, and susceptibility testing. Cross-
contamination has been attributed to a faulty exhaust hood and to instrument
or reagent contamination, resulting in carry-over of mycobacteria from one
specimen to another, and to the inadvertent inoculation of one patient’s cul-
ture into another patient’s culture during subculturing.50,53–57 In addition, con-
tamination with low numbers of mycobacteria that may not have been
detected in the past is now more easily recognized with newer, more sensitive
laboratory equipment and methodologies.51
To avoid the misdiagnosis of TB, false-positive M. tuberculosis cultures
should be suspected under the following conditions:
• A single positive culture occurs in a patient who has multiple negative
smears for acid-fast bacilli (AFB).
Pseudo-Outbreaks Involving Mycobacterium Species 201
• A patient’s signs, symptoms, and clinical presentation are not consistent

with TB.
• Another AFB smear-positive and culture-positive specimen was processed
the same day as the suspect specimen.
• Only a few colonies are present on solid growth media or the time for
detection in a broth medium is prolonged.
• Molecular typing, such as DNA fingerprinting, shows the suspect isolate
is identical to that of a likely source of contamination.
• The patient with the suspect isolate cannot be epidemiologically linked to
the patient with the putative source isolate.
Measures that can be used to identify clusters and minimize cross-contamination
and the occurrence of false-positive cultures have been published by Small et
al.57 and by Tokars et al.58
A pseudo-outbreak of TB that was not associated with laboratory contami-
nation occurred among the staff of a county residence for retarded adults
(RRA) in New York in 1995.17 An unexpected cluster of tuberculin skin test
conversions among the staff of the residence prompted the county nursing ser-
vice to conduct an extensive contact investigation to identify the source of
infection. Persons with a positive tuberculin skin test were evaluated for signs
and symptoms of TB and received a chest radiograph. Five staff members of
the RRA were placed on isoniazid (INH) prophylaxis. The investigation
resulted in a considerable amount of anxiety in the staff and the community.
Over 100 community members were screened with a tuberculin skin test,
either as part of the contact investigation or on community members’ request
because of concern that they were infected. No potential source of infection
among staff or clients of the residence or any of their contacts was found.
When the state health department was asked to assist in the investigation, its
review of the results of the county’s findings led to a suspicion that the puri-
fied protein derivative (PPD) solution may have been defective or the tech-
niques used to apply or to read the test may have been inappropriate. A
careful review of the tuberculin skin-testing program at the residence
revealed that the staff of the facility had been tested with 250 TU (tuberculin
units) of PPD rather than with the 5 TU that is recommended for a TB skin-
testing program. The newly PPD-positive staff were retested with 5 TU of PPD
and were found to be negative, so INH prophylaxis was discontinued. The esti-
mated cost of the investigation was at least $15,000. This included “adminis-
tration and management salaries, nursing time, staff time for retesting,
reading, medical visits, employee overtime for TB training, 5 days of 24-hour
RRA coverage for the resident who was hospitalized for bronchoscopy, liver-
function tests, prescriptions, eight chest radiographs, and other administra-
tive costs” for the county RRA and costs of the investigation that the local
health unit and state health department incurred.17(p573)
Pseudo-outbreaks of TB have resulted in (1) individuals being misdiagnosed
with a disease that carries considerable stigma; (2) extensive contact investi-
gations of personnel, family members, friends, and other contacts of patients
with an incorrect diagnosis; (3) needless hospitalization, including airborne (or
respiratory) isolation; (4) unnecessary bronchoscopy to confirm the diagnosis;
(5) unwarranted treatment and prophylaxis with antituberculous medica-

tions; (6) excessive costs to health departments and healthcare facilities; (7)
widespread anxiety and fear of contagion in those affected; and (8) adverse
publicity for the facility involved.
Pseudo-Outbreaks of Nontuberculous Mycobacteria
There are many reports in the literature of clusters and pseudo-outbreaks

involving NTM, such as Mycobacterium chelonei, M. xenopi, M. marinum, M.
abscessus, M. scrofulaceum, M. terrae, M. gordonae, M. fortuitum, and M. avium-
intracellulare.49 NTM pseudoepidemics have been associated with laboratory
processing errors38,59–61 and with contamination of laboratory reagents,27 spec-
imens,26,62,63 probes on laboratory instruments,22 multidose lidocaine sprayers,15
potable water,26,45,46 and bronchoscopes and bronchoscope cleaner/disinfec-
tors.11,27,41,42 In three of these reported outbreak investigations, patients with
false-positive NTM cultures were started on antituberculous therapy while
identification of the AFB organism was pending—even though the patients had
no apparent mycobacterial disease.22,26,27
NTM are commonly found in municipal water supplies. In a 1983 survey of
115 dialysis centers in the United States, NTMs were found in the water sup-
plied to 95 (83%) of the centers.64 Therefore, whenever NTMs are isolated from
clinical specimens, the clinician must carefully evaluate the patient’s clinical
picture to determine if the isolate is causing infection or is a contaminant that
was introduced into the specimen during collection (e.g., by a contaminated
bronchoscope or by NTMs in the water that may have been used to rinse the
patient’s mouth) or during specimen processing in the laboratory. When a clus-
ter or an increase in the number of isolates of NTM occurs, a clinical and epi-
demiologic investigation should be conducted to determine if a true outbreak
or a pseudo-outbreak is occurring. The clinical investigation should consist of
a review of the medical history and records of each of the patients from whom
an NTM is isolated and a determination of whether the organism is causing
an infection or is likely to be a contaminant. The epidemiologic investigation
should evaluate potential sources for the organisms. If the organisms are
judged to be contaminants, then specimen collection and processing methods
need to be reviewed and observed. If the organisms are causing disease, then
the source may be contaminated water, ice, or solutions used by the patients,
or a contaminated medical device such as a bronchoscope.
In one report, a perceived increase in the number of respiratory tract infec-
tions caused by AFB prompted an investigation that found that 16 of 46 bron-
choscopies yielded specimens that were positive for AFB.27 Two of the 16
patients were diagnosed with a mycobacterial infection—an acquired immune
deficiency syndrome patient with Mycobacterium avium-intracellulare infec-
tion and another patient with cavitary tuberculosis. In four patients only the
smears were AFB-positive—the cultures were negative. NTMs (M. chelonei
and M. gordonae) were isolated from the cultures of the other 10 patients;
however, none of these had clinical evidence of mycobacterial disease. Despite
the lack of evidence for disease, four of the patients were treated with antitu-
Recognizing a Pseudo-Outbreak 203
berculous medication pending culture results. The investigation led to the dis-
covery of two sources for the NTMs: a contaminated water tank in an auto-
mated endoscope washer/disinfector and an antimicrobial culture media
additive that was contaminated with M. gordonae.
PSEUDO-OUTBREAKS OF NONINFECTIOUS ETIOLOGY
Not all pseudo-outbreaks are of an infectious nature. Pseudoepidemics of

senile hemangioma have been reported in hospitalized patients and nursing
home residents.30,65,66 One reported pseudo-outbreak occurred in an 800-bed
long-term care facility. It began when a healthcare worker noticed that an
elderly resident of a psychogeriatric ward had numerous skin lesions.30 Since
the lesions had not been previously noticed, the ward staff considered them to
be of recent onset. Because the lesions were presumed to be of infectious etiol-
ogy, the staff examined the other residents on the ward and found all 34 of
them to have similar lesions. The day after the lesions were noticed on the first
resident, a dermatologist diagnosed the lesions on another resident as senile
hemangioma. Because the nursing staff were convinced that the lesions had
occurred suddenly and had spread among the residents, the public health
department and an infectious disease specialist were consulted on day 3 of the
outbreak. Based on the lack of clinical and laboratory evidence that either an
infectious agent or an environmental toxin was involved, the investigators
concluded that the lesions were senile hemangioma. Despite the fact that the
investigation was completed by day 4 of the reported outbreak, caregivers
(many of whom had little medical training) “were suspicious and fearful of
exposure to a pathogen as yet undiscovered by medical science,”30(p521) and con-
tinued to be skeptical of the diagnosis. Some of the staff, especially those who
were pregnant, requested work schedule revisions. The estimated cost to the
long-term care facility for the pseudoepidemic was $10,000. Pseudoepidemics
of senile hemangioma have occurred mainly because of the misperception that
the lesions had a recent and rapid onset. These pseudo-outbreaks are difficult
to control because the caregivers involved must accept the conclusion that the
lesions were present long before they were noticed.
RECOGNIZING A PSEUDO-OUTBREAK
It is important that pseudo-outbreaks be recognized promptly because they

frequently result in unnecessary diagnostic and treatment procedures, con-
sume valuable infection control and laboratory resources, and cause undue
concern of patients, their families, and healthcare staff. Pseudo-outbreaks may
be difficult to recognize and may occur for a prolonged period before they are
detected.63 Typically, a pseudo-outbreak is recognized when an unusual organ-
ism is isolated from several patients, when there is a sudden increase in the
number of isolates of a common pathogen, or when a common pathogen is iso-
lated from several patients who have no signs and symptoms of infection.61
Laboratory staff, infection prevention and control personnel, and clinicians
should routinely review culture results for evidence of clusters or unusual
organisms so that outbreaks and pseudo-outbreaks may be quickly recog-

nized. Frequently, the identity of an organism causing a cluster of pseudoinfec-
tions, or the types of specimens from which it is isolated, will provide a clue to
the source of the organism. In one report, the sudden occurrence of positive
cultures of normally sterile bone allograft specimens prompted an epidemio-
logic investigation.67 The grafts grew Pseudomonas cepacia (now Burkholderia
cepacia) and Commomonas acidovorans. Since these organisms grow well in
an aqueous habitat, a water source was suspected. An investigation revealed
that a single laboratory technologist had processed all four of the bone allo-
grafts that grew gram-negative organisms. A review of her work practices
revealed that she had allowed the test tubes containing the bone to float in a
sonicator water bath rather than securing them in a test tube rack or beaker.
Cultures from the water bath grew the same organisms that were isolated
from the bone specimens. The bacterial isolates from the bone allografts had
the same antibiogram as those from the water bath, and pulsed-field gel elec-
trophoresis indicated they were the same strains.67
Pseudomonas and Burkholderia species multiply readily in aqueous solu-
tions and often have been implicated in pseudo-outbreaks. Studies have iden-
tified Pseudomonas spp. in postoperative pseudoinfections associated with a
contaminated bottle of sterile saline that was used in the laboratory to process
tissue specimens24 and with outbreaks of bacteremia, peritonitis, and pseudo-
infections that were associated with intrinsically contaminated iodine solu-
tions.33,39,68 Pseudobacteremia attributed to intrinsic contamination of
povidone-iodine was reported by Berkelman et al. in 1981.33 Their investiga-
tion was prompted by a New York hospital that reported to the Hospital Infec-
tions Branch at the CDC the occurrence of 17 blood cultures positive for
Pseudomonas cepacia over a 3-month period. A review of the cases revealed
that none of the 14 patients had clinical evidence of gram-negative bac-
teremia. Despite the fact that none of the patients had clinical signs and
symptoms of gram-negative sepsis, four of the patients received antimicrobial
therapy for possible bacteremia based on the culture results. A telephone sur-
vey of other hospitals in the New York City area uncovered three additional
hospitals that were experiencing pseudobacteremias with P. cepacia. P. cepacia
was eventually recovered from 52 patients in four hospitals over a 7-month
period. An extensive epidemiologic investigation implicated 10% povidone-
iodine solution from one manufacturer as the source of the contamination. The
povidone-iodine was used at all four hospitals as a skin preparation for collec-
tion of blood cultures. P. cepacia was also isolated from an abdominal wound
that had been packed with povidone-iodine–soaked dressings and from a spu-
tum culture of a patient whose tracheostomy site was cleansed with the impli-
cated povidone-iodine solution.33
VERIFYING THE DIAGNOSIS AND VERIFYING THE EXISTENCE

OF AN OUTBREAK
The first two steps in the investigation of any potential outbreak are: (1) ver-
ify the diagnosis, and (2) verify the existence of an outbreak. Failure to follow
these two very important steps before continuing an outbreak investigation
Verifying the Diagnosis and Verifying the Existence of an Outbreak 205
may lead the investigator on the proverbial wild goose chase. At the beginning
of an outbreak investigation, it is necessary to verify the diagnosis of any
reported or suspected cases before proceeding, to avoid wasting time investi-
gating an outbreak that may not exist.
For example, infection control professionals (ICPs) in acute and long-term
care settings occasionally receive calls from personnel reporting an outbreak
of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) on a particular
healthcare unit. When such a call occurs, the ICP should first ask for the
names of the patients or residents that the healthcare worker believes are
involved in the reported outbreak and then should promptly review the
patients’ culture reports and medical records. This quick review may reveal
that some of the MRSA isolates are actually methicillin-resistant Staphylococ-
cus epidermidis or that several of the patients or residents were already culture-
positive for MRSA when admitted to the unit. If this is the case, these findings
should be promptly reported to the healthcare worker who expressed concern
in order to prevent rumors and fears that the facility is experiencing an out-
break. If clinical features appear to be inconsistent with laboratory results, a
pseudoinfection should be suspected. If a cluster or increase in the number of
pseudoinfections is detected, then a pseudo-outbreak should be suspected. In
this case, the investigator should carefully analyze each step in specimen col-
lection and processing.
Surveillance artefact is a frequent cause of pseudoepidemics, so it is impor-
tant to verify that an outbreak exists (i.e., that there is an increase in the
expected number of healthcare-associated cases).1 Surveillance artefact may
occur due to (1) failure to properly distinguish community-acquired infections
from HAIs, (2) a coincidental occurrence of unrelated cases, or (3) a change in
the facility’s method of conducting surveillance.
Bannatyne et al. reported the results of their investigation of an apparent
cluster of three MRSA cases in a hospital with a low incidence of MRSA.23 A
review of the culture reports revealed that the three isolates, which appeared
over a 16-day period, had different antibiotic susceptibility patterns. Further
investigation into the patients’ medical histories revealed that two of the
patients had prior positive MRSA cultures when at other institutions.
Although the three isolates exhibited temporal and geographic clustering, the
investigators were able to hypothesize that the organisms were unrelated.
When the organisms were typed, they were found to be different phage types,
thus confirming the hypothesis that the strains were not related.23
Molecular techniques for identifying and characterizing microorganisms
have greatly facilitated the understanding of the epidemiology of HAIs and
outbreaks.69,70 Personnel responsible for investigating a pseudo-outbreak
should consider using molecular testing of isolates in combination with an epi-
demiologic investigation to identify and confirm the likely source of a pseu-
doepidemic. As with any laboratory test, care must be taken when evaluating
typing results because these results must be combined with a careful epidemi-
ologic study in order to confirm the transmission of a single strain or multiple
strains of an organism. Molecular techniques used for characterizing a variety
of pathogens implicated in outbreaks and pseudo-outbreaks are discussed in
Chapter 11.
PREVENTING PSEUDO-OUTBREAKS
Pseudo-outbreaks can be prevented when laboratory personnel implement

and adhere to protocols that reduce the risk of specimen contamination and
when clinicians, laboratory personnel, and ICPs (1) quickly recognize the
occurrence of false-positive cultures, (2) are alert to the occurrence of clusters
or an increased number of infections/pseudoinfections, (3) use objective crite-
ria for diagnosing the presence of an infection, and (4) use appropriate criteria
for categorizing an infection as healthcare or community associated.
SUMMARY
Outbreak investigations generally require a large time commitment on the

part of the investigators, many of whom are pulled away from their normal job
duties. Outbreaks result in a great deal of anxiety and fear in personnel,
patients, residents, visitors, and the community. They cause disruption in the
lives of patients, residents, and personnel and in the provision of healthcare
services. In addition, pseudoinfections or a pseudo-outbreak may result in
unnecessary treatment or prophylaxis of patients, residents, or staff and the
loss of confidence in medical personnel and the laboratory. To avoid these adverse
effects, it is important that pseudoinfections and artefactual clusters of real
infections be recognized and acted upon promptly.
REFERENCES
1. Weinstein RA, Stamm WE. Pseudoepidemics in hospital. Lancet. 1977;2:862–864.

2. Kusek JW. Nosocomial pseudoepidemics and pseudoinfections: an increasing problem. Am J
3. Stamm WE, Weinstein RA, Dixon RE. Comparison of endemic and epidemic nosocomial infec-
tions. Am J Med. 1981;70:393–397.
4. Jarvis WR. Nosocomial outbreaks: the Centers for Disease Control’s Hospital Infections Pro-
gram experience, 1980–1990. Am J Med. 1991;91(suppl 3B):101S–106S.
6. Labarca JA, Garcia P, Balcells ME, et al. Pseudo-outbreak of Ochrobactrum anthropi bac-
teremia related to cross-contamination from erythrocyte sedimentation tubes. Infect Control
Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28(6):763–765.
7. Apisarnthanarak A, Kiratisin P, Thongphubeth K, Yuakyen C, Mundy LM. Pseudo-outbreak
of Acinetobacter Iwoffii infection in a tertiary care center in Thailand. Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol. 2007;28(5):637–639.
8. Diederen BM, Verhulst C, van’t Veen A, van Keulen PH, Kluytmans JA. Pseudo-outbreak of
hepatitis B virus infection associated with contamination of a semiautomatic cap remover.
9. Calfee DP, Kornblum J, Jenkins SG. Pseudo-outbreak of Bordetella bronchiseptica infection
associated with contaminated rabbit blood used as a broth culture supplement. Infect Control
Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28(6):758–760.
References 207
10. Gust DA, Wang SA, Black CM, et al. A pseudo-outbreak of Chlamydia trachomatis in a state
residential facility: implications for diagnostic testing. J Infect Dis. 2002;185(6):841–844.
11. Kressel AB, Kidd F. Pseudo-outbreak of Mycobacterium chelonae and Methylobacterium
mesophilicum caused by contamination of an automated endoscopy washer. Infect Control
Hosp Epidemiol. 2001;22(7):414–418.
12. Romney M, Sherlock C, Stephens G, Clarke A. Pseudo-outbreak of Pseudomonas putida in a
hospital outpatient clinic originating from a contaminated commercial anti-fog solution—
Vancouver, British Columbia. Can Commun Dis Rep. November 1, 2000;26(21):183–184.
13. Segal-Maurer S, Kreiswirth BN, Burns JM, et al. Mycobacterium tuberculosis specimen con-
tamination revisited: the role of laboratory environmental control in a pseudo-outbreak.
14. Gravowitz EV, Keenholtz SL. A pseudoepidemic of Alcaligenes xylosoxidans attributable to
contaminated saline. Am J Infect Control. 1998;26:146–148.
15. Cox R, deBorja K, Bach MC. A pseudo-outbreak of Mycobacterium chelonae infections related
to bronchoscopy. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1997;18:136–137.
16. Sule O, Ludlam HA, Walker CW, Brown DFJ, Kauffman ME. A pseudo-outbreak of respira-
tory infection with Acinetobacter species. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1997;18:510–512.
17. Grabau JC, Burrows DJ, Kern ML. A pseudo-outbreak of purified protein derivative skin-test
conversions caused by inappropriate testing materials. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1997;18:571–574.
18. Verweij PE, Bilj D, Melchers W, et al. Pseudo-outbreak of multiresistant Pseudomonas aerug-
inosa in a hematology unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1997;18:128–131.
19. Agerton T, Valway S, Gore B, et al. Transmission of a highly drug-resistant strain (strain W1)
of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. JAMA. 1997;278:1073–1077.
20. Gravel-Topper D, Sample ML, Oxley C, Toye B, Woods DE, Garber GE. Three-year outbreak
of pseudobacteremia with Burkholderia cepacia traced to a contaminated blood gas analyzer.
21. Hagan ME, Klotz SA, Bartholomew W, Potter L, Nelson M. A pseudoepidemic of Rhodotorula
rubra: a marker for microbial contamination of the bronchoscope. Infect Control Hosp Epi-
demiol. 1995;16:727–728.
22. Mehta JB, Kefri M, Soike DR. Pseudoepidemic of nontuberculous mycobacteria in a commu-
nity hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1995:16:633–634.
23. Bannatyne RM, Wells BA, MacMillan SA, Thibault MC. A cluster of MRSA—the little out-
break that wasn’t. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1995;16:380.
24. Forman W, Axelrod P, St John K, et al. Investigation of a pseudo-outbreak of orthopedic infec-
tions caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1994;15:652–657.
25. Pearson ML, Pegues DA, Carson LA, et al. Cluster of Enterobacter cloacae pseudobac-
teremias associated with use of an agar slant blood culturing system. J Clin Microbiol.
1993;31:2599–2603.
26. Sniadack DH, Ostroff SM, Karlix MA, et al. A nosocomial pseudo-outbreak of Mycobacterium
xenopi due to a contaminated potable water supply: lessons in prevention. Infect Control
27. Gubler JG, Salfinger M, von Graevenitz A. Pseudoepidemic of nontuberculous mycobacteria
due to a contaminated bronchoscope cleaning machine: report of an outbreak and review of
the literature. Chest. 1992;101:1245–1249.
28. Van Horn KG, Tatz JS, Li KI, Newman L, Wormser GP. Copepods associated with a perirectal
abscess and copepod pseudo-outbreak in stools for ova and parasite examinations. Diagn
Microbiol Infect Dis. 1992;15:561–565.
29. Klotz SA, Normand RE, Kalinsky RG. “Through a drinking glass and what was found there”:
pseudocontamination of a hospital’s drinking water. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1992;
13:477–481.
30. Poulin C, Schlech WF. A pseudo-outbreak in a nursing home. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1991;12:521–522.
31. Bradley SF, Wilson KH, Rosloniec MA, Kauffman CA. Recurrent pseudobacteremias traced to
a radiometric blood culture device. Infect Control. 1987;8:281–283.
32. Budnick LD, Moll ME, Hull HF, Mann JM, Kendal AP. A pseudo-outbreak of influenza A asso-
ciated with use of laboratory stock strain. Am J Public Health. 1984;76:607–609.
34. Grinbaum RS, Guimarães T, Kusano E, Hosino N, Sader H, Cereda RF. A pseudo-outbreak of
vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2003;24:461–464.
35. Medeiros EAS, Lott TJ, Lopes Colombo A, et al. Evidence for a pseudo-outbreak of Candida
guilliermondii fungemia in a University Hospital in Brazil. J Clin Micro. 2007;45:942–947.
http://jcm.asm.org/cgi/content/full/45/3/942?view=long&pmid=17229862#R21. Accessed
March 20, 2008.
36. Ender PT, Durning SJ, Woelk WK, et al. Pseudo-outbreak of methicillin-resistant Staphylo-
coccus aureus. Mayo Clin Proc. 1999;74(9):885–889.
37. Park YS, Kim SY, Park SY, et al. Pseudo-outbreak of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia bac-
teremia in a general ward. Am J Infect Control. 2008;36:29–32.
38. Oda GV, DeVries MM, Yakrus MA. Pseudo-outbreak of Mycobacterium scrofulaceum linked
to cross-contamination with a laboratory reference strain. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
2001;22(10):649–651. [Erratum in: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2001;22(12):785.]
iodine solution contaminated with Pseudomonas cepacia. Clin Infect Dis. 1991;14:1078–
1083.
40. Silva CV, Magalhães VD, Pereira CR, Kawagoe JY, Ikura C, Ganc AJ. Pseudo-outbreak of
Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Serratia marcescens related to bronchoscopes. Infect Control
Hosp Epidemiol. 2003;24(3):195–197.
41. Fraser VJ, Jones M, Murray P, Medoff G, Zhang Y, Wallace RJ. Contamination of fiberoptic
bronchoscopes with Mycobacterium chelonae linked to an automated bronchoscope disinfec-
tion machine. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1992;145:853–855.
42. Maloney S, Welbel S, Daves B, et al. Mycobacterium abscessus pseudoinfection traced to an
automated endoscope washer: utility of epidemiologic and laboratory investigation. J Infect
Dis. 1994;169:1166–1169.
43. Ehrenkranz NJ, Richter EI, Phillips PM, Shultz JM. An apparent excess of operative site
infections: analyses to evaluate false-positive diagnosis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1995;16:712–716.
44. Bonten MJM, Gaillard CA, van Tiel FH, van der Geest S, Stobberingh EE. A typical case of
cross-acquisition: the importance of genotypic characterization of bacterial strains. Infect
45. El Sahly HM, Septimus E, Soini H, et al. Mycobacterium simiae pseudo-outbreak resulting
from a contaminated hospital water supply in Houston, Texas. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;35(7):
802–807.
46. Labombardi VJ, O’Brien AM, Kislak JW. Pseudo-outbreak of Mycobacterium fortuitum due to
contaminated ice machines. Am J Infect Control. 2002;30(3):184–186.
47. Gebo KA, Srinivasan A, Perl TM, Ross T, Groth A, Merz WG. Pseudo-outbreak of Mycobac-
terium fortuitum on a human immunodeficiency virus ward: transient respiratory tract colo-
nization from a contaminated ice machine. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;35(1):32–38.
48. Lalande V, Barbut F, Varnerot A, et al. Pseudo-outbreak of Mycobacterium gordonae associ-
ated with water from refrigerated fountains. J Hosp Infect. 2001;48(1):76–79.
49. Phillips MS, von Reyn CF. Nosocomial infections due to nontuberculous mycobacteria. Clin
Infect Dis. 2001;33(8):1363–1374.
50. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Multiple misdiagnoses of tuberculosis resulting
from laboratory error—Wisconsin, 1996. MMWR. 1997;46:797–801.
51. Nivin B, Fujiwara PI, Hannifin J, Kreiswirth BN. Cross-contamination with Mycobacterium
tuberculosis: an epidemiological and laboratory investigation. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1998;19:500–503.
References 209
52. Cronin W, Rodriguez E, Valway S, et al. Pseudo-outbreak of tuberculosis in an acute-care gen-

eral hospital: epidemiology and clinical implications. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1998;19:345–347.
53. Braden CR, Templeton GL, Stead WW, Bates JH, Cave MD, Valway SE. Retrospective detec-
tion of laboratory cross-contamination of Mycobacterium tuberculosis cultures with use of
DNA fingerprint analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 1997;24:34–40.
54. Burman WJ, Stone BL, Reeves RR, et al. The incidence of false-positive cultures for Mycobac-
terium tuberculosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1997;155:321–326.
55. Dunlap NE, Harris RH, Benjamin WH Jr, Harden JW, Hafner D. Laboratory contamination
of Mycobacterium tuberculosis cultures. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995;152:1702–1704.
56. Nitta AT, Davidson PT, De Koning ML, Kilman RJ. Misdiagnosis of multidrug-resistant
Mycobacterium tuberculosis possibly due to laboratory-related errors. JAMA. 1996;276:
1980–1983.
57. Small PM, McClenny NB, Singh SP, Schoolnik GK, Tompkins LS, Mickelsen PA. Molecular
strain typing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis to confirm cross-contamination in the mycobac-
teriology laboratory and modification of procedures to minimize occurrence of false-positive
cultures. J Clin Microbiol. 1993;31:1677–1682.
58. Tokars JI, Rudnick JR, Kroc K, et al. US hospital mycobacteriology laboratories: status and
comparison with state public health department laboratories. J Clin Microbiol. 1996;34:680–
685.
59. Goodman RA, Smith JD, Kubica GP, Dougherty EM, Sikes RK. Nosocomial mycobacterial
pseudoinfection in a Georgia hospital. Infect Control. 1984;5:573–576.
60. Jacobson E, Gurevich I, Schoch P, Cunha BA. Pseudoepidemic of nontuberculous mycobacte-
ria in a community hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;17:348.
61. Bearman G, Vaamonde C, Larone D, Drusin L, Zuccotti G. Pseudo-outbreak of multidrug-
resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis associated with presumed laboratory processing contam-
ination. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2002;23:620–622.
62. Bennett SN, Peterson DE, Johnson DR, Hall WN, Robinson-Dunn B, Dietrich S. Bron-
choscopy-associated Mycobacterium xenopi pseudoinfections. Am J Resp Crit Care Med.
1994;150:245–250.
63. Bettiker RL, Axelrod PI, Fekete T, et al. Delayed recognition of a pseudo-outbreak of
Mycobacterium terrae. Am J Infect Control. 2006;34:343–347.
64. Carson LA, Bland LA, Cusick LB, et al. Prevalence of nontuberculous mycobacteria in water
supplies of hemodialysis centers. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1988;54:3122–3125.
65. Seville RH, Rao PS, Hutchinson DN, Birchall G. Outbreak of Campbell de Morgan spots.
BMJ. 1970;1:408–409.
66. Honish A, Grimsrud K, Miedzinski L, Gold E, Cherry R. Outbreak of Campbell de Morgan
spots in a nursing home—Alberta. Can Dis Wkly Rep. 1988;14:211–212.
67. Mermel LA, Josephson SL, Giorgio C. A pseudo-epidemic involving bone allografts. Infect
69. Jarvis WR. Usefulness of molecular epidemiology for outbreak investigations. Infect Control
70. Singh A, Goering R, Simjee S, Foley SL, Zervosi MJ. Application of molecular techniques to
the study of hospital infection. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2006;19:512–530.
CHAPTER 7
Organisms and Diseases

Associated with Outbreaks in a
Variety of Healthcare Settings
A mighty creature is the germ.

—Ogden Nash1
INTRODUCTION
The outbreaks discussed in this book have been categorized into the health-
care setting in which they have most frequently been reported (i.e., acute,
long-term, or ambulatory care). It is evident, however, that many agents and
disease syndromes, such as gastroenteritis and respiratory illness, have been
associated with endemic and epidemic infections in more than one type of
healthcare setting. Organisms such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) species, Mycobac-
terium tuberculosis, norovirus, Sarcoptes scabiei, and Clostridium difficile fre-
quently cause healthcare-associated outbreaks in hospitals and long-term
care (LTC) facilities. M. tuberculosis has also been responsible for outbreaks in
ambulatory care settings such as clinics and emergency rooms. Endemic and
epidemic gastrointestinal diseases can occur in many settings and can affect
patients, residents, personnel, and visitors. It is important to note that
because of the absence of routinely available laboratory tests for some organ-
isms, the etiology of healthcare-associated epidemics and clusters of infectious
gastroenteritis is not always determined, especially if the causative agent is
viral.
The purpose of this chapter is to review outbreaks that have been caused by
MRSA, VRE, M. tuberculosis, C. difficile, influenza virus, norovirus, Sarcoptes
scabiei, and several other parasites, and to outline control measures that have
been used to prevent and interrupt these outbreaks. Since outbreaks of gas-
trointestinal illness frequently occur in a variety of healthcare settings, they
will also be discussed.
211
ORGANISMS ASSOCIATED WITH NOSOCOMIAL OUTBREAKS

IN A VARIETY OF HEALTHCARE SETTINGS
Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus

in the Acute Care Setting
Epidemiology
MRSA emerged as an important clinical problem shortly after the introduc-
tion of methicillin.2 The rise in the proportion of hospital-associated infections
caused by S. aureus resistant to the beta-lactam antibiotics has been docu-
mented by nosocomial infection surveillance systems in many countries.3–8
The first hospital outbreaks of MRSA in the United States occurred in the late
1960s, and multiple outbreaks have been reported worldwide.9–17 Initially
associated with large tertiary care hospitals, MRSA has become endemic in
many institutions and is now the most common multidrug-resistant pathogen
seen in US hospitals.18 Once considered to be strictly healthcare-associated,
distinct strains that are transmitted in the community and differ genetically
from those that have been traditionally considered healthcare-associated have
been isolated from persons with no prior history of hospitalization.19 Commu-
nity-acquired strains of MRSA have caused outbreaks in diverse populations,
such as sports teams, children in day care centers, inmates in prison, and stu-
dents.20–27 Not surprisingly, strains that initially were associated with community-
acquired infections have also been responsible for outbreaks in healthcare
facilities.27–30
Risk factors for acquiring MRSA include previous hospitalization or nursing
home stay, length of stay, prior antibiotic therapy, diabetes, an open wound,
admission to a critical care or burn unit, surgery, and proximity to a patient
with MRSA.14,19,25,31,32 Colonization often precedes infection, and one study
estimated that 30–60% of colonized patients will develop a MRSA infection.33
It is well recognized that patients may remain colonized for many
months.12,19,31 Prolonged colonization of hospital personnel also may occur—
one study found that several healthcare workers carried MRSA in their nares
for 3 or more months.34 Several studies have demonstrated that MRSA can
survive for long periods on environmental surfaces, and the rooms of patients
with MRSA can become substantially contaminated.35
In the acute care setting, the major mode of transmission of MRSA is via
hands that become contaminated by contact with colonized or infected per-
sons, or devices, items, or environmental surfaces contaminated with
MRSA.25,30 Direct contact involves body surface-to-body surface contact, such
as occurs when a healthcare worker turns a patient. Although transient contam-
ination of healthcare worker’s hands is considered to be the primary mode of
transmission from person to person, infected and colonized personnel have
served as reservoirs in common-source outbreaks.25,27 A physician with a pro-
longed upper respiratory tract infection and MRSA colonization was the likely
source for an outbreak in a surgical intensive care unit,36 nasal carriers were
implicated in an outbreak in a burn unit,28 and another outbreak was associ-
ated with a healthcare worker who had chronic otitis externa.37 Hospital per-
Organisms Associated with Nosocomial Outbreaks 213
sonnel, especially house staff who rotate between facilities, have been found to
spread MRSA from hospital to hospital and may be responsible for introduc-
ing the organism into a facility.38,39
A colonized healthcare worker was identified as the index case in a wide-
spread outbreak associated with a single clone of MRSA that occurred over a
2-year period in several healthcare facilities in Australia.40 Colonized and
infected patients, such as neonates that are transferred from one hospital to
another, can also serve as a method for interinstitutional spread and introduc-
ing MRSA into a facility.41
Control Measures
Guidelines for preventing the endemic and epidemic transmission of MRSA
in the acute care setting have been published by the Centers for Disease Con-
trol and Prevention (CDC),25,42 professional organizations,43–44 many state
health departments,45 and other public health agencies. Guidelines for pre-
venting, managing, and controlling a MRSA outbreak can be found in the
CDC’s Management of Multidrug-Resistant Organisms in Healthcare Settings,
2006.25 There is no single set of evidence-based practices for interrupting a
MRSA outbreak in a healthcare setting. However, published reports demon-
strate that MRSA outbreaks can be interrupted by using a combination of
interventions that include the following:
• Hand hygiene (i.e., washing hands with plain or antimicrobial soap or dis-
infecting hands with a waterless antiseptic hand rub)41,44
• Laboratory-based surveillance (i.e., the review of positive cultures) to
identify infected and colonized cases25
• Surveillance cultures to detect colonized and infected patients25
• Surveillance cultures to detect colonized and infected personnel—only if a
thorough epidemiologic investigation links a specific healthcare worker to
a cluster of cases (i.e., a common-source outbreak is suspected)25
• Contact precautions and use of barriers for infected and colonized
patients25,41
• Cohorting of patients and staff 25
• Education of healthcare personnel, patients, and visitors regarding pre-
venting the spread of the organism25,41
• Treatment of infected patients, residents, or personnel
• Decolonization of personnel, patients, and residents in certain situations25,42
Hand hygiene. Appropriate hand hygiene, regardless of the use of gloves, is

essential to control the person-to-person transmission of MRSA.25,42,46 Hand
hygiene may be accomplished either by washing hands with plain or antimi-
crobial soap or disinfecting hands with a waterless antiseptic hand rub (usu-
ally alcohol based). When soap and water are used, regardless of the type of
soap, personnel should be instructed to vigorously rub and clean all surfaces of
the hands and to wash their wrists and forearms. If the hands are not visibly
soiled, antiseptic hand rubs are generally recommended over the handwash-
ing because hand rubs have better antimicrobial activity and are more conve-
nient to use.25
Laboratory-based surveillance to identify cases. Ongoing surveillance is

an essential element of any infection prevention and control program and is
necessary to establish an endemic or baseline rate of MRSA in order to be able
to recognize outbreaks and clusters.25 Routine surveillance for MRSA is gener-
ally conducted by regularly reviewing laboratory reports for S. aureus isolates
that are resistant to methicillin (or nafcillin, oxacillin, etc., depending on
which antibiotic is reported by the microbiology laboratory). It should be noted
that many patients who are colonized or infected will not be detected by rou-
tine cultures obtained for clinical indications. Once MRSA is identified, crite-
ria must be used to determine if the organism is colonizing or infecting the
patient and if an infection is community or hospital associated. Many hospi-
tals use the criteria developed for the National Healthcare Safety Network
/National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) system to categorize a
nosocomial infection.47,48 However, because patients may be colonized with
MRSA for prolonged time periods, it is often difficult to determine if MRSA iso-
lated from a hospitalized patient was present but undetected at the time of
admission or was acquired in the hospital. Some infections, by definition, will
be categorized as nosocomial or healthcare-associated even though the
causative agent may have been part of the patient’s flora at admission. If an
outbreak is suspected, laboratory records should be reviewed retrospectively
and prospectively to identify both infected and colonized patients and a line
list of healthcare-associated cases should be maintained as discussed in Chap-
ter 8. Both colonized and infected cases should be identified in order to deter-
mine the extent of an outbreak.
Active surveillance testing of patients. Because many patients may be
colonized, with no overt signs or symptoms of infection, surveillance cultures
are recommended during an outbreak investigation to detect colonization and
to determine the extent of transmission of the organism.11,12,25,40,49 Since many
distinct strains of MRSA may be found in an institution,11,12,16,40 surveillance
cultures should not be done to detect transmission as a result of an outbreak
unless the MRSA isolates are subjected to a discriminatory molecular typing
test to provide evidence of strain relatedness. This is especially important if an
outbreak is suspected in an area that has a high endemic rate of MRSA. Meth-
ods for selecting appropriate culture sites, screening tests, and procedures for
collecting specimens are discussed in Chapter 11.
Surveillance cultures of personnel. Because most outbreaks are caused by
transmission of MRSA from patient-to-patient on the hands of personnel,
many clusters and outbreaks can be terminated by implementing contact pre-
cautions and reeducating all personnel on the importance and use of routine
infection prevention and control measures, such as standard precautions and
proper hand hygiene techniques. Generally, culturing of personnel is not rec-
ommended unless (1) initial control measures, such as contact isolation and
the use of barriers and hand hygiene, fail to terminate the spread of the organ-
ism and (2) a thorough epidemiologic investigation links personnel to a cluster
of cases (i.e., a common-source outbreak is suspected).25,49 Common-source
outbreaks are often associated with a personnel carrier and should be sus-
pected if an increase in MRSA cases occurs abruptly, such as when several
cases appear in a short time period on a single unit, or when several postoper-
ative wound infections occur in a short time period. When conducting surveil-
lance cultures, it should be remembered that at any given time 20–90% of
personnel may be nasal carriers of S. aureus, and fewer than 10% of healthy
carriers disperse the organism into the air.50 In addition, personnel who are
found to be colonized are not necessarily the source of an outbreak because
they may have become colonized by contact with the true source or by contact
with colonized or infected patients. Because many strains of MRSA may be cir-
culating in a facility, surveillance cultures should not be done unless all of the
MRSA isolates from both personnel and patients involved in an outbreak or
cluster are subjected to a discriminatory molecular typing test to confirm that
they are the same strain.
Contact precautions and use of barriers. Although much is known about
the epidemiology and the mode of transmission of MRSA, opinions vary con-
siderably on the use and effectiveness of contact isolation precautions and the
use of barriers such as gloves, gowns, and/or masks.11,12, 25,51–54 Most authori-
ties recommend the use of some type of contact isolation and barrier precautions
to restrict transmission, especially to control an outbreak. The Healthcare
Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) Guideline for Isola-
tion Precautions, 2007,42 and the HICPAC Management of Multidrug-Resistant
Organisms in Healthcare Settings, 2006,25 recommend that gloves and gowns
be worn when entering the room of a patient on contact precautions. One care-
fully conducted study found that contact isolation was effective in controlling
the epidemic spread of MRSA in a neonatal intensive care unit.55 Each hospi-
tal must identify which measures are appropriate for its specific situation.53
Education of healthcare workers. Educational programs on the epidemiol-
ogy and mode of transmission of MRSA and the importance of contact precau-
tions and hand hygiene should be provided for all members of the healthcare
team, including physicians.25 An educational program that actively involved
staff surgeons and house staff was effective at limiting the spread of MRSA in
one hospital.56
Treatment of infected or colonized patients. Patients who are either
infected or colonized with MRSA may serve as reservoirs. Most patients with
infection will be treated with antimicrobials; however, the use of antibiotics to
eliminate colonization in patients must be approached with caution because
many decolonization regimens have been found to promote the development of
resistant organisms.25,57,58 Before providing treatment or prophylaxis to
patients, a physician with expertise in infectious diseases should be consulted.
Treatment of infected or colonized personnel. When an outbreak or
cluster is detected, the investigator should search for personnel with obvious
signs and symptoms of infection or skin breakdown. Personnel with infec-
tions should be treated; however, eradication of nasal carriage in personnel is
recommended only when there is convincing epidemiologic evidence that a
culture-positive healthcare worker is the source of the epidemic strain.25,36,57
Before providing treatment or prophylaxis to personnel, a physician with
expertise in infectious diseases should be consulted. Restricting the activities
of culture-positive personnel is controversial. If a colonized healthcare worker

is epidemiologically linked to cases, the worker should be restricted from
patient care until carriage has been eradicated.25
If a healthcare worker is treated for decolonization, repeat cultures should
be done to confirm that the carrier state has been eradicated. Since antimicro-
bial agents used for decolonizing carriers may promote resistant strains of
MRSA, only those personnel who are epidemiologically linked to disease
transmission should be treated. Discussions of regimens used for eradicating
staphylococcal carriage in healthcare workers have been published else-
where.25,50,58
MRSA in the Long-Term Care Setting
Epidemiology
Although the first outbreak of MRSA involving nursing home residents was
reported in 1970, reports about the occurrence and epidemiology of MRSA in
LTC facilities were scarce until the late 1980s.59–67 Outbreaks of MRSA have
now been reported from a variety of LTC settings worldwide.17 The global
increase in colonization and infection caused by MRSA in acute care institu-
tions has been paralleled by a similar increase in the LTC setting.68–72 Studies
have shown colonization rates for MRSA among residents in LTC facilities
ranging from 5% to 82%62,65,67,68,70–74: one found from 4.9% to 15.6% on each of
eight culture surveys collected over a 15-month period,72 one detected 8.8% of
patients colonized at least once over a 1-year period,68 and a prevalence survey
conducted during an outbreak in a Veterans Affairs nursing home indicated
that 34% of the 114 patients were colonized.61 Several studies have docu-
mented colonization of residents at the time of admission to the facil-
ity,61,67,70,73,75 and several have found that residents may be persistently
colonized for months to years.69 A study by Hsu noted that although a few
nursing home residents had persistent colonization, most showed only a tem-
porary or intermittent carriage.73 The transfer of residents and patients
between acute care hospitals and LTC facilities plays a role in maintaining
reservoirs of MRSA in each setting.60,62,73,74
Risk factors for acquiring MRSA colonization in the LTC setting include
previous hospitalization, poor functional status, presence of a decubitus ulcer
or other wound, underlying diseases and medical conditions that jeopardize
skin integrity, use of invasive devices that disrupt the skin barrier (such as
gastrostomy tubes), and prior antimicrobial therapy.61,66,69,73 Risk factors for
infection include colonization with MRSA, a debilitated state requiring skilled
nursing care, and hemodialysis.63,65,76 A 1991 report of a 3-year prospective
cohort study of 197 patients in a long-term care Veterans Administration Cen-
ter found that colonization predicted infection, carriage persisted for a median
of 118 days, and 8/32 (25%) patients with persistent carriage ultimately devel-
oped an MRSA infection.65 Many of these residents had poor functional status
and required hemodialysis. In other studies, reported rates of infection varied
according to the population studied and ranged from 6% to 25% of patients
who were colonized with MRSA.61,65,66,69,70 The risk for serious infection with
MRSA appears to be low for most residents of LTC facilities.61,66,76,77
The major reservoir of MRSA in the LTC setting is colonized and infected
residents. The primary mode of transmission is direct contact between resi-
dents or from resident to resident via transient carriage on the hands of per-
sonnel.76 Transmission from one roommate to another appears to occur
infrequently and occurs most often in residents who require extensive nursing
care.66 Although MRSA has been isolated from environmental surfaces, there
is little evidence that the environment plays a major role in the transmission
of MRSA.66 Studies documenting the existence of several strains of MRSA in a
facility support the hypothesis that MRSA is introduced and reintroduced into
a facility from multiple sources.68,72
Control Measures
Recommendations for preventing the endemic and epidemic transmission of
MRSA in the LTC setting have been published by the American Hospital Asso-
ciation,78 Mulligan et al.,76 Kauffman et al.,63 and Bradley.69 Many health
departments and government agencies worldwide have developed guidelines
for the detection, prevention, and control of MRSA outbreaks in LTC facilities
and have posted these documents on their Web sites. Measures used to control
a MRSA outbreak in the LTC setting include the following:
• Hand hygiene (i.e., washing hands with plain or antimicrobial soap or dis-
infecting hands with a waterless antiseptic hand rub)42,46
identify infected and colonized cases25
• Surveillance cultures to detect colonized and infected patients/residents25
• Surveillance cultures to detect infected and colonized personnel—only if a
thorough epidemiologic investigation links a specific healthcare worker to
a cluster of cases (i.e., a common-source outbreak is suspected)25
• Contact precautions and use of barriers for infected and colonized
patients/residents25,42
• Cohorting of patients/residents and staff 25
• Education of healthcare personnel, residents/patients, and visitors
regarding preventing the spread of the organism25,42
• Treatment of infected residents/patients and personnel
• Decolonization of personnel and residents/patients in certain situations25,42
Hand hygiene. Appropriate hand hygiene, regardless of the use of gloves, is

essential to control the person-to-person transmission of MRSA.25,42,46 Hand
hygiene may be accomplished either by washing hands with plain or antimicro-
bial soap or disinfecting hands with a waterless antiseptic hand rub (usually
alcohol based). When soap and water are used, regardless of the type of soap,
personnel should be instructed to vigorously rub and clean all surfaces of the
hands and to wash their wrists and forearms. If the hands are not visibly
soiled, antiseptic hand rubs are generally recommended over the handwash-
ing because hand rubs have better antimicrobial activity and are more conve-
nient to use.25
Laboratory-based surveillance to identify cases. An ongoing surveil-

lance program is necessary to establish the endemic, or baseline, level of
MRSA in a LTC setting in order to recognize an outbreak or cluster of cases.
Laboratory-based surveillance (i.e., the ongoing review of positive cultures of
residents) should be routinely conducted in the LTC setting, even though it is
generally less effective for detecting MRSA than in the acute care setting
because cultures are less frequently collected. Criteria must be used to deter-
mine if a resident is colonized or infected and if the MRSA isolated was
acquired in the facility (nosocomial) or elsewhere. Although there is no single
widely accepted set of criteria for use in the LTC setting, many facilities use
the nosocomial infection definitions developed by McGeer et al.79 Surveillance
for cases is a critical component of any outbreak investigation because it helps
in defining the extent of the problem, the likely mode of transmission, and a
possible source. Once an outbreak is suspected, a linelisting of nosocomial cases,
both colonized and infected, should be constructed as discussed in Chapter 8.
Active surveillance testing of residents. Studies have shown that many
residents of LTC facilities are colonized with MRSA. Although routine collec-
tion of surveillance cultures may not be a cost-effective use of limited infection
control resources in an LTC facility,60 if an outbreak is suspected, surveillance
cultures of the nares and wounds are recommended to determine the extent of
spread.25 Since many distinct strains of MRSA may be found, MRSA isolates
should be subjected to a discriminatory molecular typing test to provide evi-
dence of strain relatedness. This is especially important if an outbreak is sus-
pected in a facility with a high endemic rate of MRSA. Methods for collecting
specimens and typing organisms are discussed in Chapter 11.
Surveillance cultures of personnel. Surveillance cultures of personnel in
an LTC facility are rarely warranted because the primary mode of transmis-
sion is via transient carriage of MRSA on the hands of healthcare workers.
Personnel should not be cultured unless there is epidemiologic evidence that
links the cases to a specific healthcare worker.25 The MRSA isolates from both
personnel and residents involved should be subjected to a discriminatory mo-
lecular typing test to confirm that they are the same strain. Although person-
nel involved in an outbreak situation may be culture-positive for the epidemic
strain, they are not necessarily the source of the outbreak—they may have
become colonized by contact with infected or colonized residents.
Cohorting. The practice of cohorting during an outbreak (i.e., either separat-
ing those who are infected or colonized with MRSA from those who are not, or
placing colonized/infected residents in the same room) has been shown to limit
the spread of MRSA in a skilled nursing facility;62 however, it is difficult to
cohort residents in an LTC facility in which residents are encouraged to social-
ize at meals and during daily activities.
Contact precautions and use of barriers. Just as it has been debated in
the acute care setting, the routine use of contact precautions25,42 and barriers
such as gloves, gowns, and masks to limit transmission of endemic MRSA in
the LTC setting has been debated.61,80 The debate notwithstanding, contact
isolation has been shown to be useful in preventing the spread of MRSA in
outbreak situations.59,62 Each facility must identify which isolation precau-

tions and types of specific barriers are appropriate for its particular setting.
Treatment of infected or colonized residents and patients. Treatment
of infected residents and patients is generally recommended;58 however, decol-
onization to eliminate carriage for the purpose of preventing either infection
in a colonized resident or transmission to others has not been found to be a
very effective infection control measure and can lead to development of resis-
tant organisms.68,77,81,82 Some investigators have reported recurrent coloniza-
tion after completion of therapy.82,83 Many LTC facilities have attempted to
use antimicrobials to eradicate MRSA from their resident population; how-
ever, this has met with mixed success, possibly because of the reintroduction of
the organism into the facility through the admission of colonized resi-
dents.62,64,72,82 Before providing treatment or prophylaxis to residents or
patients, a physician with expertise in infectious diseases should be consulted.
Treatment of colonized or infected personnel. When an outbreak or clus-
ter is detected, the investigator should search for personnel with obvious signs
and symptoms of infection or skin breakdown. Healthcare personnel who have
a staphylococcal infection should be treated; however, it is not necessary to
treat a healthcare worker who is colonized and asymptomatic unless he or she
has been epidemiologically implicated as the source of an outbreak.25 Before
providing treatment or prophylaxis to personnel, a physician with expertise in
infectious diseases should be consulted. If a healthcare worker is treated for
decolonization, repeat cultures should be done to confirm that the carrier state
has been eradicated. Because antimicrobial agents used for decolonizing carri-
ers may promote resistant strains of MRSA, only those personnel who are epi-
demiologically linked to disease transmission should be treated. Discussions
of regimens used for eradicating staphylococcal carriage in healthcare work-
ers have been published elsewhere.25,50,58
Education of healthcare workers. Educational programs on hand hygiene,
the mode of transmission of MRSA, and the importance of contact precautions
should be provided frequently for caregivers in an LTC facility.25,42,46
Most LTC facilities have limited infection prevention and control resources.
Because LTC facilities have diverse resident populations and different rates of
MRSA colonization and infection, both endemic and epidemic control measures
must be tailored to meet the needs and resources of the particular setting.
Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus in the Acute Care Setting
Epidemiology
VRE was first recognized in Europe in the late 1980s and is now a major
human pathogen worldwide.84,85 The incidence of hospital-associated infec-
tions due to VRE increased dramatically in the United States between 1989
and 1993.86 Since then, multiple hospital outbreaks have been reported
worldwide, and most of these have occurred among critically ill patients in
intensive care units and immunosuppressed patients on oncology or trans-
plant units.87–95 The first community-acquired cases in the United States were
reported from New York City in 1993.96 Although transmission in the commu-
nity is fairly common in Europe, it appears to occur rarely in the United
States where the major reservoir is infected and colonized patients.97,98
There are at least 17 species of enterococci—Entercoccus faecium and Entero-
coccus faecalis are the two most commonly encountered in clinical isolates,
and E. faecium is inherently more resistant to antibiotics than E. faecalis.
Some outbreaks of VRE appear to involve genetically unrelated strains. This
may be because transposons contain the genetic determinants of resistance
and transposons can spread easily between different strains of enterococci.99
The enterococci are less virulent than Staphylococcus aureus, usually cause
urinary tract infections, and occasionally cause endocarditis and bacteremia.
Most serious enterococcal infections have been reported in severely compro-
mised patients.100–103
Risk factors for developing VRE infection or colonization include severe
underlying disease, intra-abdominal surgery, multiple-antibiotic therapy, van-
comycin therapy, enteral feeding, history of major trauma, proximity to an
unisolated VRE patient, sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy, indwelling urinary or
central vascular catheter, and prolonged hospital stay.94,100,103–105
Although the majority of infections are believed to arise from a patient’s
endogenous flora, VRE can be spread from person to person by direct contact
or indirectly via contaminated equipment or environmental sur-
faces43,87,91,104,105 and transient carriage on healthcare workers’ hands.106
Studies demonstrate that the environment surrounding a patient with VRE
can become substantially contaminated with VRE, and these organisms can
be found on the hands of personnel who touch these surfaces.107,108 Since the
enterococci are normal inhabitants of the lower intestinal tract, patients may
carry VRE asymptomatically in their stool, and rectal colonization may persist
for months.99,109,110 The epidemiology of VRE has not been clearly elucidated;
however, since VRE can remain viable on inanimate surfaces for prolonged
periods,91,105-108,110–113 and outbreaks have been associated with use of elec-
tronic thermometers,104 fomites can play a role in the transmission of VRE.
Control Measures
Guidelines for preventing the spread of VRE in acute care hospitals have
been developed by the CDC’s HICPAC,25,42,103 and the Society for Healthcare
Epidemiology of America (SHEA).43 Many health departments and public
health agencies worldwide have developed guidelines for preventing and con-
trolling the transmission of VRE and other multidrug resistant organisms,
and these guidelines are frequently posted on the agency’s Web site. One of the
primary recommendations for preventing the spread of VRE is to establish an
antimicrobial stewardship program that limits use of vancomycin, which has
consistently been reported as a major risk factor for colonization and infection
with VRE.25,103 There is also concern that excessive use of vancomycin will pro-
mote the development of vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
(VRSA). A few studies have been done on the efficacy of control measures used
to prevent transmission of VRE. The use of contact isolation precautions,
including gloves, gowns, and a private room, were found useful in limiting the
spread of VRE in the acute care setting.91 Infection control measures used to
interrupt an outbreak of VRE in a cancer center included intense environmen-
tal cleaning, surveillance cultures of patients, contact isolation, cohorting of
patients and staff, use of dedicated patient-care equipment, and staff educa-
tion programs.93
The following measures are recommended to control outbreaks of VRE in
the acute care setting25,42,43,46:
• Hand hygiene46
identify cases
• Surveillance cultures of patients25,43
• Education of personnel42,43
• Contact precautions, including gloves and gowns, for infected and colo-
nized patients25
• Cleaning and disinfection of equipment25,43
• Cleaning and disinfection of the environment25,43
Hand hygiene. Proper hand hygiene, regardless of the use of gloves, is essen-
tial to control the person-to-person transmission of VRE.46 Because E. faecium
has been isolated from hands after they were washed with plain soap, it is
best to use an antimicrobial soap or a waterless antiseptic agent when caring
for patients with VRE.114
Laboratory-based surveillance to identify cases. Ongoing surveillance

should be conducted so that baseline endemic rates can be determined and
potential outbreaks and clusters can be identified quickly. Routine surveil-
lance for VRE is generally conducted by prospective review of laboratory
reports for isolates of Enterococcus species that are resistant to vancomycin.
As is the case with MRSA, not all patients who are colonized or infected will
be detected by routine cultures obtained for clinical indications. Once VRE is
identified, criteria must be used to determine if the organism is colonizing or
infecting the patient and if an infection is community or hospital associ-
ated.47,48 The laboratory should routinely notify patient care and infection
control personnel when VRE is isolated so that contact isolation precautions
can be implemented promptly. If an outbreak is suspected, laboratory records
should be reviewed retrospectively and prospectively to identify both infected
and colonized patients, and a line list of hospital-associated (nosocomial) cases
should be maintained as discussed in Chapter 8. Both colonized and infected
cases should be identified in order to determine the extent of the outbreak.
Surveillance cultures of patients. Point-prevalence culture surveys of

patients on high-risk wards have been shown to be useful during VRE out-
breaks to identify cases not detected by clinical cultures.91,103 In an outbreak
situation, VRE isolates from infected and colonized patients should be identi-
fied to the species level, and antimicrobial sensitivity testing should be done to
help determine if the organisms may be epidemiologically related. VRE isolates
may also be sent to a reference laboratory for strain typing by genotypic meth-
ods, as discussed in Chapter 11.
Education of personnel. Personnel involved in caring for patients with VRE

should be given information on the extent of the VRE problem, the epidemiol-
ogy and mode of transmission of VRE, and the importance of adhering to
proper infection control practices with an emphasis on hand hygiene, standard
precautions, isolation precautions, and equipment and environmental cleanli-
ness.25,42,43,46,103
Contact precautions for infected and colonized patients. Aggressive

infection control measures and strict compliance by hospital personnel are
needed to limit the nosocomial spread of VRE and are specified in the HICPAC
and SHEA guidelines25,42,46:
1. Infected and colonized patients should be placed in a single room or in
the same room as other patients with VRE.
2. Gloves and a gown should be worn when entering the room because
extensive environmental contamination with VRE has been documented
in several studies.43,87,91,110,112,113
4. Gloves and gowns should be removed before leaving the patient’s room.25
5. Hands should be washed with an antiseptic soap or cleaned with a
waterless antiseptic agent before leaving the patient’s room.
6. Noncritical items, such as stethoscopes, sphygmomanometers, and rectal
thermometers, should be dedicated to use on patients with VRE; if this
is not practical, these items should be cleaned and disinfected before use
on other patients.
7. Stool or rectal cultures should be obtained on the roommates of newly
identified cases to determine their colonization status and the need for
isolation precautions.
If these measures are not effective at limiting nosocomial transmission of
VRE, consideration should be given to cohorting patient care personnel to min-
imize contact of staff with VRE-positive and VRE-negative patients,88,91,105 per-
sonnel should be reeducated on the importance of implementing and adhering
to control measures, and verification should be obtained that equipment and
environmental surfaces are being adequately cleaned and disinfected. Since
personnel carriers have rarely been implicated in the transmission of VRE,106
culturing of personnel is not generally recommended unless a careful epidemio-
logic study shows a link between a healthcare worker and cases.
Cleaning and disinfection of equipment and the environment. Because
patient care equipment and the environment can play a role in the transmis-
sion of VRE, personnel responsible for cleaning and disinfecting patient care
equipment and environmental surfaces should be instructed to adhere to hos-
pital procedures. A system for monitoring adherence to cleaning and disinfec-
tion protocols should be implemented.43
VRE in the Long-Term Care Setting
Epidemiology
There are few published studies that describe the epidemiology of VRE and
other multidrug-resistant organisms in LTC facilities. Brennen et al. conducted
a 30-month study of vancomycin-resistant E. faecium (VREF) in a 400-bed LTC
Veterans Administration facility and found 36 patients colonized with
VREF.115 The investigators noted the following: some patients had protracted
carriage of VREF; 24 of the 36 patients had VREF at time of transfer from an
acute care facility; the risk of VREF infection was low in the population stud-
ied; and patient-to-patient transmission of VREF was infrequent when contact
precautions were used. Bonilla et al. studied VRE colonization of patients in
the medical, intensive care, and LTC units of a Veterans Affairs Medical Cen-
ter between December 1994 and August 1996.110 They found that patients in
the LTC unit were more likely to be colonized than those in the acute care
units; seven different strain types were present; transmission from roommate
to roommate was uncommon; environmental contamination with VRE was
found in both the long-term and acute care settings; VRE was isolated from
the hands of healthcare workers in both settings but personnel in the LTC
unit were more likely to have VRE on their hands; and the hands of two
healthcare workers remained culture-positive after washing.110 Prevalence
rates of colonization with VRE in LTC facilities range from 1.7% to 6%.75,116–118
Studies and clinical experience show that patients and residents in both acute
care and LTC facilities may be colonized with more than one type of resistant
organism, such as MRSA and VRE.115,117–120
Previous hospitalization in an acute care facility is a major risk factor for VRE
colonization in an LTC facility resident.109,115 Other risk factors include prior use
of antibiotics and the presence of a decubitis ulcer.118,121 Colonization of wounds
and asymptomatic rectal carriage occurs often among patients in acute and LTC
settings and may persist for months.91,104,109,117,122 Most studies of the epidemiol-
ogy of VRE in LTC facilities were conducted in nursing homes and skilled care
facilities, and residents were found to be colonized but not infected. During a 3-
month study conducted in a 355-bed LTC facility with a ventilator unit and a
subacute care unit, Pacio et al. detected 27 colonized residents, and 6 of these
developed a symptomatic urinary tract infection.75 Although colonization is
common, VRE does not appear to be a frequent cause of infection in residents of
nursing homes and skilled care facilities,100,109,115,120,122 and the author was
unable to find any published reports of outbreaks of VRE infection in an LTC
facility.
The epidemiology of VRE is similar to that of MRSA in that both organisms
were initially associated with outbreaks in the acute care setting and both
have become endemic in many acute care and LTC facilities. Both VRE and
MRSA can be introduced into an acute care or an LTC facility by the transfer
of colonized or infected patients and residents who serve as reservoirs for
transmission between these two settings.121,123
The majority of VRE infections are believed to arise from a person’s endoge-
nous flora. The mode of transmission in the LTC setting has not been well
studied. In the acute care setting, VRE can be spread from person to person by
direct contact or indirectly via contaminated equipment or environmental sur-
faces87,104,113 or by transient carriage on healthcare workers’ hands.106 Although
extensive environmental contamination with VRE can occur in the LTC set-
ting, especially when a patient has diarrhea or is incontinent, the role of the
environment in the transmission of VRE is not clear. Nevertheless, enhanced
environmental cleaning has been advocated by many to control the spread of
multidrug-resistant organisms.124 Studies of VRE carriage on the hands of
healthcare personnel in the LTC setting are rare; however, Mody et al. found a
9% VRE hand colonization rate in one LTC facility during a study of the use of
a new alcohol-based hand rub.125
Control Measures
The Long-Term Care Committee of SHEA developed a position paper that
outlines the epidemiology and modes of transmission of VRE and provides
guidelines for the control of VRE in the LTC setting.100 The CDC HICPAC
guidelines for isolation precautions and guidelines for managing multidrug-
resistant organisms also provide recommendations for preventing the trans-
mission of VRE in LTC settings.25,42 In addition to the SHEA and HICPAC
guidelines, many health departments have developed guidelines for control-
ling the spread of VRE and other multi-drug-resistant organisms in LTC facil-
ities and have posted these on their Web sites.
The following measures, which have been explained in the section on control
of VRE in the acute care setting, are recommended to control outbreaks of
VRE in the LTC setting:
• An active surveillance program to identify cases (persons colonized or
infected with VRE) that includes laboratory-based surveillance (i.e., the
review of positive cultures)
• Surveillance cultures of residents if an outbreak is suspected
• Education of personnel at time of hire and periodically thereafter
• Contact isolation and barrier precautions for infected and colonized residents
• Implementation of protocols for cleaning and disinfection of equipment
• Implementation of protocols for cleaning and disinfection of the environment.
Staphylococcus aureus with Reduced Susceptibility to Vancomycin
Only a few isolated infections with S. aureus with reduced susceptibility to

vancomycin (VRSA and vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus, or VISA) have
been reported.126–133 VISA was initially documented in a patient in Japan in
1996,126 and the first clinical case in the United States occurred in 2002.127
Subsequent infections have been reported from Asia, Europe, and the United
States.128–133 Because S. aureus is one of the most common causes of community-
and hospital-associated infection and is easily transmitted from person to per-

son, the emergence of VRSA will pose serious infection control and public
health consequences.133 Guidelines to prevent the spread of S. aureus with
reduced susceptibility to vancomycin have been developed by the CDC, and
these should be used for reference when developing protocols to prevent the
spread of VRSA/VISA.134
The following is a summary of measures recommended to prevent transmis-
sion of VRSA/VISA134,135:
• The laboratory should immediately notify infection prevention and con-
trol personnel, the clinical unit, and the attending physician of any S.
aureus isolates with intermediate or total resistance to vancomycin.
• The patient should be placed in a single room, and contact precautions
should be strictly enforced.25,42,134
• The number of persons entering the room should be limited to essential
personnel—specific healthcare workers should be dedicated to provide
one-on-one care whenever possible.
• Infection control personnel should initiate an epidemiologic investigation
in conjunction with the state and local health departments and the CDC.
• A written plan for treatment and follow-up of the patient and a contact
investigation, including surveillance cultures, should be developed in col-
laboration with local health departments, healthcare providers, and the
CDC.134
• Compliance with contact precautions and good hand hygiene should be
monitored and strictly enforced.42,46
• All personnel involved in direct patient care should be informed of the
epidemiologic implications of VRSA/VISA and of the infection control pre-
cautions needed to contain it.
• The patient should be restricted to the isolation room except for essential
medical purposes.
• Horizontal surfaces in the patient’s immediate vicinity should be cleaned
daily with a quaternary ammonium compound.
• Dedicated equipment, such as stethoscopes, thermometers, and blood
pressure cuffs, should be used for the patient.
• All equipment, such as electrocardiogram and portable X-ray machines,
should be disinfected as soon as tests are complete.
• If transfer is necessary, the receiving unit or institution should be in-
formed of the patient’s VRSA/VISA status.
• The health department and the CDC should be consulted prior to trans-
ferring or discharging the patient.
The occurrence of one case of S. aureus with reduced susceptibility to vanco-
mycin (VRSA or VISA) should be considered an outbreak, and infection control
measures, including placement of the patient in a private room, implementa-
tion of contact isolation precautions, and notification of the local or state
health department, should be implemented immediately.
Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Acute Care and

Ambulatory Care Settings
Epidemiology
Outbreaks and nosocomial transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis
have long been recognized in the hospital setting.136–156 Outbreaks have been
associated with exposure to an infectious patient or healthcare worker and to
cough-inducing and aerosol-producing procedures performed on infectious
patients. A hospital outbreak that occurred in Texas in 1983–1984 resulted
from exposure in the emergency room to a patient with unrecognized severe
cavity tuberculosis (TB).140 Six employees developed active TB, and an
immunocompromised patient was also believed to have developed TB as a
result of exposure to the patient. In 2003 a foreign-born nurse who worked in
a nursery and maternity unit was diagnosed with acid-fast bacillus (AFB)
smear-positive (infectious) tuberculosis.156 The nurse had been diagnosed with
latent TB infection (LTBI) 11 years earlier following a positive tuberculin skin
test (TST) done for preemployment screening at the hospital. She declined
treatment for LTBI at that time. An investigation revealed that she had likely
been infectious for 3 months prior to diagnosis and had potentially exposed 32
co-workers, 613 infants in the newborn nursery, and 900 patients on the
maternity unit. Despite extensive efforts to reach potentially exposed persons,
only 227 (37%) of the infant contacts and 216 (24%) of the maternity unit con-
tacts could be located and evaluated. Nineteen maternity unit patients with
prior negative TST results and four infants were found to have a positive TST.
Twenty-five of the 32 potentially exposed co-workers (78%) had documenta-
tion of a prior positive TST result and none had taken treatment for LTBI.
None of the co-workers had symptoms of TB, and all were offered LTBI treat-
ment; however, all declined. The remaining seven co-workers had negative TST
results.
While many reported nosocomial outbreaks in hospitals have been associ-
ated with the close contact of patients and personnel to a person with unrecog-
nized infectious TB, several epidemics have been associated with diagnostic
and therapeutic procedures such as bronchoscopy,138 endotracheal intubation
and suctioning,139 irrigation of an open abscess,141 autopsy,142–144 and sputum
induction and aerosol treatments.146 An outbreak in a Florida primary care
health clinic was associated with sputum induction and aerosolized treatment
of a patient with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection.145 This out-
break most likely could have been avoided if cough-inducing procedures such
as aerosolized pentamidine and sputum induction had been carried out using
either local exhaust ventilation, such as a booth or special enclosure, or a room
meeting the ventilation requirements for TB isolation.157 An outbreak in a
drug treatment center was associated with a client with unrecognized pul-
monary disease even though the client had a history of TB when admitted to
the facility. Because the treatment center had no health screening program in
place, no precautions were taken to prevent the transmission of M. tuberculo-
sis from the new client.151
In New York an outbreak of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) in a
hospital occurred despite that fact that the source patient was suspected of
having pulmonary TB, was promptly placed in an isolation room, and person-
nel followed the hospital’s TB protocol.152 An investigation revealed that the
ventilation system in some of the isolation rooms was not at negative pressure
in relation to the corridor.
Since 1993, the overall incidence of tuberculosis in the United States has
been declining, and in 2006 it reached the lowest number and rate of reported
TB cases since measurement began in 1953.158 However, the number of
healthcare workers in the United States that are from foreign countries where
TB is endemic is growing, and this growth is expected to continue to fill
healthcare workers shortages.159 Since many foreign-born healthcare workers
with positive TST results do not receive treatment for LTBI, the potential for
the development of TB disease in healthcare workers may increase.156
Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Long-Term Care Settings
Epidemiology
The endemic and epidemic transmission of M. tuberculosis among residents
in LTC settings has long been recognized.160–170 A study conducted by the CDC
in 1984–1985 found that elderly nursing home residents were at greater risk
for TB than elderly persons living in the community.171 Outbreaks of TB in
nursing homes have affected both residents and staff.161,165–168,172 In one out-
break a highly infectious resident with unrecognized cavitary TB infected 30%
(49/161) of previously TST-negative residents, eight of whom developed pul-
monary TB, and 15% (21/138) of tuberculin-negative employees, one of whom
developed TB.161 The outbreak investigation revealed that the resident was an
outgoing man who participated in social activities at the nursing home and
who had probably been infectious for close to a year. In most of the outbreaks
reported in the literature, the source for nosocomial transmission in LTC facil-
ities is a resident with unrecognized pulmonary TB.
Ijaz et al. reported an outbreak whose source was determined to be a nursing
home patient with unrecognized pulmonary TB that resulted in transmission to
residents and personnel in two nursing homes and a hospital, including a nurse
in the hospital who developed a tuberculous cervical abscess and a nursing
home employee and a visitor that developed pulmonary TB.172
Multidrug-Resistant and Extensively Drug-Resistant

Mycobacterium tuberculosis
Although drug resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis has been noted

since shortly after the introduction of antituberculosis drugs, during the 1990s
multidrug-resistant strains spread worldwide and have caused outbreaks in
healthcare facilities. MDR-TB is TB that demonstrates resistance to at least
isoniazid (INH) and rifampin, two first-line antituberculosis drugs. Sev-
eral well-publicized hospital outbreaks of MDR-TB in the United States oc-
curred among HIV-infected patients and healthcare workers in the early
1990s.136,137,144,149 These outbreaks reflected the increased incidence of TB that
occurred in many U.S. communities from 1988 through 1992. Factors that con-
tributed to these outbreaks of MDR-TB included the following:136
• Delayed identification of patients with MDR-TB

• Delayed treatment of patients with MDR-TB
• Lack of proper isolation of patients with infectious MDR-TB
• Failure to keep patients in their isolation room
• Failure of patients to wear a mask when they were outside of their isola-
tion room
• Inadequate respiratory protection for healthcare workers
• Inadequate environmental controls such as negative air pressure rooms
Between 2000 and 2006 extensively resistant strains of M. tuberculosis
emerged worldwide.173–175 XDR-TB is “TB showing resistance to at least
rifampicin and isoniazid, which is the definition of MDR-TB, in addition to any
fluoroquinolone, and to at least 1 of the 3 following injectable drugs used in
anti-TB treatment: capreomycin, kanamycin, and amikacin.”176 XDR-TB pre-
sents a global health problem because it is difficult to treat and has a high
mortality rate. The mode of transmission of MDR-TB and XDR-TB are the
same as that of drug-sensitive strains of M. tuberculosis.
M. tuberculosis is spread via the airborne route by droplet nuclei, particles
that are produced when persons with pulmonary or laryngeal TB sneeze,
cough, speak, or sing. Droplet nuclei are approximately 1–5 µm in size, have
the ability to remain suspended in air for prolonged periods, and can be car-
ried through a building on air currents.157 Infection occurs when a susceptible
person inhales these particles into the lungs.
Control Measures for Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Healthcare Settings

Guidelines for preventing the transmission of M. tuberculosis in healthcare
settings have been published by the CDC,157 the World Health Organization
(WHO),177,178 U.S. state health departments,179 professional associations,180
and public health agencies and coalitions worldwide.181–184 The 2005 CDC
Guidelines for Preventing the Transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in
Health-Care Settings provide a comprehensive discussion of TB in a variety of
care settings, including inpatient, ambulatory and LTC, and includes forms
and checklists for a TB prevention program (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/
rr/rr5417.pdf. Accessed April 18, 2008).157 These guidelines state that all
healthcare settings need a “TB infection control program designed to ensure
prompt detection, airborne precautions, and treatment of persons who have
suspected or confirmed TB disease (or prompt referral of persons who have
suspected TB disease for settings in which persons with TB disease are not
expected to be encountered).” 157(p7) They focus on measures that have been
shown to prevent nosocomial transmission and present a three-level hierarchy
of controls: administrative, environmental, and respiratory protection as
shown in Exhibit 7–1.157 SHEA published a position paper on prevention and
control of TB in LTC facilities for older adults.180 The SHEA position paper
contains detailed information on the clinical presentation and management of
TB in the elderly and provides recommendations for systematic screening of
residents and personnel, diagnosis of active disease, and treatment of TB dis-

ease and latent TB infection in this population.
The first step in the development of a TB infection prevention and control
program is an assessment of the risk of transmission of M. tuberculosis in each
specific healthcare setting. A TB Risk Assessment Worksheet and the result-
ing TB Risk Classifications for Health-Care Settings can be found in the 2005
CDC guidelines.157
Because outbreaks of TB, especially those caused by MDR-TB, can result in
significant morbidity and mortality, organizations should ensure that infection
prevention and control measures that are appropriate for each healthcare set-
ting are implemented. Regardless of the setting or the risk of transmission for
M. tuberculosis, the most important measures for controlling the spread of TB
are prompt identification and adequate treatment of persons with TB.182
Based on the results of the risk assessment for the likelihood of transmis-
sion of M. tuberculosis in a healthcare setting, the elements that should be
considered for inclusion in a TB prevention and control program are discussed
in the following sections.
Surveillance program and record-keeping system. All healthcare set-
tings should have a surveillance program for the early identification of per-
sons (patients, residents, personnel, and visitors) with signs and symptoms
suggestive of pulmonary TB. Persons with signs and symptoms should receive
prompt radiologic and bacteriologic evaluation. The surveillance program
should include a mechanism for reporting all cases of TB to the health depart-
ment. A record-keeping system should be developed to track and assess the
facility’s experience regarding TB infection and TB disease and should include
TST results on patients, residents, and personnel and any follow-up per-
formed. These records should be stored in a computerized retrievable database
to allow ready access to obtain information for the periodic risk assessment or
a contact investigation.
Isolation precautions. Persons with known or suspected TB should be
promptly placed on airborne precautions in an airborne isolation room.42 Per-
sonnel and patients must adhere to airborne isolation precautions: personnel
must wear a respirator when entering, and patients must wear a mask when
leaving the isolation room.42 In the LTC setting, residents with suspected or
confirmed infectious TB may remain in the setting if an airborne isolation
room and a respiratory protection program for personnel are in place. If these
are not available, then the resident must be transferred to another healthcare
setting. In the outpatient setting, patients with known or suspected TB should
be placed in a separate waiting area if no isolation room is available. They
should be given a surgical mask and a box of tissues and should be instructed
how to wear the mask and to use the tissues when coughing or sneezing.
Because covering the mouth while coughing can reduce the number of tubercle
bacilli expelled into the air, this simple intervention should not be overlooked.
Screening program for patients and residents of long-term care set-
tings. There should be a screening program for patients and residents of LTC
settings established according to evidenced-based guidelines.157,183 As of this
Exhibit 7–1 Three-Level Hierarchy of Controls to Prevent Transmission

of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Healthcare Settings
Administrative Controls Environmental Controls

Assign responsibility for TB infection Primary environmental controls:
control in the setting
Control the source of infection by using
Conduct a TB risk assessment of the local exhaust ventilation (e.g., hoods, tents,
setting or booths)
Develop and institute a written TB infection- Dilute and remove contaminated air by
control plan to ensure prompt detection, using general ventilation
airborne precautions, and treatment of
persons who have suspected or confirmed Secondary environmental controls:
TB disease
Control the airflow to prevent contamination
Ensure the timely availability of recom- of air in areas adjacent to the source
mended laboratory processing, testing, (airborne infection isolation rooms)
and reporting of results to the ordering
physician and infection control team Clean the air by using high-efficiency
particulate air filtration or ultraviolet
Implement effective work practices for the germicidal irradiation.
management of patients with suspected
or confirmed TB disease
Respiratory Protection Controls
Ensure proper cleaning and sterilization
or disinfection of potentially contaminated Implement a respiratory protection program
equipment (usually endoscopes) Train healthcare workers on respiratory
Train and educate healthcare workers protection
regarding TB, with specific focus on Train patients on respiratory hygiene and
prevention, transmission, and symptoms cough etiquette procedures
Screen and evaluate healthcare workers
who are at risk for TB disease or who
might be exposed to M. tuberculosis
(i.e., TB screening program)
Apply epidemiologic-based prevention
principles, including the use of setting-
related infection-control data
Use appropriate signage advising
respiratory hygiene and cough etiquette
Coordinate efforts with the local or state
health department
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for preventing the transmission of
Mycobacterium tuberculosis in health-care settings, 2005. MMWR. 2005;54(RR-17):1–141.
writing, the blood assay for Mycobacterium tuberculosis (BAMT) had not been
recommended for use in the elderly.185 The TST program should include admin-
istration and reading of the skin test at the time of admission and periodically
thereafter, depending on the risk assessment and local jurisdiction rules and
requirements. Residents that convert from TST-negative to TST-positive should
have a chest radiograph and should be treated for LTBI if the radiograph is
negative. If the radiograph is suggestive for TB, a medical evaluation, including
sputum smear and culture for AFB, must be done.183 Studies have shown that
many LTC facilities lack an adequate surveillance program.164,186 The mere
existence of a TST program will not prevent TB outbreaks. In order for a skin-
testing program to be effective, action must be taken based on the results of
screening. This means that those who are found to be newly infected should be
medically evaluated and given appropriate therapy, when indicated, to prevent
the development of disease, and a search for the index case (i.e., the source of
infection) should be conducted to prevent further transmission.
Screening program for patients and clients at risk for TB. In the inpa-
tient and ambulatory care settings, there should be a screening program that
includes use of a TST or BAMT for patients and clients at risk for TB (e.g.,
intravenous drug users and clients in drug treatment programs).157,183–185
Screening program for personnel. A screening program, including use of a
TST or BAMT, should be implemented for personnel with occupational expo-
sure to M. tuberculosis. 157,183–185 Personnel who are found to be TST-positive
and have LTBI should be encouraged to accept and complete treatment. Fail-
ure to do so can result in progression to TB disease and exposure of patients,
residents, co-workers, family, and others to M. tuberculosis.156 Personnel that
convert from TST-negative to TST-positive should have a chest radiograph and
should be provided treatment for latent TB infection if the radiograph is nega-
tive. If the radiograph is suggestive for TB, a medical evaluation, including
sputum smear and culture for AFB, must be done.157,184
Treatment of persons with TB disease. Prompt and effective treatment of
persons who have clinical disease should be given in accordance with the lat-
est public health service recommendations.187,188 An infectious disease special-
ist should be consulted prior to administering antituberculosis therapy.
Residents and patients who are given antituberculosis medications should be
observed swallowing each dose to ensure that they are complying with ther-
apy. (Note: There is no consensus on how long a patient who is sputum smear-
positive for AFB should remain in isolation after treatment has begun.
Several articles discuss the potential contagiousness of persons with active
pulmonary TB;189,190 however, relatively little is known about how long tuber-
cle bacilli in the sputum remain infectious after effective therapy has been
started. After reviewing the literature, Menzies concluded that “after initia-
tion of therapy, patients who are still smear-positive should be considered still
contagious.”189(p585) )
Contact investigation and management program for exposed persons.
Whenever a person is diagnosed with infectious pulmonary TB (e.g., the per-
son is coughing and has positive AFB sputum smears and an abnormal chest
radiography compatible with TB), a contact investigation should be conducted.

All close contacts, including those who care for, sleep, live, work, or share a
common ventilation system for prolonged periods, should be screened for evi-
dence of infection. Guidelines for investigating contacts have been pub-
lished; 191 however, the local health department should be consulted for
guidance. Contacts that have a documented skin test conversion, no clinical
signs or symptoms of TB, and a negative chest radiograph should be diagnosed
with LTBI and provided treatment for LTBI unless medically contraindi-
cated.191 Persons who refuse treatment for LTBI should be instructed to
promptly seek medical evaluation if they develop signs or symptoms compati-
ble with TB, such as a persistent cough, weight loss, fatigue, anorexia, or night
sweats. Residents in LTC settings who are close contacts of an infectious per-
son but who are not given prophylaxis should be carefully observed for the
development of symptoms consistent with TB. Older patients, specially the
frail elderly residents of nursing homes, have reduced reactivity to the TST
and this must be kept in mind when conducting contact investigations. TB can
cause significant morbidity and mortality in the LTC setting. Because health-
care workers and residents with exposure and documented TST conversion
have developed clinical disease, it is important that preventive therapy be
taken.161,166 The author is personally aware of a nurse who converted from TST-
negative to TST-positive following inadvertent occupational exposure to a
patient with TB and who refused INH treatment. Six months later, the nurse
developed infectious pulmonary TB and exposed family, friends, co-workers,
and patients to M. tuberculosis.
Education. Regardless of the setting’s risk for transmission of TB, training
should be provided to healthcare providers about the signs and symptoms of
TB and the control measures that should be implemented for suspected and
known cases. The medical and nursing staffs should be instructed to remain
alert for typical and atypical presentation of clinical disease, especially in the
elderly, so that evaluation and treatment can be promptly initiated. Informa-
tion on educational materials and training programs about TB can be found in
the Resources section at the end of this chapter.
If TB is present in the community served, a screening program for person-
nel, patients, and residents is an integral part of an organization’s overall
infection control program and is essential for detecting unrecognized infection
with M. tuberculosis and preventing the development of disease.
Clostridium difficile
Epidemiology
Clostridium difficile is a major healthcare-associated pathogen that can
cause diarrhea, antibiotic-associated colitis, and pseudomembranous colitis in
hospitalized patients and residents of LTC facilities. It is considered to be the
most common cause of healthcare-associated infectious diarrhea.42,192 The epi-
demiology of C. difficile is changing. Between 1996 and 2003 the incidence of
C. difficile-associated disease (CDAD) increased in patients discharged from
US hospitals.193 In the early 2000s a new hypervirulent strain of C. difficile
caused widespread hospital outbreaks in Canada that were associated with

severe morbidity and increased mortality.194 This more virulent strain is
refractory to standard therapy, has emerged in several countries, and has
caused healthcare-associated outbreaks in the United States, the United
Kingdom, and Europe.195–201
A small percentage of healthy adults carry C. difficile in their gastrointesti-
nal tract,200 and neonates and infants are frequently asymptomatically colo-
nized with C. difficile. Colonization rates in hospitalized adults and residents
of LTC facilities vary widely.202,203 Reported incidence rates of diarrhea caused
by C. difficile in hospitals range from 1 to 30 cases per 1000 patient discharges
and in nursing homes from 17 to 60 cases per 100,000 bed-days.204–206 Nosoco-
mial CDAD in adults is responsible for significant morbidity, increased length
of stay, and rare fatalities in the acute and LTC settings.196,207–210 Diarrhea can
lead to volume depletion and wound infection and can significantly increase
medical costs. Although the major risk factor for nosocomial CDAD is previous
antibiotic therapy, other factors that have been found to increase the risk of
disease include previous hospitalization, older age, hypoalbuminemia, leukemia
and/or lymphoma, mechanical ventilation, surgery, and receipt of antimotility
drugs, histamine-2 blockers, and proton pump inhibitors.211 Traditionally con-
sidered to be associated with hospitals, CDAD has been increasingly recognized
in persons who had no previous contact with the healthcare system.212
Once thought to arise solely from endogenous flora, it is now clear that noso-
comial acquisition of C. difficile occurs, and outbreaks and clusters of CDAD
have been reported in acute care hospitals,199,202,204,210 skilled nursing facili-
ties, geriatric units of hospitals, and rehabilitation hospitals.213–219 When
determining if a cluster or an outbreak exists in a healthcare setting, one of
the first steps in the investigation is the development of a clear case definition.
Clinical criteria for the diagnosis of CDAD are generally based on a combination
of clinical and laboratory criteria. There is currently no nationally standardized
clinical or surveillance definition for CDAD. In reviewing the literature it is
clear that not all investigators use the same criteria for defining a case of
CDAD. A following case definition is useful for surveillance and classification
of hospital-acquired CDAD (published by the Canadian Nosocomial Infection
Surveillance Program)220:
1. Diarrhea* or fever, abdominal pain, and/or ileus and labora-
tory confirmation of a positive toxin assay for C. difficile;
or
2. Diagnosis of pseudomembranes on sigmoidoscopy or
colonoscopy, or histological/pathological diagnosis of CDAD.
*Diarrhea will be defined as one of the following: six watery
stools in past 36 hours, three unformed stools in 24 hours for 2
days, or eight unformed stools over 48 hours.
The infection will be considered hospital-acquired if it meets
the following criteria:
1. Patient’s symptoms occur at least 72 hours after current
admission.
or
2. Symptoms cause readmission in a patient who had been hos-
pitalized within the previous 2 months of the current admis-
sion date, and who is not resident in a chronic care hospital
or nursing home.
A variety of surveillance definitions for C. difficile, including healthcare facility-
onset and community-onset, were published in 2007 by an ad hoc surveillance
working group:221
A CDAD case is defined as a case of diarrhea (i.e., unformed stool that
conforms to the shape of a specimen collection container) or toxic
megacolon (i.e., abnormal dilation of the large intestine documented
radiologically) without other known etiology that meets 1 or more of
the following criteria: (1) the stool sample yields a positive result for a
laboratory assay for C. difficile toxin A and/or B, or a toxin-producing
C. difficile organism is detected in the stool sample by culture or other
means; (2) pseudomembranous colitis is seen during endoscopic
examination or surgery; and (3) pseudomembranous colitis is seen
during histopathological examination.
A patient classified as having healthcare facility-onset, healthcare facility-
associated CDAD is defined as a patient with CDAD symptom onset more
than 48 hours after admission to an healthcare facility.
Clostridium difficile is a gram positive spore-forming bacillus. Its spores
resist heat and drying, can persist in the environment for prolonged periods,
and are resistant to commonly used disinfectants and antiseptics.42,202 Envi-
ronmental contamination of equipment, clothing, and the area surrounding C.
difficile-infected patients and residents has long been recognized, and multi-
ple strains may be isolated from the environment.202–204,222,223 These factors,
and the association of CDAD with antibiotic use, make outbreaks of C. difficile
difficult to control.42
Nosocomial acquisition and transmission via cross-infection has been
demonstrated by molecular typing and fingerprinting.203,202,210 The major reser-
voir for C. difficile is infected and colonized patients and residents, and newly
admitted colonized patients have been responsible for introducing the organ-
ism into a hospital.224 The mode of transmission is thought to be via the hands
of personnel and contaminated equipment and devices.42,202 C. difficile spores
are readily found in the environment surrounding patients with CDAD. It
is likely that environmental surface contamination and contaminated items,
such as commodes and electronic thermometers, play a role in the transmis-
sion of C. difficile although that role is not clearly defined.225–228
Control Measures
Recommendations for preventing endemic and epidemic transmission of C.
difficile in the acute and LTC settings have been published by SHEA,229 Mc
Farland et al.,202 and the CDC HICPAC.42,230 There are two major approaches
for preventing healthcare-associated CDAD: (1) interrupting the transmission

of C. difficile and thus preventing the patient or resident from acquiring the
organism, and (2) promoting appropriate use of antibiotics to reduce an indi-
vidual’s risk of developing disease.
The global emergence of a fluroroquinolone-resistant, hypervirulent strain
of C. difficile highlights the need to implement effective infection prevention
and control programs to interrupt the transmission of this epidemiologically
important organism. Control measures that have been effectively used to pre-
vent nosocomial acquisition and to interrupt outbreaks include the following:
• Timely and accurate identification of patients and residents with CDAD
• Use of contact precautions that includes donning gown and gloves when
entering the room of a person with CDAD. This helps to avoid transmis-
sion of C. difficile to hands and clothing from contact with the patient or
the patient’s contaminated environment, especially when handling feces
and fecally contaminated items.42,231
• Either cohorting or providing a private room for persons with CDAD,
especially for incontinent persons
• Hand washing with soap and water to mechanically remove Clostridium
spores. Hand washing is the preferred method for hand hygiene when
caring for persons with CDAD because alcohol hand rubs appear to have
limited activity against spores.42,46
• Adherence to rigorous environmental cleaning and disinfection practices.
C. difficile is resistant to many commonly used germicides.232 Therefore,
to control an outbreak most investigators recommend meticulous clean-
ing of the patient’s room, especially fecally contaminated and high-touch
surfaces, followed by disinfection with an agent that contains bleach or a
1:10 dilution of 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (household bleach) and
water.42,203,233
• Use of disposable rectal thermometers. Several studies have shown that
eliminating the use of electronic thermometers can reduce the incidence
of CDAD.234–236
Because prior exposure to antibiotics is the major risk factor for disease, the
most important control measure that can be used to reduce the risk of CDAD
is the prudent use and restriction of antimicrobial agents.237
An active surveillance program must be in place in order to recognize clusters
or outbreaks of CDAD.42 Recommendations for surveillance programs for C. dif-
ficile have been published by Mylotte238 and by a C. difficile Surveillance Work-
ing Group.221 Mylotte described an easily conducted laboratory surveillance
method that is based on the review of C. difficile stool toxin assays and is similar
to the surveillance method that is used in many hospitals.238
Influenza Virus
Epidemiology
Influenza is characterized by abrupt onset of fever, chills, headache, severe
malaise and myalgia, and by respiratory symptoms such as nonproductive
cough, sore throat, and rhinitis.239 It causes significant morbidity and mortal-
ity worldwide. In the United States and other countries with temperate cli-
mates, epidemics of influenza usually occur during the winter months, usually
December through April. Outbreaks in the community can result in introduc-
tion of the virus into a healthcare setting by personnel, visitors, or newly
admitted or transferred patients or residents.240,241 Once introduced into a
population, influenza can spread rapidly because it is highly contagious and
has a fairly short incubation period, typically ranging from 1 to 4 days and
averaging 2 days. Adults are considered infectious from the day prior to onset
of symptoms through the fifth day after illness begins.239 Persons over 65
years and those of any age with certain medical conditions, such as pulmonary
and cardiovascular disorders, are at risk for complications and death from
influenza.239
Although nosocomial transmission of influenza has been reported in both
acute care242–247 and LTC facilities,248–256 outbreaks of influenza have been
more commonly reported in the LTC setting. In the LTC setting, influenza has
been shown to be spread from resident to resident,248 from healthcare person-
nel to residents,249,253 from residents to healthcare personnel, and among
healthcare personnel.257 Influenza outbreaks in LTC settings can result in
considerable morbidity and mortality, with clinical attack rates as high as 70%
and mortality rates averaging over 10%.258 In one nursing home outbreak the
attack rate among residents was 28% (11/39) with a 55% case-fatality rate.249
Although most infected persons exhibit respiratory symptoms, asymptomatic
infection can occur.
Influenza is easily transmitted from person-to-person primarily through
large-particle respiratory droplets, such as those produced when an infected
person coughs or sneezes. Influenza transmission can also occur through con-
tact with surfaces contaminated by respiratory secretions and via inhalation
of small particles of evaporated droplets that can remain suspended in the air
for an extended period of time.239,259
Control Measures
Recommendations and guidelines for preventing transmission of influenza
in healthcare settings have been published by the CDCC,42,50,239,260–262 the
Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology and
SHEA,263 Gravenstein et al.,264 Gomolin et al.,265 Kingston and Wright,266 the
WHO,267and many state health departments.268,269 The most important mea-
sure for controlling transmission of influenza in the healthcare setting is
annual immunization of all patients for whom the vaccine is recommended, all
residents and patients of LTC settings, and healthcare workers.260,262 It should
be noted that, although studies have shown that immunization of residents in
a LTC facility reduces the risk of transmission of influenza, outbreaks have
been reported in nursing homes that had highly immunized populations.251,253
In addition to immunization, influenza-specific antiviral drugs (such as aman-
tadine and rimantadine) are important components of an influenza prevention
and control program.260 Amantadine and rimantadine have been shown to be
effective in preventing illness from influenza A when used as prophylaxis

in healthy adults and children. In addition, these drugs can reduce the dura-
tion and severity of illness when they are used to treat persons with influenza
A.260 Emergence of amantadine/rimantadine-resistant strains of influenza
virus have been reported when these drugs are used for therapy, so it is impor-
tant to periodically perform susceptibility tests on influenza isolates to detect
resistance.270,271
The following measures are recommended to reduce the risk of transmission
of influenza in healthcare settings:
• Develop and implement an influenza prevention and control program
based on published recommendations.42,260–263
• Conduct routine surveillance for respiratory illness, especially during flu
season, to identify patients, residents, and personnel with influenza-like
symptoms. Routine surveillance programs are essential to detect resi-
dents and personnel with influenza-like illness so control measures can
be promptly instituted.42,267
• Institute a respiratory hygiene/cough etiquette program targeted to all
persons who enter a healthcare setting, including healthcare personnel,
patients, residents, and visitors. For instance, ask persons who are cough-
ing to wear a surgical mask or cover their coughs with tissues.42 (See
Resources section at the end of this chapter.)
• Promptly institute droplet precautions for patients and residents sus-
pected of having influenza. This includes restricting the resident or
patient to his or her room during the period of greatest communicability
(at least 3 days after onset of symptoms) or cohorting ill residents or
patients, when possible, if private rooms are not available.42,261
• Implement an annual influenza immunization campaign aimed at increas-
ing healthcare worker influenza vaccination acceptance and preventing an
outbreak.260,262,263
• Annually vaccinate residents and patients in LTC settings. To avoid delay
in providing vaccine to residents who may not be able to give consent, LTC
facilities should obtain consent for vaccination from the resident or the
healthcare decision maker at the time of admission to the facility. Ideally,
all residents should be vaccinated annually at the same time, immediately
preceding the influenza season. Residents who are admitted after comple-
tion of the annual vaccination program should be vaccinated at the time of
their admission if they have not yet been immunized.261,264
• Document the influenza vaccination status of healthcare providers in all
healthcare settings and residents and patients in LTC settings. This will
allow rapid identification of unvaccinated individuals because these per-
sons should be encouraged to receive the vaccine in the event of an out-
break. Store this information in a computer database so it can be easily
accessed.
• Educate personnel on the signs and symptoms of influenza, the safety and
efficacy of the influenza vaccine, and the importance of not coming to work
if they have an influenza-like illness.260,263
In the event of an outbreak of influenza or influenza-like illness in a health-

care setting, the following additional control measures are recommended:
• Report the outbreak to the health department. Some states require
reporting of outbreaks of acute lower respiratory illness, including
influenza, to the health department.
• Use a standardized case definition to identify persons with influenza-like
illness. The Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene guide-
lines for investigating influenza outbreaks in LTC facilities define an out-
break as one laboratory-proven case of influenza or three or more
clinically-defined cases occurring in a facility within a 7-day period be-
tween October 1 and May 31.269
• Use rapid laboratory tests for influenza, such as the immunofluorescence
assay or the enzyme immunoassay to confirm the diagnosis and establish
the existence of an outbreak.265
• Offer influenza vaccine to any unvaccinated residents, patients, or health-
care workers.260
• Administer antiviral agents such as amantadine or rimantadine to all
well and ill residents and patients in an LTC setting. Follow the latest
published public health recommendations.260
• Offer viral chemoprophylaxis (e.g., amantadine and rimantadine) to unvac-
cinated healthcare personnel for the duration of influenza activity or vacci-
nate unimmunized personnel and provide chemoprophylaxis for 2 weeks
after vaccination (i.e., until immunity develops from the vaccination).260
• Develop a line listing of residents and healthcare workers with suspected
influenza (see Appendix G. Appendix G is available for download at this
text’s Web site: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/9780763757793/).
• Collect viral cultures on a representative number of cases to identify the
strain of virus responsible for the outbreak.
• Consider closing the affected units to new admissions.
• Discourage visitors with influenza-like illness from visiting. Post signs at
the entrances of the facility.
Additional Information on Seasonal Influenza

Much information on seasonal influenza is available on the Web sites of
national and local public health departments. Excellent information on sea-
sonal influenza, including guidelines for prevention and control of influenza
and information for healthcare providers, can be obtained from the CDC influ-
enza Web site at http://www.cdc.gov/flu.
Appendix G contains the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hy-
giene “Guidelines for the Prevention and Control of Upper and Lower Acute
Respiratory Illnesses (including Influenza and Pneumonia) in Long-Term
Care Facilities” that contain information on preventing, detecting, investigat-
ing, and controlling an influenza outbreak and includes a form for document-
ing influenza vaccine administration, information on laboratory tests that can
be used to confirm a clinical diagnosis of influenza, and respiratory illness ques-
tionnaires for residents and employees. Appendix G is available for download
at this text’s Website: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/9980763757793.
Pandemic Influenza and Avian Influenza

A thorough discussion of pandemic influenza and avian influenza is beyond
the scope of this text. However, it is important to note that widespread regional
and pandemic outbreaks of influenza will affect all healthcare settings. At this
time it is unlikely that enough vaccine, prophylactic medication, and personal
protective equipment will be available for all who may be exposed during a
pandemic. Therefore, it is imperative that those who are responsible for infec-
tion control programs in any healthcare setting ensure that their setting has a
pandemic response and management plan. This plan should be updated as new
information becomes available and should be integrated with local and
regional healthcare institutions and public health services.
Much has published on pandemic and avian influenza, including guidelines
and plans for response and emergency management. For more information,
the reader is referred to national, international, state, and local public health
agencies and their Web sites. Examples of Web sites with avian and pandemic
influenza prevention and control information for healthcare settings include
the following:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Avian Influenza (Bird Flu): http://www.cdc.gov/flu/avian/
Prevention of Avian Influenza: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/avian/prevention
.htm
Emergency Preparedness and Response: http://www.bt.cdc.gov/
preparedness/
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
PandemicFlu.gov: http://www.pandemicflu.gov
Pandemic Flu Mitigation and Response: http://www.pandemicflu.gov/
plan/community/mitigation.html
World Health Organization
Influenza: http://www.who.int/csr/disease/influenza/en/
Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response: http://www.who.int/csr/
disease/influenza/en/
WHO Global Influenza Preparedness Plan: http://www.who.int/csr/
resources/publications/influenza/WHO_CDS_CSR_GIP_2005_5/en/
index.html
WHO Infection prevention and control in health care for preparedness
and response to outbreaks: http://www.who.int/csr/bioriskreduction/
infection_control/en/
All sites were accessed January 11, 2008.
Norovirus
Epidemiology
In the early 1990s, diagnostic assays using molecular techniques were
developed to detect viral agents of gastroenteritis. The use of these tests has
led to the recognition that noroviruses, formerly known as “Norwalk-like

viruses,” are the most common cause of acute nonbacterial gastroenteritis.272
Noroviruses are highly contagious and are a frequent cause of outbreaks in
healthcare settings worldwide, especially in hospitals and LTC facilities that
care for the elderly.273–288
The incubation period for norovirus-associated gastroenteritis is short, 12 to
48 hours, with a median of approximately 33 hours.282 Symptoms usually last
from 12–60 hours and include acute-onset vomiting; watery, nonbloody diar-
rhea; abdominal cramps; nausea; myalgia; malaise; and headache.282 Infected
persons can remain infectious for several days after symptoms resolve.289 The
most common complication of illness is dehydration, and this may be severe
enough to require intravenous replacement fluids.
Outbreaks in nursing homes and hospitals spread rapidly, can result in
attack rates over 50%,290,291 and can cause significant morbidity and mortal-
ity,282 loss of revenue, staff shortages, and disruption of services.275,277,279,281
Most reported outbreaks in healthcare settings affect patients, residents, and
personnel,275,277,279 and some have also involved visitors and family and friends
of personnel.279 Many outbreak are linked to ill food service workers.274,292
Because viral diagnostic and molecular tests are infrequently performed
during many outbreaks in healthcare settings, the CDC has published the fol-
lowing criteria that can be used to identify if the likely cause of an outbreak is
norovirus:
An acute gastroenteritis outbreak is “considered consistent with
norovirus if all of the following criteria are met: (1) vomiting in >50%
of affected persons, (2) mean or median incubation period of 24–48
hours, (3) mean or median illness duration of 12–60 hours, and (4) no
bacterial pathogens isolated from stool culture.”282(p846)
Noroviruses are transmitted primarily via the fecal-oral route and can be
spread by direct person-to-person contact or via contaminated food, water,
environmental surfaces, and fomites.42,289 Droplet transmission also occurs via
aerosolization of vomitus that can result in contamination of environmental
surfaces and food.42,279,280,282,293 Because noroviruses have a low infectious
dose, less than 100 viral particles, they are easily transmitted from person to
person and via contaminated food, items, and environmental surfaces.289
Noroviruses can cause extensive environmental contamination because
they are relatively resistant to commonly used disinfectants and to freezing
and heating and are able to survive for prolonged periods on environmental
surfaces.42,291 In the healthcare setting, transmission can occur by transferring
the virus to the oral mucosa via hands that are contaminated after touching
items and environmental surfaces contaminated with feces or vomitus. Wu et
al. hypothesized that prolonged shedding of the virus in the feces, along with
resident factors such as dementia, incontinence, and immobility, contributed
to extensive environmental contamination in a prolonged norovirus outbreak
that had a high attack rate in residents and personnel in a 240-bed veterans
LTC facility.291
Control Measures
Noroviruses can spread rapidly from person to person, and outbreaks are
difficult to control. Recommendations for controlling and preventing the trans-
mission of noroviruses have been published by the CDC42,289 and public health
agencies294,295 and in reports of outbreaks.296 The following measures are rec-
ommended to prevent transmission of noroviruses in healthcare settings and
to control an outbreak:
• Establish a surveillance system to allow early detection of a cluster or
outbreak of gastrointestinal illness in patients, residents, and personnel.
• Enforce frequent and thorough hand hygiene by personnel, patients, resi-
dents, and visitors, especially when leaving an ill patient’s room.
• Restrict ill personnel from work, especially from direct patient care and
food handling, until 48 hours after vomiting and diarrhea resolve.
• Ensure that food handlers practice strict personal hygiene at all times
and do not work if they have vomiting or diarrhea.
• Use contact precautions for persons with suspected norovirus infection
including 42:
• Gloves and gowns when entering rooms with symptomatic patients
• Mask if patient has uncontrolled diarrhea or vomiting and when
cleaning up vomit and feces
• Placement of infected patients and residents in a private room or
cohort when an outbreak occurs
• Restriction of ill residents in LTC facilities to their room and from
participating in group activities until 48 hours after vomiting and
diarrhea resolve
• Establish enhanced cleaning and disinfection protocols during an out-
break including:
• Requirement to wear gloves, gowns, and surgical masks when cleaning
• Prompt cleaning and disinfection of soiled environmental surfaces
and equipment, especially toilet areas
• Enhanced cleaning and disinfection of commonly touched surfaces
such as bedrails, door knobs, and handrails
• Use of chlorine bleach for environmental disinfection. Most authori-
ties recommend that chlorine bleach be used to disinfect hard, non-
porous, environmental surfaces at a minimum concentration of 1000
ppm (generally a dilution 1 part household bleach solution to 50 parts
water). Healthcare personnel should use appropriate personal protec-
tion, such as gloves and goggles, when working with bleach.
• As an alternative to bleach, use of a disinfectant registered by the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as effective against noro-
virus.297 Lists of EPA-approved disinfectants can be found on the EPA
Web site at http://www.epa.gov/oppad001/chemregindex.htm. How-
ever, there is controversy as to whether or not nonchlorine disinfec-
tants will inactivate norovirus.
• Limit sharing of equipment or ensure that equipment is cleaned and dis-

infected before use on another patient.
• Handle soiled linens and clothing as little as possible to avoid aerosoliza-
tion of the virus.
Additional information on prevention and control measures for noroviruses
can be found in the references noted at the beginning of this sec-
tion,42,289,293,294,295 in the Resources at the end of this chapter, and in Appendix
H (Appendix H is available for download at this text’s web site: http://www
.jbpub.com/catalog/9780763757793/).
PARASITIC DISEASES
Introduction
Parasites that have the potential to cause healthcare-associated outbreaks

fall into three broad categories: (1) enteric parasites, such as Giardia lamblia,
Entamoeba histolytica, and Cryptosporidium species, (2) blood and tissue par-
asites, such as Pneumocystis carinii, and (3) ectoparasites, such as Sarcoptes
scabiei. Although nosocomial transmission of parasitic and ectoparasitic dis-
eases has been well documented, reports of outbreaks caused by healthcare-
acquired parasites are rare, except for those caused by Sarcoptes scabiei, the
scabies mite.298–300 Outbreaks of scabies in healthcare settings, especially in
LTC facilities, have long been recognized.299,301–307 Despite the excessive fear
that many healthcare workers have of catching head or body lice from an
infested patient or resident, a search of the literature published from 1985
through early 2008 failed to detect any reports of outbreaks in the healthcare
setting caused by lice.
In the past three decades, Cryptosporidium parvum and Pneumocystis
carinii have emerged as important human pathogens, especially in persons
with impaired natural host defense mechanisms, such as those with acquired
immune deficiency syndrome or those undergoing immunosuppressive therapy.
Only recently has nosocomial transmission and suspected outbreaks of these
two organisms been reported.298,299,308–320 Parasites that have been reported to
cause outbreaks in the healthcare setting are listed in Table 7–1.300–320
Only those parasites that have been reported to cause outbreaks in health-
care settings will be discussed in this section. For further information on the
nosocomial transmission of parasites, the reader is referred to the series of
articles by Lettau, who reviewed published reports of transmission and out-
breaks of parasitic diseases in hospitals, research laboratories, and institu-
tions for the mentally ill.298–300
Sarcoptes scabiei (Scabies)
Scabies is caused by an itch mite, Sarcoptes scabiei, that is transmitted from

person to person by direct skin-to-skin contact and can sometimes be spread
via contact with underclothes and bedding that were recently contaminated.300
The female mite burrows into the skin to lay her eggs, and this causes a reac-
tion that is usually manifested as an intense pruritis but varies considerably,
Parasitic Diseases 243
depending on the immune status of the host. The eggs hatch and mature into
adults in 10 to 14 days.324 The incubation period (time from infestation to
observance of itching and rash) can be from several days to several weeks.
Therefore, a person can transmit the mite to others before the symptoms are
recognized. Most persons with scabies are said to harbor an average of 5 to 15
mites324,325; however, patients with compromised immune defenses can
develop Norwegian, or crusted, scabies in which thousands of mites may be
present. An adult mite can survive off the host and remain infective for only
24 to 36 hours at room temperature.326 Fomites are not usually important
modes of transmission; however, they have played a role in outbreaks when
patients or residents had Norwegian scabies.301,327 Mites have been found to
survive in mineral oil for up to seven days;324 therefore, oil-based ointments
and creams could possibly serve as a reservoir. Because the appearance of the
rash is so variable, a diagnosis of suspected scabies should routinely be con-
firmed by taking skin scrapings of the suspicious lesions and viewing them
under a microscope.301,302 The diagnosis can be confirmed if the adult mites,
eggs, or scybala (feces) can be seen. Diagnosis should be relatively easy in a
case of Norwegian scabies because of the large number of mites present; how-
ever, several scrapings may have to be done to confirm scabies infestation in a
normal host because only a few mites may be present.
There are many published reports of scabies outbreaks in acute
care300,303,327–333 and LTC settings.301,306,307,328,334–339 Most of these occurred
after contact with a patient or resident with Norwegian scabies because this
presentation is often unrecognized or misdiagnosed and is highly contagious
due to the large number of mites on the body. Scabies is particularly problem-
atic in the LTC setting where residents often have direct contact with each
other and many require extensive hands-on care.
Outbreaks in both acute and LTC settings are difficult to control because
continued spread frequently occurs due to (1) misdiagnoses and unrecognized
cases among patients, residents, or personnel, and (2) ineffective or improperly
applied treatment.302,335,337 Continued exposure to unrecognized or inade-
quately treated cases can lead to prolongation of an outbreak. Treatment fail-
ures due to resistance to scabicides are well recognized.331,336,338,339,340 Guidelines
for managing outbreaks in acute and LTC settings have been published and
include the following50,301,339,341:
• Education of personnel on recognizing signs and symptoms of typical and
atypical scabies
• Education of personnel on measures used to prevent the transmission of
scabies, especially the importance of thorough application of scabicides
• Development and implementation of a plan to evaluate and categorize
patients, residents, personnel, and their contacts according to their proba-
bility of infestation301
• Identification of symptomatic patients, residents, and personnel
• Use of contact precautions for symptomatic patients and residents until
24 hours after treatment is applied
• Identification of symptomatic household contacts, significant others, and
visitors of patients and residents
Table 7–1 Parasites That Have Caused Outbreaks in Healthcare Settings
Example of
Healthcare-
Usual Mode of Associated
Organism Disease Transmission Outbreak Reference(s)
Cryptosporidium Diarrhea Person to person Patient to patient 308–315
species via fecal-oral route; in pediatric
waterborne hospital in
Mexico313
Dermanyssus Mite infestation; Birds to man Mites entered 321
gallinae; dermatitis crevices in wall
Ornithonyssus and infested
sylvarium patients in a
(avian mites) surgical intensive
care unit; source
was pigeon
roosts on roof
Entamoeba Diarrhea Person to person Contaminated 322
histolytica via fecal-oral route colonic irrigation
equipment used
in a chiropractic
clinic
Giardia lamblia Diarrhea Person to person Food-borne and 323
via fecal-oral route; person-to-person
waterborne outbreak in a
nursing home
Pneumocystis Lower Probably by Cluster of 316–320
carinii respiratory tract inhalation of infections in
organism; possibly pediatric hospital
from person to thought to be
person by droplet acquired by
spread person-to-person
spread318
Sarcoptes scabei Dermatitis Person to person Multiple outbreaks 300–307
by skin-to-skin in hospitals and
contact long-term care
facilities
• Identification of symptomatic household contacts and significant others of

personnel
• Effective treatment of symptomatic persons (Note: It is important that
the directions for scabicides are followed carefully and that treatment is
applied to the entire body from the neck down including under the finger-
nails. For persons with Norwegian scabies, some scabicides should be
Parasitic Diseases 245
reapplied 7 days after the initial treatment. Instructions on the package

insert for the medication used should be carefully followed.)
• Application of treatment to all identified persons within the same 24- to
48-hour period whenever possible
• Restriction of infested personnel from work until initial treatment is com-
pleted (after overnight application of scabicide)
• Reexamination of confirmed or suspected scabies cases at 14 and 28 days
after initial treatment to evaluate treatment success
• Careful identification and surveillance of exposed patients and personnel
who are asymptomatic
• For a continuing outbreak, prophylaxis for exposed patients and person-
nel who are asymptomatic (mass prophylaxis of asymptomatic contacts is
generally not recommended.)
• Development of an ongoing surveillance program
The Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Guidelines for
Control of Scabies in Long-Term Care Facilities are reprinted in Appendix I
(Appendix I is available for download at this text’s web site: http://www
.jbpub.com/catalog/9780763757793/). These guidelines contain information on
recognizing and diagnosing scabies, a procedure for performing skin scrap-
ings, a protocol for the assessment and control of scabies outbreaks in LTC
facilities, a line list for scabies cases, and a scabies fact sheet.340
Scabies outbreaks are extremely disruptive when they occur in healthcare
facilities. They frequently result in adverse publicity and media coverage,
overuse of prophylactic medication, and much fear and stress in personnel due
to the stigma attached to having the disease and to the fact that their family
members and significant others are frequently affected.301,327,331,337,339 Once a
scabies outbreak is confirmed (i.e., scabies has been diagnosed by skin scrap-
ings), a carefully coordinated infection control plan must be implemented.
This plan must be a multidisciplinary effort involving those responsible for
infection control and employee health in the facility; the physicians caring for
the residents or patients; all affected personnel; the household contacts of
affected personnel, residents, or patients; the pharmacy; and the organiza-
tion’s administration and public relations departments. It is important that
information on the extent of the outbreak and the control measures being
taken be communicated consistently and frequently to personnel to avoid
panic and misconceptions, especially if the outbreak is extensive or prolonged.
To avoid providing conflicting information to personnel and the community, it
is useful to appoint a single spokesperson for the organization.
The most important measure that can be taken to prevent a scabies epi-
demic in any healthcare setting is the prompt recognition and treatment of
infested persons.
Cryptosporidium Species
Cryptosporidium parvum is an intestinal protozoan that causes diarrhea in

humans and is spread directly from person to person via the fecal-oral route or indi-
rectly via contaminated water or food.298 Several highly publicized waterborne342,343
and food-borne outbreaks344,345 of Cryptosporidium have occurred in the

United States, calling attention to the enteric parasites. In 1993, Cryp-
tosporidium caused the largest waterborne disease outbreak ever documented
in the United States when the municipal water in Milwaukee became contam-
inated with Cryptosporidium oocysts—an estimated 403,000 persons were
infected.342 Cryptosporidium has recently been recognized as a cause of
nosocomial diarrhea in immunosuppressed patients and possibly in the
elderly.308–315 A few hospital outbreaks of cryptosporidiosis have been
reported.308,311,313,315 An outbreak of cryptosporidiosis has also been reported in
a day care center associated with a hospital.346 Outbreaks caused by this
organism can be missed because many laboratories do not routinely test for
Cryptosporidium.347 Because infectious oocysts may be excreted in the stool of
symptomatic and asymptomatic persons, control measures to prevent person-
to-person transmission in the healthcare setting include standard precau-
tions, hand hygiene, and careful handling of feces and fecally contaminated
items. Contact precautions and use of a private room are recommended for
persons who are diapered or incontinent.42
Giardia lamblia
Giardia lamblia is a common intestinal parasite in humans that can be

transmitted via direct person-to-person contact or via contaminated water or
food.323 Although G. lamblia is a common cause of day care center epidemics348
and waterborne outbreaks, a literature search revealed only one reported out-
break related to healthcare-associated acquisition and this occurred in resi-
dents and employees of an LTC facility and in children and staff of a day care
center at the facility.323 The outbreak investigation in this nursing home
revealed that transmission probably occurred via two routes: (1) by direct
transmission between the children in the day care center and from the chil-
dren to the day care center staff and the nursing home residents who partici-
pated in an “adopted grandparents” program, and (2) by uncooked food
prepared by infected food handlers, one of whom was the mother of an infected
child in the day care center. Control measures used to terminate the outbreak
included the following323:
• Education for employees regarding hand washing
• Instructions to the day care center staff to wash their hands after chang-
ing diapers and before preparing food
• Instructions to the nursing home staff to wash hands after caring for
nursing home residents
• Treatment of symptomatic and asymptomatic persons who had G. lamblia
in their stool
• Removal of infected food handlers until after they were treated and their
symptoms resolved.
Pneumocystis carinii
Pneumocystis carinii is a protozoan parasite that genetically resembles a

fungus. It is an opportunistic pathogen that causes lower respiratory tract
Disease Syndromes—Gastrointestinal Illness 247
infection in immunocompromised patients. Studies suggest that P. carinii can

be transmitted from patient to patient in hospitals,311,349 and there are several
reports of healthcare-associated infection clusters.316,318–320 All of these reports
involved immunosuppressed patients. Although little is known about the epi-
demiology and mode of transmission of nosocomial pneumocystis, acquisition
of P. carinii is believed to occur via inhalation.299 The CDC guidelines for isola-
tion precautions recommend that patients with P. carinii pneumonia not be
placed in the same room with an immunocompromised patient.42
Ectoparasites Other Than Scabies
Several outbreaks of human infestation with avian mites have been

reported in hospitals.321,350 The source of these mites was pigeon roosts in close
proximity to patient rooms. Since avian mites (Ornithonyssus sylviarum and
Dermanyssus gallinae) can cause pruritic rashes in humans, healthcare per-
sonnel should be aware of the possible presence of these mites in the vicinity
of areas used by nesting pigeons. These mites are larger than Sarcoptes sca-
biei and, unlike S. scabiei, they can be seen by the naked eye and do not bur-
row under the skin. It should be noted that D. gallinae is not affected by
treatment with 1% gamma benzene hexachloride.349
DISEASE SYNDROMES—GASTROINTESTINAL ILLNESS
Epidemiology
Healthcare-associated diarrhea commonly occurs in hospitalized patients
and residents of LTC facilities and may be caused by a variety of intrinsic and
extrinsic factors: underlying diseases, gastric acidity, tube feedings, antacids,
laxatives, antibiotics and other medications, and infectious agents. Gastroin-
testinal illnesses are caused by a variety of bacterial, viral, parasitic, fungal,
and chemical agents; however, only a few of these agents have been involved
in reported nosocomial outbreaks, and these are listed in Exhibit 7–2. A
detailed discussion of each of these agents is beyond the scope of this chapter.
For additional information on agents causing gastrointestinal illness in
healthcare settings, the reader is referred to the references cited in this sec-
tion and to the Suggested Reading and Resources section at the end of this
chapter.
There are few data on the incidence of healthcare-associated gastroenteritis.
Hospitals participating in the housewide surveillance component of the CDC
NNIS system from 1985 to 1991 reported nosocomial gastroenteritis rates from
7.8 to 14.2 infections per 10,000 discharges, depending on the type and size of
hospital.351 Nicolle and Garibaldi reported the incidence of gastrointestinal
infection in nursing homes to be from 0 to 2.5 infections per 1000 resident-
days.352 Noroviruses, Salmonella, and Clostridium difficile are the most com-
monly reported causes of outbreaks of nosocomial gastrointestinal infections
in hospitals and LTC settings. Because the etiology for diarrhea is frequently
not determined, it is likely that many outbreaks in healthcare facilities are
not recognized—especially if they are caused by viral agents, because clinical
microbiology laboratories do not routinely screen for viruses. Rotaviruses are
among the most important causes of infectious diarrhea in infants, young chil-
dren, and the elderly, and are responsible for causing both sporadic and epi-
demic gastroenteritis in acute and LTC facilities.
Agents causing infectious gastroenteritis may be transmitted in the health-
care setting by contact with an infected individual 202,203,323,353–356 or a contami-
nated object235,322,356,357 or by consuming contaminated food, water, or other
beverages.323,353,355,357–359 Examples of outbreaks of healthcare-associated gas-
trointestinal illness that have occurred in hospitals and LTC facilities, includ-
ing the causative agent, the implicated source, and the probable mode of
transmission, are shown in Table 7–2.202,213,323,354,356,359–373 Once introduced into
a healthcare setting, many of these agents can readily be spread from person
to person, and outbreaks frequently involve both patients or residents and
personnel323,354,356,359,364,365,370,372,373 with occasional secondary spread to the
household contacts of personnel.363,364 Attack rates in the 50% range are fre-
quently reported for the noroviruses (previously known as the small round
structured viruses or SRSV).354,364 In a Maryland nursing home outbreak, 62
of 121 residents (51%) and 64 of 136 staff (47%) developed vomiting and diar-
rhea that was subsequently determined to be caused by a SRSV.354 The index
case was a nurse who became ill at work and continued to work for 3 days, on
three 12-hour shifts, although she was ill with explosive diarrhea. A nurse
aide who worked with the nurse subsequently developed nausea, vomiting,
and diarrhea and also continued to work. Both of these personnel were
thought to be responsible for introducing the agent into the wards. The out-
break had an overall attack rate (staff and residents) of 50% and resulted in
Exhibit 7–2 Etiologic Agents Involved in Outbreaks of Gastrointestinal Illness

in Healthcare Settings
Bacterial Viral Parasitic Chemical

Aeromonas hydrophilia Adenovirus Cryptosporidium Scombrotoxin
Campylobacter species Astrovirus Entamoeba Niacin
histolytica
Clostridium difficile Coxsackievirus Giardia lamblia
Clostridium perfringens Norovirus
Escherichia coli O157:H7 Rotavirus
Listeria monocytogenes
Salmonella species
Shigella species
Yersinia enterocolitica
three hospitalizations and two deaths among the 121 residents.354 The investi-
gators highlighted the importance of having a sick leave policy that encour-
ages personnel to report gastrointestinal illnesses immediately and cease
work until 48 hours after the resolution of vomiting and diarrhea.
Community outbreaks of rotavirus in temperate climates generally occur
during the winter months and can result in nosocomial transmission via person-
to-person spread.373–376 Although the primary mode of transmission of the
agents causing infectious gastroenteritis is fecal-oral, there is evidence that
the noroviruses and rotavirus can be transmitted via aerosolization of feces
or vomitus, such as may occur when a person handles contaminated laundry
or has explosive vomiting or diarrhea. 357,377,378 Gastroenteritis caused by
rotavirus can be characterized by severe diarrhea, vomiting, fever, and respi-
ratory symptoms; however, there is little evidence that rotavirus is spread
via respiratory secretions. Because rotavirus is fairly resistant to disinfec-
tants and germicides and can survive on environmental surfaces for pro-
longed periods, fomites probably play a role in the transmission of this
agent.373
Food-Borne Outbreaks
Food-borne and waterborne outbreaks may be caused by a variety of agents:
bacteria, viruses, parasites, natural toxins, and chemicals.353,357,379–389 A list of
the incubation periods and clinical syndromes associated with food-borne
agents that cause gastrointestinal disease can be found in the appendix of the
2006 CDC surveillance report on food-borne-disease outbreaks that is cited in
the references.389 Many recognized causes of community-acquired food-borne
outbreaks are agents that have emerged or reemerged in the past three
decades, such as Campylobacter, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Helicobacter pylori,
Listeria monocytogenes, Vibrio cholerae and vulnificus, group A beta-hemolytic
streptococcus, noroviruses, Anisakis, Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia,
Microsporidia, Toxoplasma gondii, and Cyclospora. To date, those agents listed
in Table 7–3 have been associated with nosocomial outbreaks.
Highly publicized outbreaks caused by widely distributed contaminated
food products have occurred in the past 20 years. In 1993, a large multistate
outbreak of E. coli O157:H57 in the Pacific Northwest was linked to hamburg-
ers served by a fast-food chain.385 Several outbreaks of cyclosporiasis have
been associated with commercially distributed fresh raspberries, mesclun let-
tuce, and basil.386 In 2002 a multistate outbreak of listeriosis caused by con-
taminated deli meat resulted in one of the largest food recalls in the United
States.387 These outbreaks call attention to the fact that contaminated water
or commercially available products could affect healthcare workers through
community exposure or could be served and consumed in a healthcare facility,
thus infecting patients, residents, personnel, and visitors.
In 1995, the CDC, the US Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug
Administration, and the California, Connecticut, Georgia, Minnesota, and Ore-
gon health departments initiated the Foodborne Disease Active Surveillance
Network (FoodNet) to monitor the incidence of food-borne diseases in those
states.382 As of 2008, 10 states are members of FoodNet. The primary goals of the
network are to characterize, understand, and respond to food-borne illnesses in
Table 7–2 Examples of Outbreaks of Healthcare-Associated Gastrointestinal Illness
Probable Reference
Implicated Mode of Healthcare (year
Agent Source Transmission Setting Comments reported)
Aeromonas Unknown Unknown LTC Affected 369
hydrophilia residents (1990)
Bacillus Beef stew Food-borne LTC Affected 368
cereus residents and (1988)
personnel
Campy- Chicken liver Food-borne LTC Affected 359
lobacter residents and (1997)
jejuni personnel
Clostridium Infected Person to LTC Primary risk 218
difficile residents person factor is prior (1990)
antimicrobials
Infected Person to Hospital Primary risk 202
patients person factor is prior (1989)
antimicrobials
Clostridium Meatloaf, Food-borne LTC Multiple 360
perfringens split pea outbreaks (1991)
soup, roast
beef,
shepherd’s
pie, turkey
Canned Food-borne Hospital Affected 366
tuna personnel (1994)
E. coli Sandwiches Food-borne LTC Affected 370
O157:H7 and person residents and (1987)
to person personnel
Hamburger Food-borne LTC Affected 371
residents (1986)
Giardia Children and Person to LTC and Affected children, 323
lamblia sandwiches person and associated personnel, and (1989)
food-borne child day residents
care center
Listeria Raw Food-borne Hospital Involved 20 367
mono- vegetables patients in (1986)
cytogenes 8 hospitals
Niacin Cornmeal Food-borne LTC Oversupple- 360
intoxication mentation of (1991)
cornmeal with
vitamins and
minerals
Probable Reference
Norovirus Unknown Person to LTC Affected person- 363
person nel and residents; (1993)
was also trans-
mitted to families
of personnel
Ill nurse and Person to LTC Index case was 354
nurse’s aide person ill nurse who (1996)
worked while
symptomatic;
affected residents
and personnel
Unknown Person to LTC Affected person- 364
person nel and residents; (1990)
was also transmit-
ted to families of
personnel
Ill nurse Person to Hospital Index case was 365
person hospitalized (1998)
nurse; affected
personnel and
patients
Rotavirus Not identified Person to LTC Affected residents 372
person and personnel (1980)
Pediatric Person to Hospital Nosocomial trans- 373
patients with person mission occurred (1990)
community- in patients during
acquired community
infection outbreak
Salmonella Chicken liver Food-borne LTC Affected residents 359
species and personnel (1997)
Eggs, chicken, Food-borne LTC Multiple outbreaks 360
turkey, pureed reported (1991)
food
Soiled linen Food-borne, LTC Affected residents, 356
and asymp- contact with laundry workers, (1994)
tomatic cook laundry, and nurses
person to
person
Continues
Probable Reference
Unknown— Food-borne, Hospital Cases occurred 361
probable person to over a 5-year (1985)
chronic person period
carrier
Eggs Food-borne Hospital Multiple out- 362
breaks reported (1998)
Staphylococ- Egg salad, Food-borne LTC Multiple outbreaks 360
cus aureus chicken salad, reported (1991)
potato salad,
chicken,
chopped beef
livers
LTC = Long-term care facility
the United States. FoodNet conducts active surveillance for nine organisms
that cause food-borne illness (Campylobacter, E. coli O157:H7, Listeria, Sal-
monella, Shigella, Vibrio, Yersinia, Cryptosporidium, and Cyclospora) and for
hemolytic uremic syndrome. Additional information is available on the Food-
Net Web site at http://www.cdc.gov/foodnet.
Nosocomial outbreaks of food-borne pathogens have long been recog-
nized.360,362,379,380,382 Since 1973, the CDC has maintained a surveillance pro-
gram for the collection and periodic reporting of data on the occurrence and
causes of food-borne-disease outbreaks in the United States. The data are col-
lected and submitted by state, local, and territorial health departments and
periodically reported in the MMWR Surveillance Summaries.387,388 Outbreaks
in hospitals and nursing homes accounted for 3.3% of the food-borne out-
breaks and 28.9% of the related deaths reported to the CDC from 1975 to
1992.362 A confirmed causative agent was determined in 67 of 123 reported
hospital outbreaks and 92 of 168 reported nursing home outbreaks. From 1975
to 1992 in hospitals, Salmonella was the most commonly reported agent (52%)
followed by scombroid fish poisoning (12%), Clostridium perfringens (11%),
and Staphylococcus aureus (8%) and in nursing homes, the most common
agent was also Salmonella (66%) followed by Staphylococcus aureus (15%),
Clostridium perfringens (9%), and Campylobacter jejuni (3%). In a CDC report
of food-borne-disease outbreaks occurring in 1998 through 2002, the most
common etiologic agent in hospital outbreaks was norovirus followed by Sal-
monella, Clostridium perfringens, and Listeria monocytogenes, and in nursing
homes the most common etiologic agent was also norovirus, followed by Sal-
monella, Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, and E. coli.389 The
Table 7–3 Characteristics of Agents Causing Food-Borne Diseases
I. Diseases typified by vomiting (and little or no fever) after a short incubation period
Incubation Period
Agent Usual (Range) Symptoms* Characteristic Foods
Bacillus cereus 2–4 hours N, V, D Fried rice
(1–6 hours)
Heavy metals 5–15 minutes N, V, C, D Foods and beverages
(cadmium, copper, (1–60 minutes) prepared, stored, or
tin, zinc) cooked in containers
coated, lined, or
contaminated with
offending metal
Staphylococcus 2–4 hours N, C, V; Sliced/chopped ham
aureus (0.5–8.0 hours) D, F may be and meats, custards,
present cream fillings
II. Diseases typified by diarrhea (often with fever) after a moderate to long incubation
period
Incubation Period
Bacillus cereus 8–16 hours C, D Custards, cereals,
(6–24 hours) puddings, sauces,
meat loaf
Campylobacter 3–5 days C, D, B, F Raw milk, poultry,
jejuni (1–10 days) water
Clostridium 10–12 hours C, D Meat, poultry
perfringens (8–24 hours) (V, F rare)
Cyclospora 1 week D, N,V, C Berries, lettuce
species (1–14 days)
Escherichia coli 24–72 hours D, C Uncooked vegetables,
enterotoxigenic (10–72 hours) salads, water, cheese
Escherichia coli 16–48 hours C, D, F, H Same
enteroinvasive (10–48 hours)
Escherichia coli 72–96 hours B, C, D, H, Beef, raw milk, water
enterohemorrhagic (3–8 days) F infrequent
(E. coli O157:H7
and others)
Continues
II. Diseases typified by diarrhea (often with fever) after a moderate to long incubation period
Incubation Period
Noroviruses 16–48 hours N, V, C, D Shellfish, water
(range varies)
Rotavirus 24–72 hours N, V, C, D Food-borne
transmission not well
documented
Salmonella 12–36 hours D, C, F, V, H Poultry, eggs, milk,
(nontyphoid) (6–72 hours) septicemia or meat (cross-
enteric fever contamination
important)
Shigella 24–48 hours C, F, D, B, H, N, V Foods contaminated
(12–96 hours) by infected food
handler; usually not
food-borne
Vibrio cholerae 16–72 hours D, V Shellfish
non-01
Vibrio cholerae O1 24–72 hours D, V Shellfish, water, or
(3 hours to 5 days) foods contaminated
by infected person or
obtained from
contaminated
environmental source
Vibrio 12–24 hours C, D Seafood
parahaemolyticus (4–30 hours) N, V, F, H, B
Yersinia 3 to 5 days usual F, D, C, V, H Pork products, foods
enterocolitica (range unclear) contaminated by
infected human or
animal
III. Botulism
Incubation Period
Clostridium botulinum 10–12 hours V, D Improperly canned
(6–24 hours) descending or preserved foods
paralysis that provide anaerobic
conditions
IV. Diseases most readily diagnosed from the history of eating a particular type of food
Incubation Period
Ciguatera poisoning 1–6 hours D, N, V, Large ocean fish (i.e.,
paresthesias, barracuda, snapper)
reversal of
temperature
sensation
Scombroid fish 5 minutes to N, C, D, H, Mishandled fish
poisoning 1 hour flushing, urticaria (i.e., tuna)
*B = bloody stools; C = cramps; D = diarrhea; F = fever; H = headache; N = nausea; V = vomiting

Source: Adapted from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Principles of Epidemiology. An
Introduction to Applied Epidemiology and Biostatistics. 2nd ed. US Department of Health and Human
Services; 1992:493-497.
recognition of norovirus because the most common agent of food-borne disease

in hospitals and nursing homes from 1998 through 2002 is likely due to the
increased use of diagnostic testing for viral agents because these tests were
not widely available until the early 1990s.
Hepatitis A virus (HAV) is an uncommon cause of nosocomial food-borne
outbreaks but is an example of an enterically transmitted pathogen that can
be spread in the healthcare setting via several routes: contaminated food,
direct person-to-person transmission, and infusion of contaminated blood or
blood products.390 The primary risk factor in many nosocomial HAV outbreaks
is poor hand hygiene. Outbreaks of HAV infection in healthcare personnel
have been associated with poor hand hygiene and eating on the patient care
unit.391
Additional information on food-borne pathogens and toxins and preventing
food-borne outbreaks can be found in the Resources section at the end of this
chapter.
Control Measures
Control measures for preventing the spread of agents that cause gastroin-
testinal infections depend on the mode of transmission and reservoir for the
organism. It is important to remember that many of these agents have several
modes of transmission and many can be spread by both the contact and food-
borne routes. When an outbreak is first identified or suspected, neither the agent
nor the mode of transmission may be known, so control measures should be
implemented based on the most likely agent, reservoir, and mode(s) of trans-
mission. This can be determined by evaluating the characteristic signs and
symptoms of those affected and conducting an initial, quick epidemiologic
study (i.e., identifying persons, place, time of onset, and incubation period).
Guidelines for identifying the etiology of an outbreak of gastrointestinal dis-
ease can be found in Appendix H (Appendix H is available for download at this
text’s Web site: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/9780763757793/). Foods that
require handling and no subsequent cooking constitute the greatest risk of
serving as vehicles for food-borne outbreaks. Many gastroenteritis outbreaks
in healthcare settings are caused by the noroviruses, even though etiologic
confirmation is frequently not made. Noroviruses generally cause a mild to
moderate, self-limited disease characterized by nausea, vomiting, diarrhea,
and abdominal pain with one or more of these symptoms lasting from 24 to 48
hours. The incubation period is usually from 12 to 48 hours with a median of
33 hours.389
Preventing Person-to-Person Transmission of Enteric Agents
The following control measures have been recommended to prevent the

spread of enteric pathogens by direct person-to-person contact or indirect con-
tact with contaminated items42,46,50,354,357,392:
• Instruct personnel, patients, residents, and visitors to practice careful
hand hygiene; hand hygiene is the single most important measure for
preventing the person-to-person transmission of enteric pathogens.
• Exclude ill personnel from patient care and food handling for at least 2
days after resolution of symptoms.
• Ensure that personnel adhere to standard and contact precautions, in-
cluding the use of gloves when handling feces or fecally soiled articles or
equipment.42
• Institute contact precautions for diapered or incontinent patients who
have an acute diarrheal disease of suspected infectious etiology.42
• Instruct personnel to carefully handle feces and fecally contaminated
items (especially bedpans and soiled laundry) to avoid aerosolization.42
• Use appropriate cleansers and disinfectants to clean and disinfect soiled
environmental surfaces, articles, and equipment; some disinfectants are
not active against rotavirus.393 Guidelines for cleaning and disinfecting
environmental surfaces and equipment can be found in Appendix F
(Appendix F is available for download at this text’s Web site: http://www
.jbpub.com/catalog/9780763757793/).
During an outbreak, the following additional measures are recommended:
• To determine the likely causative agent, source, and mode of transmission
so that appropriate measures can be identified and implemented, conduct
an epidemiologic study by collecting information on the identity of affected
persons, their characteristic symptoms, wards(s) affected, and date and
time of onset; then determine the likely incubation period by drawing an
epidemic curve. Outbreak investigation guidelines and data collection

forms can be found in Appendix H (Appendix H is available for download
at this text’s Web site: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/9780763757793/).
• Because the absence of routinely available laboratory tests for viral
agents make it difficult to confirm the etiology of many outbreaks, consult
with the laboratory regarding the collection of stool specimens.357,394
• Conduct active surveillance to identify new cases among patients, resi-
dents, personnel, and visitors.
• Isolate or cohort ill patients and residents.
• Ensure that ill personnel are reassigned to nonpatient care and nonfood
handling duties or are restricted from work until at least 2 days after res-
olution of vomiting and/or diarrhea. (Note: Many states have specific reg-
ulations regarding work restrictions for food handlers and healthcare
personnel and when they can return to work after salmonellosis or shigel-
losis is diagnosed.)
• Minimize contact between well and ill persons as much as possible
(cohort personnel and patients/residents whenever possible).
• Alert visitors to wash their hands carefully or use an alcohol hand rub
when visiting patients or residents.
• In LTC settings: (1) restrict ill residents from group activities, including
meals, until 2 days after resolution of vomiting and/or diarrhea, and (2)
depending on the organism involved and the extent of the outbreak, close
the ward to new admissions.
• In pediatric settings: (1) close the playroom, (2) identify patients exposed
to the index case and avoid placing them with unexposed patients for the
duration of the incubation period, (3) depending on the organism involved
and the extent of the outbreak, close the ward to new admissions, and (4)
instruct parents and other household contacts in the use of proper hand
hygiene and handling of feces and diapers.
• Emphasize careful handling of soiled linen, clothing, and diapers to avoid
aerosolization of feces and contamination of the environment.
• If a norovirus is the likely cause of the outbreak, instruct personnel to
wear masks when cleaning areas grossly soiled with feces or vomitus.
Many state public health agencies have guidelines for investigating and con-
trolling gastroenteritis outbreaks in LTC facilities, and these should be followed
when available. The Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
Guidelines for the Epidemiological Investigation of Gastroenteritis Outbreaks
in Long-Term Care Facilities can be found in Appendix H.294 Appendix H is
available for download at this text’s Web site: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/
978076375779.
Preventing Food-Borne Transmission of Enteric Agents
The control measures for preventing the food-borne transmission of pathogens

depend on the agent involved. For instance, because viral agents cannot multiply
outside the host, the initial innoculum in the food source determines infectivity,
and food storage is not as critical as if the contaminating agent were Staphylo-
coccus aureus, which will readily multiply in food held at room temperature.
Control measures for preventing and investigating food-borne outbreaks have
been published by the CDC and state health departments and include354,357,381:
• Exclude ill personnel from handling food for at least 2 days after resolu-
tion of diarrhea and vomiting.
• Emphasize the importance of proper hand washing for all personnel who
handle food.
• Train food handlers in food safety practices (i.e., the proper handling,
storage, preparation, and cooking of food—especially the handling of eggs
and the importance of maintaining proper temperatures for hot or cold
foods and avoiding cross-contamination between cooked and uncooked
foods).
• Follow state regulations, as appropriate, for food handlers with infectious
gastroenteritis.
Control measures for interrupting and investigating a food-borne outbreak

include the following:
• Exclude ill personnel from handling food for at least 2 days after resolu-
tion of diarrhea and vomiting.
• Consult with the laboratory regarding the collection of stool speci-
mens.357,394
• Conduct active surveillance to identify new cases among patients, resi-
dents, personnel, and visitors.
• Isolate or cohort ill patients and residents.
• Ensure that ill personnel are reassigned to nonpatient care and nonfood
handling duties or are restricted from work until at least 2 days after res-
olution of vomiting and/or diarrhea. (Note: Many states have specific reg-
ulations regarding work restrictions for food handlers and healthcare
personnel and when they can return to work after salmonellosis or shigel-
losis is diagnosed.)
Pathogens introduced into a facility via food can be further transmitted
from person to person by direct contact with an infected person or a contami-
nated item;323,353,356,361,370 therefore, measures to prevent person-to-person
transmission, as noted above, should also be implemented.
Although most cases of food-borne disease are caused by infectious agents, it
is important to remember that pesticides and other chemicals have been
responsible for outbreaks in healthcare settings resulting in gastrointestinal
and neurologic illness.388,395
Outbreaks of gastrointestinal illness in healthcare settings can result in sig-
nificant morbidity and mortality; affect patients, residents, and personnel; dis-
rupt services; and cause economic loss.396 To prevent these outbreaks, infection
control professionals should implement infection surveillance, prevention, and
control programs that reduce the risk of transmission of pathogens that are
spread by the fecal-oral route.
References 259
REFERENCES
1. Smith L, Eberstadt I. Selected Poems of Ogden Nash. New York, NY: Little Brown & Company;
1975:59.
2. Jevons MP. “Celbenin”-resistant staphylococci. BMJ 1961;1:124–125.
3. Panlilo AL, Culver DH, Gaynes RP, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in U.S.
hospitals, 1975–1991. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1992;13:582–586.
4. Diekema DJ, Pfaller MA, Schmitz FJ, et al. Survey of infections due to Staphylococcus
species: frequency of occurrence and antimicrobial susceptibility of isolates collected in the
United States, Canada, Latin America, Europe, and the Western Pacific Region for the
SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program, 1997–1999. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;32(Suppl 2):
S114–S132.
5. The European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (EARSS). EARSS annual
report 2006. http://www.rivm.nl/earss/news/index.jsp. Accessed November 25, 2007.
6. Andras̆evic AT, Tambic T, Kalenic S, Jankovic V and the Working Group of the Croatian Com-
mittee for Antibiotic Resistance Surveillance. Surveillance for antimicrobial resistance in
Croatia. Emerg Infect Dis. 2002;8:14–8.
7. Nimmo GR, Pearson JC, Collignon PJ, et al and the Australian Group for Antimicrobial
Resistance. Prevalence of MRSA among Staphylococcus aureus isolated from hospital inpa-
tients, 2005: report of the Australian Group for Antimicrobial Resistance. Commun Dis Intel.
2007;31:288–296. http://www.antimicrobial-resistance.com/. Accessed November 25, 2007.
8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National nosocomial infections surveillance
(NNIS) system report, data summary from January 1992 through June 2004, issued October
2004. Am J Infect Control. 2004;32:470–485. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/nnis_pubs.html.
9. Barrett FF, McGehee RP Jr, Finland M. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus at
Boston City Hospital. N Engl J Med. 1968;279:441–448.
10. Wenzel RP, Nettleman MD, Jones RN, Pfaller MA. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus: implications for the 1990s and effective control measures. Am J Med. 1991;91:
3B-221S–3B-227S.
11. Harstein AI, LeMonte AM, Iwamoto PKL. DNA typing and control of methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus at two affiliated hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1997;18:
42–48.
12. Lugeon C, Blanc DS, Wenger A, Francioli P. Molecular epidemiology of methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus at a low-incidence hospital over a 4-year period. Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol. 1995;16:260–267.
13. Embil J, Ramotar K, Romance L, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in ter-
tiary care institutions on the Canadian prairies 1990–1992. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1994;15:646–651.
14. Layton MC, Hierholzer WJ, Patterson JE. The evolving epidemiology of methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus at a university hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1995;16:12–17.
15. Harstein AI, Denny MA, Morthland VH, LeMonte AM, Pfaller MA. Control of methicillin-
resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a hospital and an intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol. 1995;16:405–411.
16. Linnemann CC Jr, Moore P, Staneck JL, Pfaller MA. Reemergence of epidemic methicillin-
resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a general hospital associated with changing staphylococ-
cal strains. Am J Med. 1991;91:3B-238S–3B-244S.
17. Coombs GW, Van Gessel H, Pearson JC, Godsell MR, O’Brien FG, Christiansen KJ. Control-
ling a multicenter outbreak involving the New York/Japan methicillin-resistant Staphylococ-
cus aureus clone. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28(7):845–852.
18. Klein E, Smith DL, Laxminarayan R. Hospitalizations and deaths caused by methicillin-
resistant Staphylococcus aureus, United States, 1999–2005. Emerg Infect Dis. 2007;13:1840–
1846. http://www.cdc.gov/EID/content/13/12/1840.htm. Accessed December 10, 2007.
19. Troilett N, Carmeli Y, Samore MH, et al. Carriage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus

aureus at hospital admission. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1998;19:181–185.
20. Klevens RM, Morrison MA, Nadle J, et al. for the Active Bacterial Core Surveillance (ABCs)
MRSA Investigators. Invasive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in the
United States. JAMA. 2007;298(15):1763–1771.
21. Adcock PM, Pastor P, Medley F, Patterson JE, Murphy TV. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococ-
cus aureus in two child care centers. J Infect Dis. 1998;178(2):577–580.
22. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
infections among competitive sports participants—Colorado, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Los
Angeles County, 2000–2003. MMWR. 2003;52(33):793–795.
23. Begier EM, Frenette K, Barrett NL, et al. A high-morbidity outbreak of methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus among players on a college football team, facilitated by cosmetic body
shaving and turf burns. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39(10):1446–1453.
24. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outbreaks of community-associated methicillin-
resistant Staphylococcus aureus skin infections—Los Angeles County, California, 2002–2003.
MMWR. 2003;52(5):88.
25. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Siegel JD, Rhinehart E, Jackson M, Chiarello L,
and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Management of multidrug-
resistant organisms in healthcare settings, 2006. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/index.html.
26. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus
infections in correctional facilities—Georgia, California, and Texas, 2001–2003. MMWR. 2003;
52: 992–96.
27. Grundmann H, Aires-de-Sousa M, Boyce J, Tiemersma E. Emergence and resurgence of
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus as a public-health threat. Lancet. 2006;368:
874–885.
28. O’Brien FG, Pearman JW, Gracey M, Riley TV, Grubb WB. Community strain of methicillin-
resistant Staphylococcus aureus involved in a hospital outbreak. J Clin Microbiol. 1999;37:
2858–2862.
29. Saiman L, O’Keefe M, Graham PLIII, et al. Hospital transmission of community-acquired
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among postpartum women. Clin Infect Dis.
2003;37:1313–1319.
30. Bratu S, Eramo A, Kopec R, et al. Community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococ-
cus aureus in hospital nursery and maternity units. Emerg Infect Dis 2005;11: 808–813.
31. Boyce JM. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in hospitals and long-term care facili-
ties: microbiology, epidemiology, and preventive measures. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1992;13:725–737.
32. Meier PA, Carter CC, Wallace SE, Hollis RJ, Pfaller MA, Herwaldt LA. A prolonged outbreak
of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the burn center of a tertiary medical center.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.1996;17:798–802.
33. Thompson RL, Cabezudo I, Wenzel RP. Epidemiology of nosocomial infections caused by
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Ann Intern Med. 1982;97:309–317.
34. Boyce JM, Landry M, Deetz TR, Dupont HL. Epidemiologic studies of an outbreak of methicillin-
resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Infect Control. 1981;2:110–116.
35. Huang R, Mehta S, Weed D, Savor Price C. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus sur-
vival on hospital fomites. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006;27:1267–1269.
36. Sheretz RJ, Reagan DR, Hampton KD, et al. A cloud adult: the Staphylococcus aureus virus
37. Bertin ML, Vinski J, Schmidt S, et al. Outbreak of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus colonization and infection in a neonatal intensive care unit epidemiologically linked
to a healthcare worker with chronic otitis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006;27:581–585.
38. Haley RW, Hightower AW, Khabbaz RF, et al. The emergence of methicillin-resistant Staphy-
lococcus aureus in United States hospitals: the possible role of the house-staff patient trans-
fer circuit. Ann Intern Med. 1982;97:297–308.
References 261
39. Reboli AC, John JF Jr, Platt CG, Cantey JR. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus out-
break at a Veterans Affairs medical center: importance of carriage of the organism by hospi-
tal personnel. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1990;11:291–296.
40. Coombs GW, Van Gessel H, Pearson JC, et al. Controlling a multicenter outbreak involving
the New York/Japan methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus clone. Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol. 2007;28:845–852.
41. McDonald JR, Carriker CM, Pien BC, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus out-
break in an intensive care nursery: potential for interinstitutional spread. Pediatr Infect Dis
J. 2007;26(8):678–683.
42. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Siegel JD, Rhinehart E, Jack-
son M, Chiarello L, and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee,
2007. Guideline for isolation precautions: preventing transmission of infectious agents in
healthcare settings, June 2007. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/gl_isolation.html. Accessed
November 25, 2007.
43. Muto CA, Jernigan JA, Ostrowsky BE, et al. SHEA guideline for preventing nosocomial
transmission of multidrug-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2003;24:362–386. http://www.shea-online.org/Assets/files/
position_papers/SHEA_MRSA_VRE.pdf. Accessed December 13, 2007.
44. Coia JE, Duckworth GJ, Edwards DI, et al., for Joint Working Party of the British Society of
Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, Hospital Infection Society, Infection Control Nurses Associa-
tion. Guidelines for the control and prevention of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
(MRSA) in healthcare facilities. J Hosp Infect. 2006;63S:S1–S44.
45. Gerber SI, Jones RC, Scott MV, et al. Management of outbreaks of methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus infection in the neonatal intensive care unit: a consensus statement.
46. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guideline for hand hygiene in health-care settings-
recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the
HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. MMWR. 2003;51(RR-16):1–56.
47. Horan TC, Gaynes RP. Surveillance of nosocomial infections. In Mayhall CG, ed. Hospital
Epidemiology and Infection Control. 3rd ed. Philadelphia:Lippincott Williams & Wilkins,
2004:1659–1702. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/pdf/NNIS/NosInfDefinitions.pdf. Accessed
April 16, 2008.
48. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The National Healthcare Safety Network
(NHSN) Manual Patient Safety Component Protocol. CDC Division of Healthcare Quality
Promotion. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/nhsn_members.html. Accessed April 16, 2008.
49. Wenzel RP, Reagan DR, Bertino JS, Baron EJ, Arias K. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus outbreak: a consensus panel’s definition and management guidelines. Am J Infect
Control. 1998;26:102–110.
50. Bolyard EA, Tablan OC, Williams WW, et al. Guideline for infection control in health care
personnel, 1998. Am J Infect Control. 1998;26:289–354. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/
gl_hcpersonnel.html. Accessed April 19, 2008.
51. Strausbaugh L. Antimicrobial resistance: problems, laments, and hopes. Am J Infect Control.
1997;25:294–296.
52. Goetz AM, Muder RR. The problem of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a critical
appraisal of the efficacy of infection control procedures with a suggested approach for infec-
tion control programs. Am J Infect Control. 1992;20:80–84.
53. Cooper BS, Stone SP, Kibbler CC, et al. Isolation measures in the hospital management of
methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): systematic review of the literature.
BMJ. 2004;329:533–540. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/329/7465/533. Accessed Decem-
ber 10, 2007.
54. Henderson DK. Managing methicillin-resistant staphylococci: a paradigm for preventing
nosocomial transmission of resistant organisms. Am J Infect Control. 2006;34:S46–S54.
55. Jernigan JA, Titus M, Groschel DHM, Getchell-White SI, Farr BM. Effectiveness of contact
isolation during a hospital outbreak of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Am J
Epidemiol. 1996;143:496–504.
56. Nettleman MD, Trilla A, Fredrickson M, Pfaller M. Assigning responsibility: using feedback
to achieve sustained control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Am J Med.
1991;91:3B-228S–3B-232S.
57. Boyce JM. Preventing staphylococcal infections by eradicating nasal carriage of Staphylococ-
cus aureus: proceeding with caution. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;17:775–779.
58. Gemmell CG, Edwards DI, Fraise AP, Gould FK, Ridgeway GL, Warren RE, for Joint Working
Party of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, Hospital Infection Society,
Infection Control Nurses Association. Guidelines for the prophylaxis and treatment of methicillin-
resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections in the UK. J Antimicrobial Chemother.
2006;57(4):589-608. http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/57/4/589. Accessed Decem-
ber 10, 2007.
59. O’ Toole RD, Drew WL, Dahlgren BJ, et al. An outbreak of methicillin-resistant Staphylococ-
cus aureus. Observations in hospital and nursing home. JAMA. 1970;213:257–263.
60. Storch GA, Radcliff JL, Meyer PL, Hinrichs JH. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
in a nursing home. Infect Control. 1987;8:24–29.
61. Strausbaugh LJ, Jacobson C, Sewell DL, Potter S, Ward TT. Methicillin-resistant Staphylo-
coccus aureus in extended-care facilities: experiences in a Veterans’ Affairs nursing home and
a review of the literature. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1991;12:36–45.
62. Thomas JC, Bridge J, Waterman S, Vogt J, Kilman L, Hancock G. Transmission and control of
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a skilled nursing facility. Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol. 1989;10:106–110.
63. Kauffman CA, Bradley SF, Terpenning MS. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in
long-term care facilities. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1990;11:600–603.
64. Mylotte JM, Karuza J, Bentley DW. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a question-
naire survey of 75 long-term care facilities in western New York. Infect Control Hosp Epi-
demiol. 1992;13:711.
65. Muder RR, Brennen C, Wagener MW, et al. Methicillin-resistant staphylococcal colonization
and infection in a long-term care facility. Ann Intern Med. 1991;114:107–112.
66. Bradley SF, Terpenning MS, Ramsey MA, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus:
colonization and infection in a long-term care facility. Ann Intern Med. 1991;115:417–422.
67. Bradley SF. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: long-term care concerns. Am J Med.
1999;106(5A):2S–10S.
68. Lee Y, Cesario T, Gupta G, et al. Surveillance of colonization and infection with Staphylococ-
cus aureus susceptible or resistant to methicillin in a community skilled-nursing facility. Am
J Infect Control. 1997;25:312–321.
69. Bradley SF. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in nursing homes. Epidemiology,
prevention and management. Drugs Aging. 1997;10:185–198.
70. Mulhausen PL, Harrell LJ, Weinberger M, Kochersberger GG, Feussner JR. Contrasting
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization in Veterans Affairs and community
nursing homes. Am J Med. 1996;100:24–31.
71. Gould CV, Rothenberg R, Steinberg JP. Antibiotic resistance in long-term acute care hospi-
tals: the perfect storm. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006;27:920–925.
72. Cretnik TZ, Vovko P, Retelj M, et al. Prevalence and nosocomial spread of methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus in a long-term care facility in Slovenia. Infect Control Hosp Epi-
demiol. 2005;26:184–190.
73. Hsu CCS. Serial survey of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage among
residents in a nursing home. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1991;12:416–421.
74. Lee YL, Gupta G, Cesario T, et al. Colonization by Staphylococcus aureus resistant to methi-
cillin and ciprofloxacin during 20 months’ surveillance in a private skilled nursing facility.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;649–653.
75. Pacio GA, Visintainer P, Maquire G, Wormser GP, Ratffalli J, Montecalvo MA. Natural history
of colonization with vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus, and resistant gram-negative bacilli among long-term care facility residents. Infect
References 263
76. Mulligan ME, Murray-Leisure KA, Ribner BS, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus: a consensus review of the microbiology, pathogenesis, and epidemiology with implica-
tions for prevention and management. Am J Med. 1993;94:313–328.
77. McNeil SA, Mody L, Bradley SF. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Management
of asymptomatic colonization and outbreaks of infection in long-term care. Geriatrics.
2002;57(6):16–8, 21–4, 27.
78. Boyce JM, Jackson MM, Pugliese G, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
(MRSA): a briefing for acute care hospitals and nursing facilities. Infect Control Hosp Epi-
demiol. 1994;15:105–115.
79. McGeer A, Campbell B, Emori TG, et al. Definitions of infection for surveillance in long-term
care facilities. Am J Infect Control. 1991;19:1–7.
80. Mylotte JM. Control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: the ambivalence per-
sists. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1994;15:73–77.
81. Kauffman CA, Terpenning MS, Xiaogong H, et al. Attempts to eradicate methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus from a long-term care facility with the use of mupirocin ointment. Am
J Med. 1993;94:371–378.
82. Mody L, Kauffman CA, McNeil SA, Galecki AT, Bradley SF. Mupirocin-based decolonization
of Staphylococcus aureus carriers in residents of 2 long-term care facilities: a randomized,
double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;37(11):1467–1474.
83. Strausbaugh LJ, Jacobson C, Sewell DL, Potter S, Ward TT. Antimicrobial therapy for methicillin-
resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization in residents and staff of a Veterans Affairs
nursing home care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1993;13:151–159.
84. Willems RJL, Top J, van Santen M, et al. Global spread of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus
faecium from distinct nosocomial genetic complex. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11:821–828.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol11no06/04-1204.htm. Accessed May 12, 2008.
85. Centikya Y, Falk P, Mayhall CG. Vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2000;
13:686–707.
86. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nosocomial enterococci resistant to
vancomycin—United States, 1989–1993. MMWR. 1993;42:597–599.
87. Karanfil LV, Murphy M, Josephson A, et al. A cluster of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus
faecium in an intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1992;13:195–200.
88. Handwerger S, Raucher B, Altarac D, et al. Nosocomial outbreak due to Enterococcus faecium
highly resistant to vancomycin, penicillin, and gentamicin. Clin Infect Dis.1993;16:750–755.
89. Boyle JF, Soumakis SA, Rendo A, et al. Epidemiologic analysis and genotypic characteriza-
tion of a nosocomial outbreak of vancomycin-resistant enterococci. J Clin Microbiol. 1993;
31:1280–1285.
90. Montecalvo MA, Horowitz H, Gedris C, et al. Outbreak of vancomycin, ampicillin, and
aminoglycoside-resistant Enterococcus faecium bacteremia in an adult oncology unit. Anti-
microbiol Agents Chemother. 1994;38:1363–1367.
91. Boyce JM, Opal SM, Chow JW, et al. Outbreak of multi-drug resistant Enterococcus faecium
with transferable vanB class vancomycin resistance. J Clin Microbiol. 1994;32:1148–1153.
92. Quale J, Landman D, Atwood E, et al. Experience with a hospital-wide outbreak of vancomycin-
resistant enterococci. Am J Infect Control. 1996;24:372–379.
93. Hanna H, Umphrey J, Tarrand J, Mendoza M, Raad I. Management of an outbreak of vancomycin-
resistant enterococci in the medical intensive care unit of a cancer center. Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol. 2001;22:217–219.
94. Byers KE, Anglim AM, Anneski CJ, et al. A hospital epidemic of vancomycin-resistant Entero-
coccus: risk factors and control. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2001;22:140–147.
95. Pearman JW. 2004 Lowbury Lecture: the Western Australian experience with vancomycin-
resistant enterococci—from disaster to ongoing control. J Hosp Infect. 2006;63:14–26.
96. Frieden TR, Munsiff SS, Low DE, et al. Emergence of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in
New York City. Lancet. 1993;342:76–79.
97. Silverman J, Thal LA, Perri MB, Bostic G, Zervos MJ. Epidemiologic evaluation of antimicro-
bial resistance in community-acquired enterococci. J Clin Micro. 1998;36:830–832.
98. McDonald LC, Kuehneert MJ, Tenover FC, Jarvis WR. Vancomycin-resistant enterococci out-
side the health-care setting: prevalence, sources, and public health implications. Emerg Infect
Dis. 1997;3:311–317.
99. Morris JT Jr, Shay DK, Hebden J, et al. Enterococci resistant to multiple antimicrobial
agents, including vancomycin. Establishment of endemicity in a university medical center.
Ann Intern Med. 1995;123:250–259.
100. Crossley K and Long-Term Care Committee of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of
America. Vancomycin-resistant enterococci in long-term care facilities. Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol. 1998;19:521–525.
101. Edmond MB, Ober JF, Weinbaum DL, et al. Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium bac-
teremia; risk factors for infection. Clin Infect Dis. 1995;20:1126–1133.
102. Bonten MJM, Hayden MK, Nathan C, et al. Epidemiology of colonization of patients and
environment with vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Lancet. 1996;348:1615–1619.
103. The Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Recommendations for pre-
venting the spread of vancomycin resistance: recommendations of the Hospital Infection
Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). Am J Infect Control. 1995;23:87–94.
104. Livornese LL, Dias S, Samel C, et al. Hospital-acquired infection with vancomycin-resistant
Enterococcus faecium transmitted by electronic thermometer. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117:
112–114.
105. Martinez JA, Ruthazer R, Hansjosten K, Barefoot L, Snydman DR. Role of environmental
contamination as a risk factor for acquisition of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in patients
treated in a medical intensive care unit. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(16):1905–1912.
106. Rhinehart E, Smith NE, Wennersten C. Rapid dissemination of beta-lactamase producing,
aminoglycoside-resistant Enterococcus faecalis among patients and staff in an infant-toddler
surgical ward. N Engl J Med. 323:1814–1818.
107. Eckstein BC, Adams DA, Ekstein EC, et al. Reduction of Clostridium difficile and vancomycin-
resistant Enterococcus contamination of environmental surfaces after an intervention to
improve cleaning methods. BMC Infect Dis. 2007;7:61–66. http://www.pubmedcentral
.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17584935. Accessed December 15, 2007.
108. Bhalla S, Pultz, NJ, Gries DM. Acquisition of nosocomial pathogens on hands after contact
with environmental surfaces near hospitalized patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
2004;2004;25:164–167.
109. Montecalvo MA, deLencastre H, Carraher M, et al. Natural history of colonization with
vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1995;16:680–685.
110. Bonilla HF, Zervos MA, Lyons MJ, et al. Colonization with vancomycin-resistant Enterococ-
cus faecium: comparison of a long-term care unit with an acute-care hospital. Infect Control
111. Noskin GA, Stosor V, Cooper I, Peterson LR. Recovery of vancomycin-resistant enterococci on
fingertips and environmental surfaces. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1995;16:577–581.
112. Bonilla HF, Zervos MJ, Kauffman CA. Long-term survival of vancomycin-resistant Enterococ-
cus faecium on a contaminated surface [letter and comments]. Infect Control Hosp Epi-
demiol. 1996;17:770–772.
113. Boyce JM, Mermel LA, Zervos MJ, et al. Controlling vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Infect
114. Wade JJ, Desai N, Casewell MW. Hygienic hand disinfection for the removal of epidemic
vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium and gentamicin-resistant Enterobacter cloacae.
J Hosp Infect. 1991;18:211–218.
115. Brennen C, Wagener MM, Muder RR. Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium in a long-
term care facility. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1998;46:157–160.
116. Padiglione AA, Grabsch E, Wolfe R, Gibson K, Grayson ML. The prevalence of fecal coloniza-
tion with VRE among residents of long-term care—facilities in Melbourne, Australia. Infect
Control and Hosp Epidemiol. 2001;22:576–578.
References 265
117. Terpenning MS, Bradley SF, Wan JY, Chenoweth CE, Jorgensen KA, Kauffman CA. Coloniza-
tion and infection with antibiotic resistant bacteria in a long term care facility. J Am Geriatr
Soc. 1994;42:1062–1069.
118. Trick WE, Weinstein RA, DeMarais PL, et al. Colonization of skilled-care facility residents
with antimicrobial-resistant pathogens. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001:49:270–276.
119. Safdar N, Maki DG. The commonality of risk factors for nosocomial colonization and infection
with antimicrobial-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus, gram-negative bacilli,
Clostridium difficile, and Candida. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:834–844.
120. Donskey CJ, Ray AJ, Hoten CK, et al. Colonization and infection with multiple nosocomial
pathogens among patients colonized with vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus. Infect Control
121. Elizaga ML, Weinstein RA, Hayden MK. Patients in long-term care facilities: a reservoir for
vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;34:441–446.
122. Armstrong-Evans M, Litt M, McArthur MA, et al. Control of vancomycin-resistant Enterococ-
cus faecium in a long-term care facility. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20:312–317.
123. Trick WE, Kuehnert MJ, Quirk SB, et al. Regional dissemination of vancomycin-resistant
enterococci resulting from interfacility transfer of colonized patients. J Infect Dis. 1999;
180:391–396.
124. Boyce J. Environmental contamination makes an important contribution to hospital infec-
tion. J Hsop Infect. 2007;65:50–54.
125. Mody L, McNeil, Sun R, Bradley SF, Kauffman CA. Introduction of a waterless alcohol-based
hand rub in a long-term care facility. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2003;24:165–171.
126. Hiramatsu K, Hanaki H, Ino T, Yabuta K, Oguri T, Tenover FC. Methicillin-resistant Staphy-
lococcus aureus clinical strain with reduced vancomycin susceptibility. J Antimicrobiol
Chemother. 1997;40:135–136.
127. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Update: Staphylococcus aureus with reduced
susceptibility to vancomycin—United States, 1997. MMWR. 1997;46:813–815. http://www
.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00053311.htm. Accessed April 17, 2008.
128. Ploy MC, Grelaud C, Martin C, de Lumley L, Denis F. First clinical isolate of vancomycin-
intermediate Staphylococcus aureus in a French hospital. Lancet. 1998;351:1212.
129. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Staphylococcus aureus resistant to vancomycin—
United States, 2002. MMWR. 2002;51(26);565–567. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/
mmwrhtml/mm5126a1.htm. Accessed April 17, 2008.
130. Hageman JC, Pegues DA, Jepson C, et al. Vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus in
a home health-care patient. Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7:1023–1025. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/
eid/vol7no6/hageman.htm. Accessed April 17, 2008.
131. Saha B, Singh B, Ghosh A, Bal M. Identification and characterization of a vancomycin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus isolated from Kolkata (South Asia). Med Microbiol. 2008;57(Pt 1):
72–79.
132. Tenover FC, McDonald LC. Vancomycin-resistant staphylococci and enterococci: epidemiol-
ogy and control. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2005;18(4):300–305.
133. Howe RA, Monk A, Wootton M, Walsh TR, Enright MC. Vancomycin susceptibility within
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus lineages. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004;10:855–857.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol10no5/03-0556.htm. Accessed May 12, 2008.
134. Hageman JC, Patel JB, Carey RC, Tenover FC, McDonald LC. Investigation and control of
vancomycin-intermediate and resistant Staphylococcal aureus: a guide for health depart-
ments and infection control personnel. Atlanta, GA. 2005. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/
pdf/ar/visa_vrsa_guide.pdf. Accessed April 17, 2008.
135. Edmond MB, Wenzel RP, Pasculle W. Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: perspec-
tives on measures needed for control. Ann Intern Med. 1996;124:329–334.
136. Jarvis WR. Nosocomial transmission of multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Am
J Infect Control. 1995;23:146–151.
137. Edlin BR, Tokars JI, Garieco MH, et al. An outbreak of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis
among hospitalized patients with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. N Engl J Med.
1992;326:1514–1521.
138. Catanzaro A. Nosocomial tuberculosis. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1982;125:559–562.
139. Ehrenkranz NJ, Kicklighter JL. Tuberculosis outbreak in a general hospital: evidence of air-
borne spread of infection. Ann Intern Med. 1972;77:377–382.
140. Haley CE, McDonald RC, Rossi L, et al. Tuberculosis epidemic among hospital personnel.
141. Hutton MD, Stead WW, Cauthen GM, et al. Nosocomial transmission of tuberculosis associ-
ated with a draining tuberculous abscess. J Infect Dis. 1990;161:286–295.
142. Kantor HS, Poblete R, Pusateri SL. Nosocomial transmission of tuberculosis from unsus-
pected disease. Am J Med. 1988;84:833–838.
143. Lundgren R, Norman E, Asberg I. Tuberculous infection transmitted at autopsy. Tubercle.
1987;68:147–150.
144. Templeton GL, Illing LA, Young L, Cave MD, Stead WW, Bates JH. Comparing the risk for
transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis at the bedside and during autopsy. Ann Intern
Med. 1995;122:922–925.
145. CDC. Mycobacterium tuberculosis transmission in a health clinic—Florida, 1988. MMWR.
1989;38:256–258, 263–264.
146. Beck-Sague C, Dooley SW, Hutton MD, et al. Outbreak of multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium
tuberculosis infections in a hospital: transmission to patients with HIV infection and staff.
JAMA. 1992;268:1280–1286.
147. CDC. Nosocomial transmission of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis to health-care workers
and HIV-infected patients in an urban hospital—Florida. MMWR. 1990;39:718–722.
148. CDC. Nosocomial transmission of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis among HIV-infected
persons—Florida and New York, 1988–1991. MMWR. 1991;40:585–591.
149. Dooley SW, Jarvis WR, Martone WJ, Snider DE Jr. Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis [edi-
torial]. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117:257–258.
150. Dooley SW, Villarino ME, Lawrence M, et al. Nosocomial transmission of tuberculosis in a
hospital unit for HIV-infected patients. JAMA. 1992;267:2632–2634.
151. Centers for Disease Control. Transmission of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis from an HIV-
positive client in a residential substance-abuse treatment facility—Michigan. MMWR. 1991:
40:129–131.
152. Ikeda RM, Birkhead GS, DiFerdinando GT Jr, et al. Nosocomial tuberculosis: an outbreak of
a strain resistant to seven drugs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1995;16:152–159.
153. Huang WL, Jou R, Yeh PF, Huang A, and Outbreak Investigation Team. Laboratory investi-
gation of a nosocomial transmission of tuberculosis at a district general hospital. J Formos
Med Assoc. 2007;106:520–527.
154. Keijman J, Tjhie J, Olde Damink S, Alink M. Unusual nosocomial transmission of Mycobac-
terium tuberculosis. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2001;20(11):808–809.
155. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nosocomial transmission of Mycobacterium
tuberculosis found through screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome—Taipei, Taiwan,
2003. MMWR. 2004;53(15);321–322. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5315a5.htm.
Accessed December 14, 2007.
156. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Mycobacterium tuberculosis transmission in a
newborn nursery and maternity ward—New York City, 2003. MMWR. 2005;54:1280–1283.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5450a2.htm. Accessed April 18, 2008.
Mycobacterium tuberculosis in health-care settings, 2005. MMWR. 2005;54(RR-17):1–141.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr5417.pdf. Accessed December 16, 2007.
158. CDC. Reported tuberculosis in the United States, 2006. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, CDC, September 2006. http://www.cdc.gov/tb/surv/default.htm.
References 267
159. Health Resources and Services Administration. Projected supply, demand, and shortage
of registered nurses: 2000—2020. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human
Services, Health Resources and Services Administration; 2002. http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/
healthworkforce. Accessed April 18, 2008.
160. Brennen C, Muder RR, Muraca PW. Occult endemic tuberculosis in a chronic care facility.
161. Stead WW. Tuberculosis among elderly persons: an outbreak in a nursing home. Ann Intern
Med. 1981;94:606–610.
162. Stead WW. Special problems in tuberculosis. Tuberculosis in the elderly and in residents of
nursing homes, correctional facilities, long-term care hospitals, mental hospitals, shelters for
the homeless, and jails. Clin Chest Med. 1989;10:397–405.
163. Bentley DW. Tuberculosis in long-term care facilities. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1990;11:42–46.
164. Steimke EH, Tenholder MF, McCormick MI, Rissing JP. Tuberculosis surveillance: lessons
from a cluster of skin test conversions. Am J Infect Control. 1994;22:236–241.
165. CDC. Tuberculosis—North Dakota. MMWR. 1979;27:523–525.
166. CDC. Tuberculosis in a nursing home—Oklahoma. MMWR. 1980:29:465–467.
167. CDC. Tuberculosis in a nursing care facility—Washington. MMWR. 1983;32:121–122, 128.
168. Stead WW, Lofgren JP, Warren E, Thomas C. Tuberculosis as an endemic and nosocomial
infection among the elderly in nursing homes. N Engl J Med. 1985.312:1483–1487.
169. Malone JL, Ijaz K, Lamgert L, et al. Investigation of healthcare-associated transmission of
Mycobacterium tuberculosis among patients with malignancies at three hospitals and at a
residential facility. Cancer. 2004;101:2713–2721.
170. Lemaitre N, Sougakoff W, Coetmeur D, Vaucel J, Jarleir V, Grosset J. Nosocomial transmis-
sion of tuberculosis among mentally-handicapped patients in a long-term care facility. Tuber
Lung Dis. 1996;77:531–536.
171. Centers for Disease Control. Prevention and control of tuberculosis in facilities providing
long-term care to the elderly. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee for Elimination of
Tuberculosis. MMWR. 1990;39(RR-10):7–20.
172. Ijaz K, Dillaha JA, Yang Z, Cave MD, Bates JH. Unrecognized tuberculosis in a nursing home
causing death with spread of tuberculosis to the community. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;
50(7):1213–1218.
173. Emergence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis with extensive resistance to second-line drugs—
worldwide, 2000–2004. MMWR. 2006;55,(11):301–305. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/
mmwrhtml/mm5511a2.htm. Accessed December 16, 2007.
174. Extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis—United States, 1993–2006. MMWR. 2007;56(11);
250–253. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5611a3.htm. Accessed December
16, 2007.
175. World Health Organization/International Union Against TB and Lung Disease Global Proj-
ect on Anti-Tuberculosis Drug Resistance Surveillance. Anti-Tuberculosis Drug Resistance in
the World: Fourth Global Report. Geneva; 2008. Report No. WHO/HTM?TB?2008.394.
http://www.who.int/tb/publications/2008/drs_report4_26feb08.pdf. Accessed April 18, 2008.
176. WHO. Case definition for extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis. Wkly Epidemiol Rec.
2006;81(42):408. http://www.who.int/wer/2006/wer8142/en/index.ht. Accessed December 16,
2007.
177. World Health Organization. Guidelines for the prevention of tuberculosis in health care facil-
ities in resource-limited settings. WHO/CDS/TB/99.269. http://www.who.int/tb/publications/
who_tb_99_269/en/. Accessed April 18, 2008.
178. World Health Organization. Tuberculosis infection-control in the era of expanding HIV care
and treatment. Addendum to WHO guidelines for the prevention of tuberculosis in health
care facilities in resource-limited settings. http://www.who.int/tb/publications/who_tb_99
_269/en/. Accessed April 18, 2008.
179. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Guidelines for prevention and treat-
ment of tuberculosis, 2007. http://edcp.org/tb/guidelines.html. Accessed December 16, 2007.
180. Thrupp L, Bradley S, Smith P, et al and the SHEA Long-Term Care Committee. Tuberculosis
prevention and control in long-term-care facilities for older adults. Infect Control Hosp Epi-
demiol. 2004;25:1097–1108.
181. Tuberculosis Infection Control: A Practical Manual for Preventing TB. http://www
.nationaltbcenter.edu/products/product_details.cfm?productID=WPT-12. Accessed December
16, 2007.
182. Tuberculosis Coalition for Technical Assistance. International Standards for Tuberculosis
Care (ISTC). The Hague: Tuberculosis Coalition for Technical Assistance, 2006. http://
www.stoptb.org/resource_center/assets/documents/istc_report.pdf. Accessed December 18,
2007.
183. American Thoracic Society and CDC. Targeted tuberculin testing and treatment of latent
tuberculosis infection. MMWR. 2000;49(RR-06):1–54 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/
mmwrhtml/rr4906a1.htm. Accessed April 18, 2008.
184. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Controlling tuberculosis in the United States:
recommendations from the American Thoracic Society, CDC, and the Infectious Diseases
Society of America. MMWR. 2005;54(No. RR-12):1–82. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR /preview/
mmwrhtml/rr5412a1.htm. Accessed April 18, 2008.
185. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for using the QuantiFERON-TB
Gold test for detecting Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection, United States. MMWR Recomm
Rep. 2005;54(RR-15):49–55. [Erratum, MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2005;54:1288.]
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/PDF/rr/rr5415.pdf. Accessed April 18, 2008.
186. Naglie G, McArthur M, Simor A, et al. Tuberculosis surveillance practices in long-term care
institutions. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1995;16:148–151.
187. American Thoracic Society, CDC, and Infectious Diseases Society of America. Treatment of
tuberculosis. MMWR. 2003;52:(RR11):1–77. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/
rr5211a1.htm. Accessed December 18, 2007.
188. Treatment of Tuberculosis: Guidelines for National Programmes, 3rd ed. Geneva, World
Health Organization, 2003 (WHO/CDS/TB/2003.313). http://www.who.int/tb/publications/
cds_tb_2003_313/en/index.html. Accessed December 18, 2007.
189. Menzies D. Effect of treatment on contagiousness of patients with active pulmonary tubercu-
losis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1997;18:582–586.
190. Sepkowitz K. How contagious is tuberculosis? Clin Infect Dis. 1996;23:954–962.
191. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for the investigation of contacts of
persons with infectious tuberculosis; recommendations from the National Tuberculosis Con-
trollers Association and CDC. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2005;54(RR-15):1–48. http://www
.cdc.gov/mmwR/PDF/rr/rr5415.pdf. Accessed April 18, 2008.
192. Johnson S, Gerding DN. Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. Clin Infect Dis. 1998;
26:1027–1034.
193. McDonald LC, Owings M, Jernigan DB. Clostridium difficile infection in patients discharged
from US short-stay hospitals, 1996–2003. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12:409–415.
194. Pepin J, Valiquette L, Cossette B. Mortality attributable to nosocomial Clostridium difficile-
associated disease during an epidemic caused by a hypervirulent strain in Quebec. CMAJ.
2005;173:1037–1042.
Clostridium difficile disease for health care practitioners. Am J Infect Control. 2007;35:237–253.
196. CA Muto CA, Pokrywka M, Shutt K, et. al. A large outbreak of Clostridium difficile-associated
disease with an unexpected proportion of deaths and colectomies at a teaching hospital fol-
lowing increased fluoroquinolone use. Infect Control & Hosp Epidemiol. 2005;26(3):273–280.
197. Bartlett JG. Narrative review: the new epidemic of Clostridium difficile-associated enteric
disease. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:758–764.
198. McDonald LC, Killgore GE, Thompson A, et al. An epidemic, toxin gene-variant strain of
Clostridium. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:2433–2441.
199. McDonald LC. Clostridium difficile: responding to a new threat from an old enemy. Infect
References 269
200. Warny M, Pepin J, Fang A, et al. Toxin production by an emerging strain of Clostridium diffi-
cile associated with outbreaks of severe disease in North America and Europe. Lancet.
2005;366:1079–1084.
201. Kuijper EJ, Coignard B, Tull P; ESCMID Study Group for Clostridium difficile; EU Member
States; European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Emergence of Clostridium
difficile-associated disease in North America and Europe. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2006;12
(Suppl 6):2–18.
202. McFarland LV, Mulligan ME, Kwok RYY, Stamm WE. Nosocomial acquisition of Clostridium
difficile infection. N Engl J Med. 1989;320:204–210.
203. Gerding DN, Johnson S, Peterson LR, Mulligan ME, Silva J Jr. SHEA position paper.
Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea and colitis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1995;
16:459–477.
204. Samore MH, Venkataraman L, DeGirolami PC, Arbeit RD, Karchmer AW. Clinical and molec-
ular epidemiology of clustered cases of nosocomial Clostridium difficile diarrhea. Am J Med.
1996;110:32–40.
205. Thomas DR, Bennett RG, Laughon BE, Greenough WBIII, Bartlett JG. Postantibiotic colo-
nization with Clostridium difficile in nursing home patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1990;38:
415–420.
206. Sohn S, Climo M, Diekema D, et al. Varying rates of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea
at Prevention Epicenter Hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2005;26:676–679.
207. Simor AE, Yake SL, Tsimidis K. Infection due to Clostridium difficile among elderly residents
of a long-term-care facility. Clin Infect Dis. 1993;17:672–678.
208. Sims RV, Hauser RJ, Adewale AO, et al. Acute gastroenteritis in three community-based
nursing homes. J Gerontol. 1995;50A:M252–M256.
209. Olson MM, Stanholtzer CJ, Lee JT, Gerding DN. Ten years of prospective Clostridium difficile-
associated disease surveillance and treatment at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center,
1982–1991. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1994;15:371–381.
210. Nath SK, Thornley JH, Kelly M, et al. A sustained outbreak of Clostridium difficile in a gen-
eral hospital: persistence of a toxigenic clone in four units. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1994;15:382–389.
211. Dubberke ER, Reske KA, Yan Y, Olsen A, McDonald LC, Fraser VJ. Clostridium difficile-
associated disease in a setting of endemicity: identification of novel risk factors. Clin Infect
Dis. 2007;45:1543–1549.
212. Kyne L, Merry C, O’Connell B, Keane C, O’Neill D. Community acquired Clostridium difficile
infection. J Infect. 1998;36:287–288.
213. Bentley DW. Clostridium difficile-associated disease in long-term care facilities. Infect Con-
214. Bennett GCJ, Allen E, Millard PH. Clostridium difficile diarrhoea: a highly infectious organ-
ism. Age Ageing. 1984;13:363–366.
215. Kerr RB, McLaughlin DI, Sonnenberg LW. Control of Clostridium difficile colitis outbreak by
treating asymptomatic carriers with metronidazole. Am J Infect Control. 1990;18:332–335.
216. Cartmill TDI, Shrimpton SB, Panigrahi H, Khanna V, Brown R, Poxton IR. Nosocomial diar-
rhoea due to a single strain of Clostridium difficile: a prolonged outbreak in elderly patients.
Age Ageing. 1992;21:245–249.
217. McNulty C, Logan M, Donald IP, et al. Successful control of Clostridium difficile infection in
an elderly care unit through use of a restrictive antibiotic policy. J Antimicrobiol Chemother.
1997;40:707–711.
218. Gaynes R, Rimland D, Killum E, Lowery HK, Johnson TM, Killgore G. Outbreak of Clostrid-
ium difficile infection in a long-term care facility: association with gatifloxacin use. Clin Infect
Dis. 2004;38:640–645.
219. Cherifi S, Delmee M, Van Broeck J, Beyer I, Byl B, Mascart G. Management of an outbreak of
Clostridium difficile-associated disease among geriatric patients. Infect Control Hosp Epi-
demiol. 2006;11:1200–1205.
220. Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program. Ongoing surveillance for Clostridium
difficile associated diarrhea (CDAD) within acute-care institutions, February 2007. http://
www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/nois-sinp/projects/pdf/cdad07_protocol_e.pdf. Accessed January 9, 2008.
221. McDonald LC, Coignard B, Dubberke E, et al.. Recommendations for surveillance of Clostrid-
ium difficile-associated disease. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28:140–145. http://
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/511798. Accessed January 9, 2008.
222. Dubberke ER, Reske KA, Noble-Wang J, et al. Prevalence of Clostridium difficile environ-
mental contamination and strain variability in multiple health care facilities. Am J Infect
Control. 2007;35:315–318.
223. Perry C, Marshall R, Jones E. Bacterial contamination of uniforms. J Hosp Infect. 2001;
48(3):238–241.
224. Clabots CR, Johnson S, Olson MM, Peterson LR, Gerding DN. Acquisition of Clostridium dif-
ficile by hospitalized patients: evidence for colonized new admissions as a source of infection.
J Infect Dis. 1992;166:561–567.
225. Zafar AB, Gaydos LA, Furlong WB, Nguyen MH, Mennonna PA. Effectiveness of infection
control program in controlling nosocomial Clostridium difficile. Am J Infect Control.
1998;26:588–593.
226. Apisarnthanarak A, Zack JE, Mayfield JL, et al. Effectiveness of environmental and infection
control programs to reduce transmission of Clostridium difficile. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;39:
601–602.
227. Beaulieu M, Thirion DJ, Williamson D, Pichette G. Clostridium difficile associated diarrhea
outbreaks: the name of the game is isolation and cleaning. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;42:727–729.
228. Weiss K. Poor infection control, not fluoroquinolones, likely to be primary cause of Clostrid-
ium difficile-associated diarrhea outbreaks in Quebec. Clin Infect Dis. 2006;42:725–727.
229. Simor AE, Bradley SF, Strausbaugh LJ, Crossley K, Nicolle LE. SHEA position paper.
Clostridium difficile in long-term-care facilities for the elderly. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
2002;23:696–703.
230. Sehulster LM, Chinn RYW, Arduino MJ, et al. Guidelines for environmental infection control in
health-care facilities. Recommendations from CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control Prac-
tices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). 2003. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/gl_environinfection
.html. Accessed January 10, 2008.
231. Kramer, et al. How long do nosocomial pathogens persist on inanimate surfaces? A system-
atic review. BMC Infect Dis. 2006;6:130.
232. Warren N, Fawley WN, Underwood S, et al. Efficacy of hospital cleaning agents and germi-
cides against epidemic Clostridium difficile strains. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;
28:920–925.
233. Mayfield JL, Leet T, Miller J, Mundy LM. Environmental control to reduce transmission of
Clostridium difficile. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;31(4):995–1000. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/
doi/pdf/10.1086/318149. Accessed January 9, 2008.
234. Brooks SE, Veal RO, Kramer M, Dore L, Schupf N, Adachi M. Reduction in the incidence of
Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in an acute care hospital and a skilled nursing facil-
ity following replacement of electronic thermometers with single-use disposables. Infect Con-
235. Brooks SE, Khan A, Stoica D, et al. Reduction in vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus and
Clostridium difficile infections following change to tympanic thermometers. Infect Control
236. Jernigan JA, Siegman-Igra Y, Guerrant RC, Farr BM. A randomized crossover study of dis-
posable thermometers for prevention of Clostridium difficile and other nosocomial infections.
237. Brown E, Talbot GM, Axelrod P, Provencher M, Hoegg C. Risk factors for Clostridium difficile
toxin-associated diarrhea. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1990;11:283–290.
238. Mylotte JM. Laboratory surveillance method for nosocomial Clostridium difficile diarrhea.
References 271
dations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2007; MMWR Early
Release. 2007;56:1–56.
240. Salgado CD, Farr BM, Hall KK, Hayden FG. Influenza in the acute hospital setting. Lancet
Infect Dis. 2002;2(3):145–155.
241. Maltezou HC, Drancourt M. Nosocomial influenza in children. J Hosp Infect. 2003;55(2):
83–91.
242. Evans ME, Hall KL, Berry SE. Influenza control in acute care hospitals. Am J Infect Control.
1997;25:357–362.
243. Cunney RJ, Bialachowski A, Thornley D, Smaill FM, Pennie RA. An outbreak of influenza A
in a neonatal intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2000;21:449–454.
244. Munoz FM, Campbell JR, Atmar RL, et al. Influenza A virus outbreak in a neonatal intensive
care unit. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1999;18(9):811–815.
245. Sagrera X, Ginovart G, Raspall E, et al. Outbreaks of influenza A virus infection in neonatal
intensive care units. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2002;21(3):196–200.
246. Singer R, Dennis P. Nosocomial influenza at a Canadian pediatric hospital from 1995 to
1999: opportunities for prevention. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2002;23:627–629.
247. Stott DJ, Kerr G, Carman WF. Nosocomial transmission of influenza. Occ Med. 2002;52:
249–253.
248. Morens DM, Rash VM. Lessons from a nursing home outbreak of influenza A. Infect Control
249. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Update: influenza activity—United States,
1998–99 season. MMWR. 1999;48:177–181.
250. Libow LS, Neufeld RR, Olson E, Breuer B, Starer P. Sequential outbreak of influenza A
and B in a nursing home: efficacy of vaccine and amantadine. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1996;44:
1153–1157.
251. Drinka PJ, Gravenstein S, Krause P, Schilling M, Miller BA, Shult P. Outbreak of influenza A
and B in a highly immunized nursing home population. J Fam Pract. 1997;45:509–514.
252. Taylor JN, Dwyer DM, Coffman T, Groves C, Patel J, Israel E. Nursing home outbreak of
influenza A (H3N2): evaluation of vaccine efficacy and influenza case definitions. Infect Con-
253. Coles FB, Balzano GJ, Morse DL. An outbreak of influenza A (H3N2) in a well immunized
nursing home population. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1992;40:589–592.
254. Degelau J, Somani SK, Cooper SL, Guay DR, Crossley KB. Amantadine-resistant influenza A
in a nursing facility. Arch Intern Med. 1992;152:390–392.
255. Patriarca PA, Weber JA, Parker RA, et al. Risk factors for outbreaks in nursing homes. A
case-control study. Am J Epidemiol. 1986;124:114–119.
256. Staynor K, Foster G, McArthur M, McGeer A, Petric M, Simor AE. Influenza A outbreak in a
nursing home: the value of early diagnosis and the use of amantadine hydrochloride. Can J
257. Gross PA, Rodstein M, LaMontagne JR, et al. Epidemiology of acute respiratory illness dur-
ing an influenza outbreak in a nursing home. Arch Intern Med. 1988;148:559–561.
258. Smith PW, Rusnak PG. Infection prevention and control in the long-term care facility. Am J
259. Tellier R. Review of aerosol transmission of influenza A virus. Emerg Infect Dis.
2006;12:1657–1662. [serial on the Internet]. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol12no11/
06-0426.htm. Accessed April 19, 2008.
dations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2007. MMWR.
2007;56(No RR-6):1–60. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5606a1.htm.
261. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for preventing health-care-associated
pneumonia, 2003. Recommendations of CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices
Advisory Committee. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/gl_hcpneumonia.html. Accessed April

19, 2008.
262. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza vaccination of health-care personnel
recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HIC-
PAC) and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR. 2006;55
(RR-2):1–20.
263. Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology. 2004 APIC Immuniza-
tion Practices Working Group. APIC position paper: improving health care worker influenza
immunization rates. Am J Infect Control. 2004;32:123–125.
264. Gravenstein S, Miller BA, Drinka P. Prevention and control of influenza A outbreaks in long-
term care facilities. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1992;13:49–54.
265. Gomolin IH, Leib HB, Arden NH, Sherman FT. Control of influenza outbreaks in the nursing
home: guidelines for diagnosis and management. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1995;43:71–74.
266. Kingston BJ, Wright CW. Influenza in the nursing home. Am Fam Physician. 2002;65:75–78.
http://www.aafp.org/afp/20020101/75.pdf. Accessed January 11, 2008.
267. World Health Organization. Infection prevention and control of epidemic and pandemic-
prone acute respiratory diseases in health care. WHO interim guidelines, June 2007.
http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/WHO_CD_EPR_2007_6/en/index.html.
Accessed January 11, 2008.
268. California Department of Public Health, Division of Communicable Disease Control Infec-
tious Diseases and Immunization Branches. Recommendations for the prevention, detection,
and control of influenza in California long-term care facilities, 2007-2008. http://www.dhs
.ca.gov/ps/dcdc/disb/disbindex.htm. Accessed April 20, 2008.
269. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Guideline for the prevention and con-
trol of upper and lower acute respiratory illnesses (including influenza and pneumonia) in
long term care facilities. http://www.cha.state.md.us/edcp/html/cd_guide.html. Accessed April
20, 2008.
270. Houck P, Hemphill M, LaCroix S, Hirsh D, Cox N. Amantadine-resistant influenza A in nurs-
ing homes. Identification of a resistant virus prior to drug use. Arch Intern Med. 1995;155:
533–537.
271. Hota S, McGeer A. Antivirals and the control of influenza outbreaks. Clin Infect Dis.
2007;45(10):1362–1368.
272. Goodgame R. Norovirus gastroenteritis. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2007;9(2):102–109.
273. Blanton LH, Adams SM, Beard RS, et al. Molecular and epidemiologic trends of caliciviruses
associated with outbreaks of acute gastroenteritis in the United States, 2000–2004. J Infect
Dis. 2006;193:413–421.
274. Widdowson MA, Sulka A, Bulens S, et al. Norovirus and foodborne disease, United States,
1991–2000. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11:95–102. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol11no01/
pdfs/04-0426.pdf. Accessed April 15, 2008.
275. Grmek Kosnik I, Peternelj B, Pohar M, Kraigher A. Outbreak of norovirus infection in a
nursing home in northern Slovenia, July 2007. Eur Surveill. 2007;12(10):E071011.3.
http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ew/2007/071011.asp#3. Accessed April 15, 2008.
276. Ike AC, Broackman SO, Hartelt K, Marschang RE, Contzen A, Oehme RM. Molecular epi-
demiology of norovirus in outbreaks of gastroenteritis in southwest Germany from 2001 to
2004. J Clin Microbiol. 2006;44:1262–1267.
277. Johnston CP, Qiu H, Ticehurst JR, et al. Outbreak management and implications of a nosoco-
mial norovirus outbreak. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45(5):534–540.
278. Vardy J, Love AJ, Dignon N. Outbreak of acute gastroenteritis among emergency department
staff. Emerg Med J. 2007;24(10):699–702.
279. Marx A, Shay D, Noel J, et al. An outbreak of acute gastroenteritis in a geriatric long-term
care facility: use of epidemiological and molecular diagnostic methods. Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol. 1999;20:306–311.
280. Lopman BA, Gallimore C, Gray JJ, et al. Linking healthcare associated norovirus outbreaks:
a molecular epidemiologic method for investigating transmission. BMC Infect Dis. 2006;
References 273
6:108 doi:10.1186/1471-2334-6-108. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/6/108. Accessed

January 12, 2008.
281. Zingg W, Colombo C, Jucker T, et al. Impact of an outbreak of norovirus infection on hospital
resources. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2005;26(3):263–267.
282. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Norovirus activity—United States, 2006–2007.
MMWR. 2007;56(33);842–846. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5633a2
.htm. Accessed April 15, 2008.
283. Calderon-Margalit R, Sheffer R, Halperin T, Orr N, Cohen D, Shohat T. A large-scale gas-
troenteritis outbreak associated with norovirus in nursing homes. Epidemiol Infect. 2005;
133(1):35–40.
284. Costas L, Vilella A, Llupia A, Bosch J, Jimenez de Anta MT, Trilla A. Outbreak of norovirus
gastroenteritis among staff at a hospital in Barcelona, Spain, September 2007. Eurosurveil-
lance Weekly Release. 2007;12:(11). http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ew/2007/071122.asp#5.
285. Gellert GA, Waterman SH, Ewert D, et al. An outbreak of acute gastroenteritis caused by a
small round structured virus in a geriatric convalescent facility. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1990;11(9):459–464.
286. Cooper E, Blamey S. A norovirus gastroenteritis epidemic in a long-term care facility. Infect
Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2005;26(3):256.
287. Navarro G, Sala RM, Segura F, et al. An outbreak of norovirus infection in a long-term care.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2005;26(3):259.
288. Green KY, Belliot G, Taylor JL, et al. A predominant role for Norwalk-like viruses as agents
of epidemic gastroenteritis in Maryland nursing homes for the elderly. J Infect Dis. 2002;
185(2):133–146.
289. CDC. Norwalk-like viruses. Public health consequences and outbreak management. MMWR.
2001;50(No. RR-9):1–17. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5009a1.htm.
290. Chadwick PR, Beards G, Brown D, et al. Management of hospital outbreaks of gastro-enteritis
due to small round structured viruses. Report of the Public Health Laboratory Service, Viral
Gastroenteritis Working Group. J Hosp Infect. 2000;45:1–10.
291. Wu HM, Fornek M, Schwab KJ, et al. A norovirus outbreak at a long-term care facility: the
role of environmental surface contamination. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2005;26:
802–810.
292. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Norovirus outbreak associated with ill food-
service workers—Michigan, January—February, 2006. MMWR. 2007;56(46);1212–1216.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5646a2.htm. Accessed April 15, 2008.
293. Marks PJ, Vipond IB, Regan FM, Wedgwood K, Fey RE, Caul EO. A school outbreak of
Norwalk-like virus: evidence for airborne transmission. Epidemiol Infect. 2003;131:727–736.
294. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Guidelines for the epidemiological
investigation of gastroenteritis outbreaks in long term care facilities. http://www.edcp
.org/html/cd_guide.html. Accessed April 15, 2008.
295. Michigan Department of Community Health, Michigan Department of Agriculture. Viral gas-
troenteritis. Norovirus. Guidelines for environmental cleaning and disinfection of norovirus.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Guidelines_for_Environmental_Cleaning_125846_7.pdf.
296. Lynn S, Toop J, Millar N. Norovirus outbreaks in a hospital setting: the role of infection con-
trol. J N Z Med Assoc. 2004;117(1189):771–779. http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/117–1189/
771/. Accessed April 15, 2008.
297. United States Environmental Protection Agency. List G: EPA’s registered antimicrobial prod-
ucts effective against norovirus (Norwalk-like virus) January 7, 2008. http://www.epa
.gov/oppad001/list_g_norovirus.pdf. Accessed April 15, 2008.
298. Lettau LA. Nosocomial transmission and infection control aspects of parasitic and ectopara-
sitic diseases: Part I. Introduction/enteric parasites. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1991;
12:59–65.
sitic diseases: Part II. Blood and tissue Parasites. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1991;
12:111–121.
sitic diseases: Part III. Ectoparasites/summary and conclusions. Infect Control Hosp Epi-
demiol. 1991;12:179–185.
301. Degelau J. Scabies in Long-term care facilities. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1992;13:
421–425.
302. Scheinfeld N. Controlling scabies in institutional settings: a review of medications, treatment
models, and implementation. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2004;5(1):31–37.
303. Obasanjo OO, Wu P, Conlon M, et al. An outbreak of scabies in a teaching hospital: lessons
learned. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2001;22(1):13–18.
304. Vorou R, Remoudaki HD, Maltezou HC. Nosocmial scabies. J Hosp Infect. 2007;65(1):9–14.
305. Achtari Jeanneret L, Erard P, Gueissaz F, Malinverni R. An outbreak of scabies: a forgotten
parasitic disease still present in Switzerland. Swiss Med Wkly. 2007;137:695–699. http://
www.smw.ch/docs/pdf200x/2007/49/smw-11904.pdf. Accessed October 6, 2000.
306. Wilson MM, Philpott CD, Breer WA. Atypical presentation of scabies among nursing home
residents. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56(7):M424–M427.
307. Andersen BM, Haugen H, Rasch M, Heldal Haugen A, Tageson A. Outbreak of scabies in Nor-
wegian nursing homes and home care patients: control and prevention. J Hosp Infect. 2000;
45(2):160–164.
308. Roncoroni AJ, Gomez MA, Mera J, Cagnoni P, Michel MD. Cryptosporidium infection in renal
transplant patients. J Infect Dis. 1989;160:559.
309. Sarabia-Arce S, Salazar-Lindo E, Gilman RH, Naranjo J, Miranda E. Case-control study of
Cryptosporidium parvum infection in Peruvian children hospitalized for diarrhea: possible
association with malnutrition and nosocomial infection. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1990;9:627–631.
310. Neill MA, Rice SK, Ahmad NV, Flanigan TP. Cryptosporidiosis: an unrecognized cause of
diarrhea in elderly hospitalized patients. Clin Infect Dis. 1996;22:168–170.
311. Craven DE, Steger KA, Hirschorn LR. Nosocomial colonization and infection in persons
infected with human immunodeficiency virus. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;17:304–318.
312. Gardner C. An outbreak of hospital-acquired cryptosporidiosis. Br J Nurs. 1994;3:152,154–158.
313. Navarrete S, Stetler HC, Avila C, Garcia Aranda JA, Santos-Preciado JI. An outbreak of
Cryptosporidium diarrhea in a pediatric hospital. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1991;10:248–250.
314. Weber DJ, Rutala WA. The emerging nosocomial pathogens Cryptosporidium, Escherichia
coli O157:H7, Helicobacter pylori, and hepatitis C: epidemiology, environmental survival, effi-
cacy of disinfection, and control measures. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2001;22(5):
306–315.
315. Ravn P, Lundgren JD, Kjaeldgaard P, et al. Nosocomial outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in AIDS
patients. BMJ. 1991;302:277–280.
316. Perera DR, Western KA, Johnson HD, Johnson WW, Schultz MG, Akers PV. Pneumocystis
carinii pneumonia in a hospital for children. Epidemiologic aspects. JAMA. 1970;214:
1074–1078.
317. Hennequin C, Page B, Roux P, Legendre C, Kreis H. Outbreak of Pneumocystis carinii pneu-
monia in a renal transplant unit. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1995;14:122–126.
318. Fenelon LE, Keane CT, Bakir M, Temperley IJ. A cluster of Pneumocystis carinii infections in
children. BMJ. 1985;291:1683.
319. Chaves JP, David S, Wauters JP, Van Melle G, Francioli P. Transmission of Pneumocystis
carinii from AIDS patients to other immunosuppressed patients: a cluster of Pneumocystis
carinii pneumonia in a renal transplant recipient. AIDS. 1991;5:927–932.
320. Schmoldt S, Schuhegger R, Wendler T, et al. Molecular evidence of nosocomial Pneumocystis
jirovecii transmission among 16 patients after kidney transplantation. J Clin Microbiol.
2008;46(3):966–971.
References 275
321. Vargo JA, Ginsberg MM, Mizrahi M. Human infestations by the pigeon mite: a case report.
322. Istre GR, Hreiss K, Hopkins RS, et al. An outbreak of amebiasis spread by colonic irrigation
at a chiropractic clinic. N Engl J Med. 1982;307:339–342.
323. White KE, Hedberg CW, Edmonson LM, Jones DB, Osterholm MT, MacDonald KL. An out-
break of giardiasis in a nursing home with evidence for multiple modes of transmission. J
Infect Dis. 1989;160:298–304.
324. Burkhart CG. Scabies: an epidemiologic reassessment. Ann Intern Med. 1983;98:498–503.
325. Green MS. Epidemiology of scabies. 1989;11:126–150.
326. Arlian LG, Runyan RA, Achar S, Estes SA. Survival and infectivity of Sarcoptes scabiei var.
canis and var. hominis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1984;11(2 Pt 1):210–215.
327. Paternak J, Richtman R, Ganme APP, et al. Scabies epidemic: price and prejudice. Infect Con-
328. Estes SA, Estes J. Therapy of scabies: nursing homes, hospitals, and the homeless. Semin
Dermatol. 1993;12:26–33.
329. Sirera G, Rius F, Romeu J, et al. Hospital outbreak of scabies stemming from two AIDS
patients with Norwegian scabies. Lancet. 1990;335:1227.
330. Purvis RS, Tyring SK. An outbreak of lindane-resistant scabies treated successfully with per-
methrin 5% cream. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1991;25(6 Pt 1):1015–1016.
331. Clark J, Friesen DL, Williams WA. Management of an outbreak of Norwegian scabies. Am J
332. Boix V, Sanchez-Paya J, Portilla J, Merino E. Nosocomial outbreak of scabies clinically resis-
tant to lindane. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1997;18:677.
333. Bannatyne RM, Patterson TA, Wells BA, MacMillan SA, Cunninghan GA, Tellier R. Hospital
outbreak traced to a case of Norwegian scabies. Can J Infect Control. 1992;7:111–113.
334. Holness DL, DeKoven JG, Nethercott JR. Scabies in chronic health care institutions. Arch
Dermatol. 1992;128:1257–1260.
335. Yokonsky D, Ladi L, Gackenheimer L, Schultz MW. Scabies in nursing homes: an eradication
program with permethrin 5% cream. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1990;23(6 Pt 1):1133–1136.
336. Haag ML, Brozena SJ, Fenske NA. Attack of the scabies: what to do when an outbreak occurs.
Geriatrics. 1993;48:45–46, 51–53.
337. Jimenez-Lucho VE, Fallon F, Caputo C, Ramsey K. Role of prolonged surveillance in the erad-
ication of nosocomial scabies in an extended care Veterans Affairs medical center. Am J Infect
Control. 1995;23:44–49.
338. Paules SJ, Levisohn D, Heffron W. Persistent scabies in nursing home patients. J Fam Pract.
1993;37:82–86.
339. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Scabies in health-care facilities—Iowa. MMWR.
1988;37:178–179.
340. Strong M, Johnstone PW. Interventions for treating scabies. Cochrane Database of System-
atic Reviews 2007; 3. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000320.pub2.
341. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Epidemiology and Disease Control
Program. Guidelines for control of scabies in long-term care facilities. http://www.cha
.state.md.us/edcp/html/cd_guide.html. Accessed April 16, 2008.
342. MacKenzie WR, Hoxie NJ, Proctor ME, et al. A massive outbreak in Milwaukee of cryp-
tosporidium infection transmitted through the public water supply. N Engl J Med. 1994;
331:161–167.
343. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outbreak of gastroenteritis associated with an
interactive water fountain at a beachside park—Florida, 1999. MMWR. 2000;49:565–568.
344. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Foodborne outbreak of cryptosporidiosis—
Spokane, Washington, 1997. MMWR. 1998;47:565–567.
345. Millard PS, Gensheimer KF, Addiss DG, et al. An outbreak of cryptosporidiosis from fresh-
pressed apple cider. JAMA. 1994;272:1592–1596.
346. Combee CL, Collinge ML, Britt EM. Cryptosporidiosis in a hospital-associated day care cen-
ter. Pediatr Infect Dis. 1986;5:528–532.
347. Avgun G, Yilmaz M, Yasar H. Parasites in nosocomial diarrhoea: are they underestimated?
J Hosp Infect. 2005;60(3):283–285.
348. Black RE, Dykes AC, Sinclair SP, Wells JG. Giardiasis in daycare centers: evidence of person-
to-person transmission. Pediatrics. 1977;60:486-491.
349. Haron E, Bodey GP, Luna MA, Dekmezian R, Elting L. Has the incidence of Pneumocystis
carinii pneumonia in cancer center patients increased with the AIDS epidemic? Lancet. 1988;
2:904–905.
350. Regan AM, Metersky ML, Craven DE. Nosocomial dermatitis and pruritis caused by pigeon
mite infestation. Arch Intern Med. 1987;147:2185–2187.
351. Jarvis WR, Hughes JM. Nosocomial gastrointestinal infections. In: Wenzel RP, ed. Prevention
and Control of Nosocomial Infections. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1992:
708–745.
352. Nicolle LE, Garibaldi RA. Infection control in long-term care facilities. Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol. 1995;16:348–353.
353. Steere AC, Craven PJ, Hall WJ, III, et al. Person-to-person spread of Salmonella after a hos-
pital common-source outbreak. Lancet. 1975:1:319–322.
354. Rodriquez EM, Parrott C, Rolka H, Monroe SS, Dwyer DM. An outbreak of viral gastroenteri-
tis in a nursing home: importance of excluding ill employees. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1996;17:587–592.
355. Schroeder SA, Askeroff, Brachman PS. Epidemic salmonellosis in hospitals and institutions:
public health importance and outbreak management. N Engl J Med. 1968;279;674–678.
356. Standaert SM, Hutcheson RH, Schaffner W. Nosocomial transmission of Salmonella gas-
troenteritis to laundry workers in a nursing home. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1994;
15:22–26.
357. Centers for Disease Control. Viral agents of gastroenteritis. Public health importance and
outbreak management. MMWR. 1990;39(RR-5):1–24.
358. Khuri-Bulos NA, Abu Khalaf M, Shehabi A, Shami K. Foodhandler-associated Salmonella
outbreak in a university hospital despite routine surveillance cultures of kitchen employees.
359. Layton MC, Calliste SG, Gomez TM, Patton C, Brooks S. A mixed foodborne outbreak with
Salmonella heidelberg and Campylobacter jejuni in a nursing home. Infect Control Hosp Epi-
demiol. 1997;18:115–121.
360. Levine WC, Smart JF, Archer DL, Bean NH, Tauxe RV. Foodborne disease outbreaks in nurs-
ing homes, 1975 through 1987. JAMA. 1991;266:2105–2109.
361. Linnemann CC Jr, Cannon CG, Stancek Jl, et al. Prolonged hospital epidemic of salmonel-
losis: use of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for control. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1985;
6:221–225.
362. Slutsker L, Villarino ME, Jarvis WR, Goulding J. Foodborne disease prevention in healthcare
facilities. In: Bennett JV, Brachman PS, eds. Hospital Infections. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA:
Lippincott-Raven; 1998;22:341.
363. Pegues DA, Woernle CH. An outbreak of acute nonbacterial gastroenteritis in a nursing
home. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1993;14:87–94.
364. Gellert GA, Waterman SH, Ewert D, et al. An outbreak of acute gastroenteritis caused by a
small round structured virus in a geriatric convalescent facility. Infect Control Hosp Epi-
demiol. 1990;11:459–464.
365. Caceres VM, Kim DK, Bresee JS, et al. A viral gastroenteritis outbreak associated with person-
to-person spread among hospital staff. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1998;19:162–167.
366. Khatib R, Naber M, Shellum N, et al. A common source outbreak of gastroenteritis in a teach-
ing hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1994;15:534–535.
367. Ho JL, Shands, KN, Fredland G, et al. A outbreak of type 4b Listeria monocytogenes infection
involving patients from eight Boston hospitals. Arch Intern Med. 1986;146:520–524.
References 277
368. DeBuono BA, Brondum J, Kramer JM, Gilbert RJ, Opal SM. Plasmid, serotype and entero-
toxin analysis of Bacillus cereus in an outbreak setting. J Clin Microbiol. 1988;26:1571–1574.
369. Bloom HG, Bottone EJ. Aeromonas hydrophilia diarrhea in a long-term care setting. J Am
Geriatr Soc. 1990;38:804–806.
370. Carter AO, Birczyk AA, Carlson JA, et al. A severe outbreak of Escherichia coli O157:H7—
associated hemorrhagic colitis in a nursing home. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:1496–1500.
371. Ryan CA, Tauxe RV, Hosek GW, et al. Escherichia coli O157:H7 in a nursing home: clinical
epidemiological, and pathological findings. J Infect Dis. 1986;154:631–638.
372. Halvorsrud J, Orstavik I. An epidemic of rotavirus-associated gastroenteritis in a nursing
home for the elderly. Scand J Infect Dis. 1980;12:161–164.
373. Raad I, Sheretz RJ, Russell BA, Reuman PD. Uncontrolled nosocomial rotavirus transmis-
sion during a community outbreak. Am J Infect Control. 1990;18:24–28.
374. Smith MJ, Clark HF, Lawley D. The clinical and molecular epidemiology of community- and
healthcare-acquired rotavirus gastroenteritis. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2008;27(1):54–58.
375. Chandran A, Heizen RR, Santoshan M, Siberry G. Nosocomial rotavirus infections: a system-
atic review. J Pediatri. 2006;149(4):441–447.
376. Gleizes O, Desselberger U, Tatochenko V, et al. Nosocomial rotavirus infection in European
countries: a review of the epidemiology, severity and economic burden of hospital-acquired
rotavirus disease. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006;25(1 Suppl):S12–S21.
377. Emont SL, Cote TR, Dwyer DM, Horan JM. Gastroenteritis outbreak in a Maryland nursing
home. Md Med J. 1993;42:1099–1103.
378. Sawyer LA, Murphy JJ, Kaplan JE, et al. 25 to 30-nm virus particle associated with a hospi-
tal outbreak of acute gastroenteritis with evidence for airborne transmission. Am J Epi-
demiol. 1988;127:1261–1271.
379. Wall PG, Ryan MJ, Ward LR, Rowe B. Outbreaks of salmonellosis in hospitals in England and
Wales: 1992–1994. J Hosp Infect. 1996;33:181–190.
380. Collier PW, Sharp JC, MacLeod AF, et al. Food poisoning in hospitals in Scotland, 1978–1987.
Epidemiol Infect. 1988;101:661–667.
381. Hedberg CW, Osterholm MT. Outbreaks of food-borne and waterborne viral gastroenteritis.
Clin Microbiol Rev. 1993;6:199–210.
382. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Incidence of foodborne illnesses—FoodNet,
1997. MMWR. 1998;47:782–786.
383. Steiner TS, Theilman NM, Guerrant RL. Protozoal agents: what are the dangers for the pub-
lic water supply? Annu Rev Med. 1997;48:329–340.
384. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. US Food and Drug Administration. Foodborne
Pathogenic Microorganisms and Natural Toxins Handbook. College Park, MD: Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition; 1992.
385. Bell BP, Goldoft M, Griffin PM, et al. A multistate outbreak of Escherichia coli O157:H7-
associated bloody diarrhea and hemolytic uremia syndrome from hamburgers: the Washing-
ton experience. JAMA. 1994;272:1349–1353.
386. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outbreak of cyclosporiasis—Northern Virginia-
Washington, DC-Baltimore, Maryland, Metropolitan Area, 1997. MMWR. 1997;46:689–691.
387. CDC. Outbreak of listeriosis—Northeastern United States, 2002. MMWR. 2002;51:950–951.
388. Bean NH, Gouldoft M, Griffin PM, et al. Surveillance for foodborne-disease outbreaks—
United Sates, 1998–1992. In: CDC Surveillance Summaries, October 25, 1996. MMWR.
1996;45:1–67.
389. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Surveillance for foodborne-disease outbreaks
United States, 1998–2002. Surveillance summaries. MMWR. 2006;55(No. SS-10):1–42.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/PDF/ss/ss5510.pdf. Accessed April 19, 2008.
ers: a review of reported outbreaks and sero-epidemiologic studies. J Hosp Infect. 2006;62:
414–420.
391. Doebbeling BN, Li N, Wenzel RP. An outbreak of hepatitis A among health care workers: risk
factors for transmission. Am J Public Health. 1993;83:1679–1684.
392. Victorian Government Department of Human Services. Guidelines for the investigation of
gastrointestinal illness, 1998. Victorian Government Department of Human Services. Mel-
bourne, Victoria. http://www.health.vic.gov.au/ideas. Accessed April 19, 2008.
393. Sattar SA, Jacobsen H, Rahman H, Cusack TM, Rubino JR. Interruption of rotavirus spread
through chemical disinfection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1994;15:751–756.
394. Lew JF, LeBaron CW, Glass RI, et al. Recommendations for collection of laboratory speci-
mens associated with outbreaks of gastroenteritis. MMWR. 1990;39(RR-14):1–13.
395. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Aldicarb as a cause of food poisoning—
Louisiana, 1998. MMWR. 1999;48:269–271.
396. Lopman B, Reacher MH, Vipond IB, et al. Epidemiology and cost of nosocomial gastroenteri-
tis, Avon, England, 2002–2003. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004;10(10):1827–1834. http://www.cdc.gov/
ncidod/EID/vol10no10/pdfs/03-0941.pdf. Accessed April 16, 2008.
Resources
Foodborne and Gastrointestinal Diseases

CDC Outbreak Response and Surveillance Team (ORST): Foodborne disease surveillance and out-
break investigation toolkit. http://www.cdc.gov/foodborneoutbreaks/toolkit.htm. Accessed
April 20, 2008.
Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Guidelines for the epidemiological investi-
gation of gastroenteritis outbreaks in long-term care facilities. http://www.edcp.org/html/
cd_guide.html. Accessed April 15, 2008. These guidelines are reprinted in Appendix H
(Appendix H is available for download at this text’s Web site: http://www.jbpub.com/
catalog/9780763757793/).
Ribes J, Thornton AC, Feola DJ, Murphy B. Diarrheal diseases. In: APIC Text of Infection Control
and Epidemiology. Washington, DC: Association for Professionals in Infection Control and
Epidemiology. 2005:100-1, 100-22.Legionnaires’ Disease.
Norovirus
CDC. Norovirus in healthcare facilities fact sheet. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and
Human Services, CDC; 2006. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/id_norovirusFS.html#.
Michigan Department of Community Health, Michigan Department of Agriculture. Viral gas-
troenteritis. Norovirus. Guidelines for environmental cleaning and disinfection of norovirus.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Guidelines_for_Environmental_Cleaning_125846_7.pdf.
Tuberculosis
World Health Organization TB publications: http://www.who.int/tb/ publications/2007/en/
index.html.
American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging. Preventing TB in long term care:
training modules for staff developers working in long term care, 2005. http://www2.aahsa.org
/advocacy/nursing_homes/default.asp. Accessed December 20, 2007.
Guidelines for preventing the transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in health-care settings,
2005. MMWR. 2005;54(No. RR-17):1–141. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/
rr5417a1.htm?s_cid=rr5417a1_e. Accessed May 12, 2008.
Tuberculosis (TB) risk assessment worksheet. Guidelines for preventing the transmission of
Mycobacterium tuberculosis in health-care settings, 2005. MMWR. 2005;54(No. RR-
17):1–141. http://www.cdc.gov/tb/pubs/mmwr/Maj_guide/infectioncontrol.htm. Accessed

December 16, 2007.
CDC guidelines relating to tuberculosis: http://www.cdc.gov/tb/pubs/mmwr/Maj_guide/default
.htm. Accessed May 12, 2008.
CDC Division of Tuberculosis Elimination [homepage]. http://www.cdc.gov/tb/. Provides links to
TB prevention and control guidelines, educational and training materials, MMWR articles
relating to TB, and the CDC core curriculum course on TB.
Other
CDC vancomycin-intermediate/resistant (VISA/VRSA) Staphylococcus aureus. http://www.cdc
.gov/ncidod/dhqp/ar_visavrsa.html. Accessed April 17, 2008.
CDC Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion: infection control in healthcare settings [home-
page]. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/index.html. Accessed April 17, 2008.
CDC respiratory hygiene/cough etiquette in healthcare settings. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/
infectioncontrol/resphygiene.htm. Accessed April 19, 2008.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), United States: http://www.fda.gov. Information for con-
sumers and health educators on food safety and medical devices.
Legionnaires’ disease OSHA eTool. http://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/legionnaires/index.html.
CHAPTER 8
Investigation, Prevention, and

Control of Outbreaks in the
Healthcare Setting
Sickness is catching.
—William Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night’s Dream
INTRODUCTION
Although outbreaks in healthcare settings account for only a small propor-

tion of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs),1–3 they can result in significant
morbidity and mortality, disruption of services, and fear and anxiety among
personnel, patients, residents, and the community. Chapters 3 through 7
describe outbreaks that have been reported in various healthcare settings and
that have been associated with a variety of diseases, health-related conditions,
organisms, products, procedures, devices, and technical errors. The investiga-
tions of these outbreaks have been instrumental in defining the sources, modes
of transmission, and measures used to prevent and control the spread of health-
care-associated infections and in defining noninfectious risks associated with
health care.
While most people associate the word outbreak with an infectious disease, it
can also be used to describe an excess of noninfectious diseases, conditions,
and health-related events. The epidemiologic methods used to identify and
investigate outbreaks caused by infectious agents can also be applied to study
outbreaks of noninfectious etiology.4–9 Personnel who are responsible for the
infection surveillance, prevention, and control programs in healthcare settings
can gain a valuable perspective from studying the findings of outbreak investi-
gations because this knowledge can help them identify potential risk factors
and effective control measures if a similar outbreak occurs in their facility.10,11
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss practical methods that can be used to
recognize, investigate, prevent, and control outbreaks in the healthcare setting.
RECOGNIZING A POTENTIAL OUTBREAK
An outbreak is the occurrence of more cases of a disease or event than

expected during a specified period of time in a given area or among a specific
group of people. In a healthcare setting, an outbreak may be suspected when
routine surveillance activities detect an unusual organism, a cluster of cases,
or an apparent increase in the usual number or incidence of cases; when
a clinician diagnoses an uncommon disease; or when an alert healthcare
281
282 INVESTIGATION, PREVENTION, AND CONTROL OF OUTBREAKS
provider or laboratory worker notices a cluster of cases. A cluster is a group of

cases of a disease or other health-related event that occurs closely related in
time and place. In a cluster, the number of cases may or may not exceed the
expected number—frequently, the expected number is not known.
Because the endemic rates for nosocomial diseases, injuries, and other
adverse events are different for each healthcare setting, few definitive criteria
exist for determining when to evaluate a potential problem or initiate an
investigation. The following questions may be asked to help decide what
action needs to be taken:
• Is there a documented increase in the number or incidence of observed
cases? Is it unlikely that the increase is due to normal statistical varia-
tion? Is the increase significant? If the answers are yes, then an evaluation
should be done to determine if an investigation should be initiated.
• Are there published criteria for evaluating the occurrence of the particu-
lar disease or event? There are published thresholds for evaluating the
occurrence of several diseases: measles, staphylococcal infections in the
nursery, tuberculosis in long-term care facilities (LTCF), and healthcare-
associated infections caused by group A streptococci and Legionella
species, as noted below and outlined in Table 8–1.12–20 If these thresholds
are reached or exceeded, enhanced surveillance and an investigation is
recommended. In addition, some state and provincial health departments
have threshold criteria for investigating specific diseases. For instance,
the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene provides guide-
lines for investigating, preventing, and controlling acute respiratory ill-
nesses, gastroenteritis, and scabies in LTCFs. These guidelines, which are
printed in Appendices G, H, and I, provide criteria for defining an out-
break (Appendices G, H, and I are available for download at this text’s
Web site: http://www.jbpub.com /catalog/9780763757793/).
• Is the disease or organism of special interest for the healthcare setting? A
healthcare organization can determine that an infectious agent or disease
is “epidemiologically important” for a specific setting. The CDC has
defined “epidemiologically important organisms” as having the following
characteristics:18(p21)
• A propensity for transmission within healthcare facilities based on
published reports and the occurrence of temporal or geographic clus-
ters of more than two patients, (e.g., C. difficile, norovirus, respiratory
syncytial virus (RSV), influenza, rotavirus, Enterobacter spp., Serratia
spp., group A streptococcus). A single case of healthcare-associated
invasive disease caused by certain pathogens (e.g., group A streptococ-
cus postoperatively,12 in burn units,13 or in a LTCF14; Legionella spp.17;
Aspergillus spp.21) is generally considered a trigger for investigation
and enhanced control measures because of the risk of additional cases
and severity of illness associated with these infections.
• Common and uncommon microorganisms with unusual patterns of
resistance within a facility (e.g., the first isolate of Burkholderia cepacia
complex or Ralstonia spp. in noncystic fibrosis patients or a quinolone-
resistant strain of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a facility)
Recognizing a Potential Outbreak 283
Table 8–1 Suggested Thresholds for Investigating a Potential Outbreak
Disease or Threshold Recommended Action(s) Reference

Condition Number(s)
Group A One case of Initiate investigation; review 12–14
streptococci healthcare-associated medical and laboratory
(GAS) infection caused by records to identify other
GAS cases; heighten surveillance
to identify additional episodes;
save isolates from infected
patients
Measles One case of suspected Rapidly investigate all reports 15
measles of suspected measles;
identify contacts and
promptly vaccinate susceptible
persons; all persons who
cannot provide proof of
immunity should be vaccinated
or excluded from the setting
(e.g., health care facility school,
day care center)
Staphylococcus Two or more Investigate possibility of an 16
aureus in a concurrent cases of outbreak; culture all lesions;
nursery staphylococcal disease examine healthcare
related to a nursery personnel for draining
lesions; save clinically
important isolates for six
months; institute isolation
precautions for cases
Legionnaire’s Single case of lab- Conduct an epidemiologic 17–19
disease (LD) confirmed healthcare- investigation; begin intensive
associated LD or two prospective surveillance for
or more lab-confirmed additional cases; conduct
possible cases that retrospective review of
occur within six months serologic, microbiologic, and
of each other postmortem data to identify
previously unrecognized
cases
Tuberculosis (TB) One case of infectious Report case to health 20
TB in an LTCF department; do contact
tracing; skin test (PPD)
contacts; provide preventive
therapy for contacts who
have documented skin test
conversion; provide
treatment for those with TB
disease
Source: Author.
• Difficult to treat because of innate or acquired resistance to multiple

classes of antimicrobial agents (e.g., Stenotrophomonas maltophilia,
Acinetobacter spp.)
• Association with serious clinical disease, increased morbidity, and
mortality [e.g., methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) and methicillin-
sensitive S. aureus (MSSA), group A streptococcus (GAS)]
• A newly discovered or reemerging pathogen
• Is the reported case an unusual disease or event? In addition to the char-
acteristics and diseases noted above, certain adverse drug reactions and
adverse events related to commercially available medical products and
devices (for example, renal insufficiency22 and endotoxin-like reactions23)
should also prompt an investigation and, when appropriate, should be
reported to the proper authorities (e.g., the local or state health depart-
ment and the Food and Drug Administration’s MedWatch Program by
calling 1-800-FDA-1088 or reporting online at http://www.fda.gov/med-
watch) and to the manufacturer. Adverse events such as clusters of exces-
sive bleeding after surgery,24 pyrogenic reactions after hemodialysis,25
and unexplained deaths7,9 should also be investigated.
INITIATING AN OUTBREAK INVESTIGATION
A full-scale outbreak investigation generally requires expert assistance

(such as from the health department or the CDC) and consumes valuable time
and resources. When investigating clusters and potential outbreaks in health-
care settings, an initial evaluation followed by a carefully conducted literature
search and a basic investigation (i.e., a descriptive epidemiologic study that
characterizes the cases by person, place, and time) will often be sufficient to
verify the existence of an outbreak, identify the most likely risk factor(s), and
identify control measures that have been shown to be effective in similar cir-
cumstances. Once these control measures are implemented, prospective (ongo-
ing) surveillance will allow the investigator to determine if they are effective
at preventing new cases. If these empirically applied measures are effective at
interrupting the outbreak, then no further investigation may be needed. A
basic investigation is all that may be needed if the only objective is to control
the outbreak, and the investigators do not wish to publish their findings or
identify the most likely causal factor by statistically demonstrating differ-
ences in exposures between the cases and a control population.
A full-scale investigation is warranted if a suspected outbreak is facility-
wide, appears to be associated with a commercially available product or med-
ical device, involves a disease or condition that causes considerable morbidity
or mortality, or appears to be unique in that it has not been previously reported
and there are no control measures that have previously been shown to be effec-
tive. A full-scale investigation consists of the steps conducted in a basic inves-
tigation plus a statistical (comparative) study of the suspected risk factors
(i.e., formulation and testing of hypotheses to explain the observed disease
pattern) as described in Chapter 10. Case-control or cohort studies are most
commonly used to test associations between risk factors and disease in outbreak
investigations in the healthcare setting.
Steps in Conducting an Outbreak Investigation 285
It is important to keep in mind the objectives of an outbreak investigation:

• Describe the situation and occurrence of cases.
• Determine the most likely etiologic agent, source, and method of spread.
• Interrupt the outbreak.
• Prevent the recurrence of a similar episode.
STEPS IN CONDUCTING AN OUTBREAK INVESTIGATION
Many of the steps in an outbreak investigation occur simultaneously; how-

ever, whenever an outbreak or a cluster is suspected, the investigator must
first conduct an initial evaluation of the reported cases to confirm that a poten-
tial outbreak exists, and then decide whether to initiate a basic or a full-scale
investigation. Exhibit 8–1 is an outline for investigating an outbreak.
Exhibit 8–1 Outline for Investigating an Outbreak*
The initial evaluation

Verify the diagnosis of reported cases before initiating an outbreak investigation.
Evaluate the severity of the problem.
Conduct a retrospective review to identify other cases.
Develop a line listing of cases.
Review the existing data; determine if a potential problem exists.
The outbreak investigation

Identify and verify the diagnosis of new cases.
Develop a case definition.
Review clinical and laboratory findings.
Document and organize findings at each step in the investigation.
Confirm the existence of an epidemic.
Conduct a literature search.
Consult with the laboratory.
Notify those who need to know.
Assemble a team.
Appoint a spokesperson to assure that consistent information is disseminated; be
prepared to answer questions and address the concerns of the community and personnel,
patients or residents, and their families.
Record actions taken (keep records of communications such as memos, letters, and
e-mails).
Decide if outside assistance is needed (consult with outside agencies and experts, as needed).
Communicate findings and recommendations frequently; distribute written reports.
Institute early control measures.
Seek additional cases; create a data collection form.
Orient the data as to person, place, and time.
Evaluate the problem; observe practices that are potentially related to the occurrence of
the outbreak.
continues
Exhibit 8–1 (Continued )
The outbreak investigation (Continued )

Determine the need for additional cultures or other diagnostic testing.
Formulate a tentative hypothesis.
Institute control measures.
Evaluate efficiency of control measures.
Test the hypotheses; consult a statistician to assure that the appropriate study method and
statistical tests are used.
Conduct further analysis and investigation.
Prepare and distribute a written report

* Many of these steps will occur simultaneously
Source: Author.
Initial Evaluation
The purpose of the initial evaluation is to provide a quick analysis of the

likelihood that an important excess of cases has occurred and to determine if a
potential problem exists.26 The steps in the initial evaluation are as follows:
1. Verify the diagnosis of the reported cases. The diagnosis should be veri-
fied by reviewing laboratory reports and medical records. In addition,
clinical findings can be discussed with the attending healthcare
providers—especially when there appears to be a discrepancy between
the clinical findings and the laboratory findings. If the clinical findings
do not support the laboratory findings, then a pseudoinfection or a mis-
diagnosis should be suspected.
Remember that rule number one in an outbreak investigation is to
verify the diagnosis of the initial case(s) before any further steps are
taken. Many investigators have started off on the proverbial wild goose
chase only to discover later that the clinical or laboratory findings of the
cases did not match the reported diagnoses. Much time and effort can be
wasted investigating an outbreak that does not exist if the reported
diagnoses are not verified before proceeding. For instance, several years
ago Pseudomonas (now Ralstonia) pickettii was isolated from blood cul-
tures of several infants in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) at a
large university hospital. A review of the cases revealed that none of the
infants had signs or symptoms consistent with Pseudomonas bacteremia,
and the investigators suspected specimen or laboratory contamination.
Serendipitously, one of the infection prevention and control profession-
als (ICPs) worked part-time in the microbiology laboratory of a nearby
hospital and discovered that the other hospital had also experienced a
recent cluster of P. pickettii-positive blood cultures. A little shoe leather
epidemiology revealed that both hospitals used the same type of broth
culture media and both had used the same lot number. The outbreak
was actually a pseudo-outbreak that was attributable to intrinsically

contaminated culture media.
2. Evaluate the severity of the problem. For example, is the disease or con-
dition likely to affect many people or only a few? Is it associated with
significant morbidity or mortality, or is it mild and inconsequential? If
the condition is severe, a full-scale investigation may be needed. If it is
mild or affects only a few people, then a basic investigation may be all
that is needed.
3. Conduct a retrospective review of surveillance records, laboratory reports,
and clinical records to identify other cases.
4. Develop a line listing of cases. A line listing may be created on a com-
puter or by hand. Each row in a line listing represents one case, and
each column represents an important characteristic that may aid in the
investigation, such as name, record number, age, sex, unit(s) or ward(s),
date of admission, date of onset, service, signs and symptoms, types of
therapy, surgery, and dates and results of laboratory tests. When a line
listing is created in a computer database or spreadsheet program, the
cases can be sorted by specified characteristics—this makes it easier to
detect common risk factors. Exhibit 8–2 is an example of a line listing
developed to study a suspected increase in the incidence of surgical site
infections following coronary artery bypass graft surgery.
5. Review the existing information and determine if a potential problem
exists (i.e., does the number of cases or incidence rate appear to be
greater than expected).
6. If a potential outbreak exists, decide whether to begin a basic or a full-
scale outbreak investigation. Because the initial steps for both investi-
gations are similar, no time will be lost if the investigator decides to
begin a basic investigation and subsequently finds that a full-scale study
is warranted.
Steps in Conducting an Outbreak Investigation
Identify and Verify the Diagnosis of Newly Reported Cases

Conduct prospective surveillance for new cases by monitoring laboratory
results, clinical records, and reports from attending healthcare providers. Add
any new cases to the line listing.
Develop a Case Definition

One of the first steps in an outbreak investigation is to develop a case defini-
tion that will be used to identify affected persons. A case definition uses epi-
demiologic, clinical, and laboratory criteria to define and classify cases and
usually restricts cases to a specific time, place, and person. The definition may
categorize cases as possible, probable, and definite. At the beginning of an inves-
tigation, the case definition should be broad to ensure that all those who have
the disease or condition are included in the study. An example of a preliminary
case definition for an outbreak of gastrointestinal illness in an LTCF may be “all
residents and personnel in Nursing Home A with onset of vomiting or diarrhea
Exhibit 8–2 Sample Line-Listing Form
Surgical Site Infections Following Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG)

Name Record Date Surgeon Date SSI Chest SSI Leg SSI Date of Organism
# CABG onset (note type)* (note type)* Culture
NOTE: SSI = surgical site infection

* TYPE: S/I = superficial/incisional; DI = deep infection; O/S = organ/space infection
Source: Author.
(i.e., two or more loose stools per day or an unexplained increase in the number
of bowel movements) during the month of April.” The case definition can be
refined and narrowed as the investigation progresses. Appendix B contains the
CDC definitions for infectious conditions that are reportable to local and state
health departments in the United States (Appendix B is available for download
at this text’s Web site: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/9780763757793/). These
may be useful for developing a case definition for an outbreak in a healthcare
setting.
Review Clinical and Laboratory Findings

If the outbreak is of infectious etiology, clinical and laboratory findings
should be reviewed early in the investigation to determine if the cases are
infected or colonized or if they represent pseudoinfection (i.e., the cultures are
false positives). It is important to recognize pseudoinfections promptly because
they may lead to an incorrect diagnosis and unnecessary treatment and control
measures.
Confirm the Existence of an Outbreak

Rule number two in an outbreak investigation is to confirm the existence of
an epidemic. This is done by determining if the incidence rate or the number of
cases is above the endemic, or expected, rate. This may be relatively easy if the
disease or condition is unusual or serious, such as Burkholderia cepacia bac-
teremia or pyrogenic reactions after hemodialysis. If, however, cases occur at
low levels over a prolonged period or if an outbreak is caused by a relatively
common organism, such as Escherichia coli, then recognition will be more dif-
ficult. Frequently, the baseline or background rate of a disease or condition is
not known, and it is difficult to determine if an outbreak truly exists. Many
authors have described methods that can be used to identify significant
increases.1,12–20,27–38 Unfortunately, there is no standard method for determin-
ing statistically if an outbreak exists in a healthcare setting. In practice, many
outbreaks are recognized when personnel detect an increase in the number of
cases of a disease or health-related event—even without calculating rates.
Some questions should be answered before a decision is made to conduct a
full-scale investigation:
• Is there a possibility that the perceived increase is due to surveillance
artifact? It is important to recognize that a change in surveillance tech-
niques, which may occur if there is a change in personnel that perform
surveillance activities or a change in criteria used to define a particular
disease, may produce artifactual changes that are perceived as increases
or decreases in the incidence of a disease or event. It is also important to
ensure that infections that were present at admission are not categorized
as nosocomial. For instance, a cluster of methicillin-resistant Staphylococ-
cus aureus (MRSA) in a healthcare setting may be due to the coincidental
admission of several patients who had MRSA at the time of admission.
• If the suspected outbreak is of infectious etiology, have there been any
changes in the way specimens are collected, transported, or processed? It
is important to determine if (1) there has been any change in the way
specimens are collected, or (2) there has been any change in the labora-
tory procedures used to process specimens or to identify the suspect agent.
Changes in the way specimens are collected or processed may produce a
change in the incidence of an organism and have been responsible for
many reported pseudo-outbreaks as discussed in Chapter 6. For instance,
a pseudo-outbreak of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in neutropenic patients in
a hematology unit occurred when several personnel collected stool cul-
tures by sampling feces from the toilet. The toilet water contaminated the
specimens.39 Once the personnel were instructed how to properly collect
the stool cultures, the outbreak subsided.
Conduct a Literature Search

A literature search should be conducted early in the investigation, as dis-
cussed in Chapter 9, to determine if other healthcare facilities have had a sim-
ilar experience and have identified risk factors, sources, reservoirs, modes of
transmission, and effective control measures. When conducting a literature

search for outbreaks caused by a specific organism, the investigator should
keep in mind that the nomenclature of microorganisms may change, as shown
in Table 8–2, and older articles may use a previous name.
Consult with the Laboratory

If the outbreak is of infectious etiology, laboratory personnel should be noti-
fied as soon as possible about the likelihood of an outbreak, and they should be
instructed to save sera and all isolates of the suspected agent, as appropriate,
for possible future study (e.g., molecular typing of bacterial isolates to deter-
mine strain relatedness). Chapter 11 provides a discussion of the laboratory’s
role in outbreak investigation.
Table 8–2 Changing Nomenclature of Selected Organisms Associated with Outbreaks in

the Healthcare Setting
Bacteria
Current Name Other Names
Acinetobacter baumanii Acinetobacter anitratus
Burkholderia cepacia Pseudomonas cepacia
Citrobacter koseri Citrobacter diversus
Enterococcus faecalis Streptococcus faecalis (group D enterococcus)
Enterococcus faecium Streptococcus faecium (group D enterococcus)
Ralstonia pickettii Pseudomonas pickettii, Burkholderia pickettii
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia Pseudomonas maltophilia, Xanthomonas maltophilia
Streptococcus agalactiae Group B streptococcus
Streptococcus pyogenes Group A streptococcus
Xanthomonas maltophilia Pseudomonas maltophilia
Fungi
Candida albicans Candida stellatoidea, Monilia albicans
Candida glabrata Torulopsis glabrata
Malassezia furfur Cladosporium mansonii, Pityrosporum orbiculare,
Pityrosporum ovale
Malassezia pachydermatis Pityrosporum pachydermatis
Viruses
Norovirus Norwalk and Norwalk-like viruses, small round structured
viruses, Calicivirus
Rhinovirus Common cold virus
Source: Author.
Notify Essential Personnel

The organization’s administrative staff should be notified as soon as possi-
ble of the likelihood of an outbreak—especially if the epidemic involves consid-
erable morbidity or mortality. If the suspected outbreak involves a disease
that is likely to attract media attention, such as Legionnaires’ disease, scabies,
salmonellosis, or meningitis, then the public relations department should also
be notified. It would be unfortunate if either of these were to first learn about
an outbreak in their facility through a reporter calling to request information.
Personnel in affected departments should be alerted as soon as the exis-
tence of an outbreak is confirmed. If likely prevention and control measures,
such as hand hygiene or contact isolation, can be identified, then personnel
should be instructed to use those precautions. The local health department
should be notified if a reportable disease is involved or if local regulations
require that outbreaks in healthcare facilities be reported. Risk management
personnel should also be notified because outbreaks frequently result in law-
suits being filed against a healthcare organization.
Assemble a Team
An investigative team should be assembled and a member of the team
should be appointed to be the primary contact person who will answer ques-
tions and communicate findings and recommendations. The team may be com-
posed of personnel from infection prevention and control, infectious disease,
quality management, risk management, laboratory, pharmacy, employee
health, nursing, patient/resident care services, and administration, as needed.
If the outbreak is covered by the media, it is helpful to have a spokesperson for
the organization that is not actively involved in the investigation so that a
person is not pulled away from the investigation to do interviews.
Outbreaks usually generate much fear and anxiety in personnel, patients or
residents, and their families, and the team should anticipate overreaction, and
possibly panic, and should be prepared to answer many questions and allay
fears. For instance, in the early 1980s, a community hospital in Pennsylvania
experienced an outbreak of Citrobacter diversus (now koseri) meningitis in
neonates in the normal newborn nursery. The local health department and the
CDC participated in the outbreak investigation, which attracted extensive
media coverage. An employee who did not work in patient care and did not
work in the nursery asked “to be tested for meningitis” because she was “afraid
of bringing meningitis home” to her family. In addition, one of the investiga-
tors was pregnant and experienced pressure from her family to “let someone
else” work on the investigation so she would not “catch something.”
Determine the Need for Outside Assistance

The investigative team should decide if outside assistance is needed. When
conducting an extensive investigation that involves a case control or cohort
study, the investigators should seek the assistance of a trained statistician.
Local and state health departments can arrange for assistance in conducting
an outbreak investigation, and in many localities disease outbreaks of known
or unknown etiology are reportable to the health department. In the United
States, a health department will frequently call the CDC if an outbreak involves
an unusual condition, a disease with high morbidity or mortality, or a common

source outbreak believed to be linked to a commercially available product such
as food or medication. The CDC personnel provide epidemiologic, laboratory,
statistical, and technical assistance.
In addition, if a full-scale investigation is conducted, it will be necessary to
arrange secretarial, clerical, technical, and laboratory support for the investiga-
tive team.
Institute Early Control Measures

Because the major objective of an outbreak investigation is to interrupt the
outbreak, control measures should be identified and instituted as soon as pos-
sible. These should be based on the magnitude and nature of the problem and
relevant findings from the literature search.
Seek Additional Cases

A thorough retrospective and concurrent search should be conducted to detect
additional cases. This can be done by reviewing laboratory reports, surveillance
records, medical records, and health department reports; calling area healthcare
facilities to determine if they have detected cases; and encouraging personnel
and physicians to report new cases. If the disease or condition has a long incuba-
tion period and it is likely that patients may be discharged before symptoms
develop, then active surveillance for new cases can be conducted by calling physi-
cians’ offices to uncover additional cases. If the illness can be asymptomatic, it
may be necessary to test for infection in order to detect cases (e.g., if a resident in
an LCTF is diagnosed with infectious tuberculosis, then tuberculin skin testing
must be done to detect M. tuberculosis infection in the resident’s contacts).
Create a Data Collection Form

The investigators should create a data collection form to collect information
on each case. The data elements to be included on the form will depend on the
disease, condition, or event being studied. This form must be designed care-
fully to (1) include the information needed to determine if a case fits the case
definition, (2) avoid wasting time collecting too much information, and (3)
avoid missing data that are later found to be needed.
If data will be entered into a computer database, it is helpful to design the
form so that the data elements are in the same order as they are entered into
the computer. As noted, the information that should be collected depends on
the disease being studied. Data elements may include the following:
• Identification information, such as name, record number, unit or ward,
address, phone, and admission date
• Demographic information such as age, sex, and race
• Clinical information such as date of onset, signs and symptoms, underlying
diseases, dates of collection and types of specimens, laboratory results,
radiology results, and outcome
• Name and service of attending physician or surgeon
• Risk factors that are relevant to the disease or condition being studied
(e.g., food and date/time eaten, medications and date/time given, therapeu-
tic and diagnostic procedures and dates done, exposures to personnel,
types of intravascular devices used and dates/time inserted and removed,

and presence of urinary catheters and dates used). Information collected
during the literature search should be used to identify potential risk factors.
Investigators should take care to avoid collecting data that will not be used
because this is a waste of time and resources. For example, a patient’s address
and phone number would not be needed unless the patient will likely be con-
tacted for follow-up or the outbreak involves a reportable disease and this
information is needed to complete a communicable disease report form.
Selected information is then abstracted from each data collection form and
recorded on the line listing. Examples of a line-listing form and its correspond-
ing data collection tool are shown in Chapter 12. Additional examples of line
listing and data collection forms can be found in Appendices G and H (Appen-
dices G and H are available for download at this text’s Web site: http://www.jbpub
.com /catalog/9780763757793/).
Describe the Epidemic: Person, Place, and Time

Once data are collected, the investigators can conduct the descriptive phase
of the investigation by characterizing the outbreak with respect to person,
place, and time. For instance, did the cases occur in one area of a facility or
during a short period of time?
Person. Cases should be identified and entered on the line listing so that risk
factors common to the affected persons can be identified. The population at
risk should then be determined and, when possible, attack rates should be cal-
culated. It is not always possible to calculate an attack rate because the
denominator (the population at risk) cannot always be quantified. The use and
calculation of attack rates are discussed in Chapter 10.
Place. The location of the cases, such as hospital unit, ward in an LTCF, or an
ambulatory care center should be identified. It may be helpful to construct a
spot map to illustrate the location of cases in a facility. By showing the distrib-
ution of cases, it may be possible to formulate a hypothesis on the mode of
transmission or a potential source. Figure 12–11 in Chapter 12 is an example
of a spot map. It illustrates the occurrence of mumps cases in the trading pits
of stock exchange A in Chicago, Illinois, from August 18, 1987, to December 25,
1987.
Time. The date of onset should be recorded for each case. Both date and time
of onset should be determined for acute diseases such as gastroenteritis that
have an abrupt onset and a short incubation period (i.e., the period between
when exposure occurs and symptoms develop). Both date and time of occur-
rence should be recorded for adverse events such as falls and other injuries,
because if adverse events are found to occur on a particular shift, then atten-
tion can be focused on identifying risk factors that exist on that shift but not
on another. Several investigations have implicated personnel as the cause of
an outbreak because data on the shifts on which the events occurred were
recorded and analyzed. For example, an investigation of cardiac arrests in an
intensive care unit revealed that the patients of a particular nurse on the
evening shift were 47.5 times more likely to experience a cardiac arrest than
were the other nurses’ patients.7 Many of the implicated nurse’s patients were
found to have unexplained hyperkalemia and unexpected cardiac arrests. The

outbreak ended when the nurse stopped working in the ICU.
For some infectious diseases, once the causative agent is identified and the
incubation period is determined, the probable period of exposure can be postu-
lated. The incubation periods of selected food-borne gastrointestinal diseases
are listed in Table 7–3 in Chapter 7.
Outbreaks may involve cases that are not temporally related (i.e., do not
occur closely spaced in time). There are several reported nursery outbreaks of
C. koseri (formerly C. diversus) meningitis in which the cases were separated
by many months.40,41 In an unpublished outbreak that occurred at one hospi-
tal, the cases occurred in May, September, and the following February.
Draw an Epidemic Curve

An epidemic curve is a graph (a histogram) that is constructed by plotting
the number of cases on the y-axis and the date of onset on the x-axis as dis-
cussed in Chapter 12. A properly constructed epidemic curve can often be used
to distinguish between a common source and a propagated outbreak.
In a common source outbreak, the cases are exposed to a common noxious
influence. If this exposure is brief and essentially simultaneous, then disease
develops within one incubation period, and the outbreak is called a point
source outbreak. Examples of a point source outbreak would be food poisoning
caused by consumption of contaminated food at a single meal, gastrointestinal
illness associated with a recreational water activity,42 and the 1976 Legion-
naires’ disease (LD) outbreak among the attendees of the American Legion
convention in Philadelphia. Figure 8–1 shows the epidemic curve for a point
source outbreak of cryptosporidiosis associated with a water sprinkler foun-
tain.42 A common source outbreak may occur over a wide geographic area (e.g.,
multistate outbreaks have occurred when a widely distributed food or medical
product from a single source is contaminated) or may extend over a prolonged
period, as may occur if LD occurs sporadically in persons exposed to a contam-
inated air conditioning unit, but the cases are not readily detected and the
outbreak is not recognized for many months.
Some outbreaks will originate from a common source and then spread further
via person-to-person contact. This often occurs in outbreaks of diseases that
have several modes of transmission, such as salmonellosis or hepatitis A, as
these can be introduced into a population through contaminated food and then
spread to others by direct person-to-person contact and by contact with feces.43
In a propagated or progressive outbreak, the disease is transmitted from
person to person such as during an outbreak of chickenpox, measles, or
influenza. Figure 8–2 shows the epidemic curve for a propagated outbreak of
measles.44 The case shown on August 10 was the index (or first) case, a visitor
from another country, who introduced the disease into the population.
Evaluate the Problem

Existing data should be reviewed to determine the nature of the disease or
event. If the outbreak is of infectious etiology, the identity and characteristics
of the infecting organism will often indicate where to look further. For
instance, S. aureus outbreaks are spread by person-to-person contact, and the
reservoir is an infected or colonized person. If an S. aureus outbreak occurs
205
Laboratory-Confirmed Cases
120
Unconfirmed Cases†
110
Fountain Water Replaced
100
90
80
Cases
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
24 26 28 30 2 4 6 8 10 12
June July
Date of Exposure
* n = 369.
† Defined as vomiting or three or more loose stools within a 24-hour period,
with onset 3–15 days after fountain exposure of at least 3 days.
Figure 8–1 Epidemic Curve for a Point Source Outbreak: Reported Cases of
Cryptosporidiosis Associated with a Water Sprinkler Fountain, by Date of Exposure—
Minnesota, 1997 (n = 369)
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outbreak of cryptosporidiosis associated with a water
sprinkler fountain—Minnesota, 1997. MMWR. 1998;47:856–860.
among postoperative patients or is clustered on a single unit and occurs

abruptly, a potential source would be an infected or colonized healthcare
worker, and therefore personnel should be evaluated for signs and symptoms
of infection, such as a lesion.45 If the outbreak spreads slowly, it may be the
result of a breakdown in proper infection control practices, such as inadequate
hand hygiene or aseptic technique.46
Group A streptococci outbreaks in healthcare settings are invariably associ-
ated with a healthcare worker who is infected or is an asymptomatic car-
rier.47–49 Environmental reservoirs have not been implicated in group A
streptococcal outbreaks; however, there have been food-borne outbreaks of
group A streptococcal pharyngitis in which the source was an infected food
handler who contaminated the food while preparing it.50
7 2 Doses MCV§
Requirement
6 Announced
5
Cases
4 2 Doses MCV
Required
3
0
10 16 22 28 3 9 15 21 27 3 9 15 21 27 2 8 14 20
Aug Sept Oct Nov
Date of Onset
* A confirmed case was laboratory confirmed or met the clinical case definition and was epidemologically linked to a confirmed case.
A clinical case was defined as an illness characterized by generalized rash lasting ≥ 3 days; temperature ≥ 10 °F (≥ 38.3°C); and
either cough, coryza, or conjunctivitis;
†
n = 33.
§
Measles-containing vaccine.
Figure 8–2. Epidemic Curve for a Propagated Outbreak: Number of Confirmed*

Measles Cases, by Date of Rash Onset, by Three-Day Interval—Anchorage, Alaska,
August 10–November 23, 1998 (n = 33)
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Transmission of measles among a highly vaccinated
school population—Anchorage, Alaska, 1998. MMWR. 1999;47:1109–1111.
Outbreaks caused by certain organisms, such as Pseudomonas, Burkholde-

ria, or nontuberculous Mycobacterium species, are frequently associated with
contaminated water or solutions, and this information can guide the investiga-
tors to look for aqueous reservoirs by evaluating common risk factors such as
medications and solutions diluted with water or procedures involving fluid.51
If the outbreak involves postoperative infections, the investigator needs to
determine if a personnel carrier or an environmental source is most likely by
reviewing the characteristics of the infecting organism. This information can
usually be found by conducting a careful literature search. For example, out-
breaks of postoperative infections caused by group A streptococcus are gener-
ally associated with a human carrier,49 and those caused by gram negative
rods are frequently associated with an environmental reservoir.52
Data should be reviewed for evidence of person-to-person spread or a com-
mon source reservoir. For instance, if all of the infected and colonized patients
had the same procedure (such as bronchoscopy) or therapy (such as mechani-
cal ventilation),51 or all of the ill persons ate the same meal, then the investi-
gator could hypothesize that the disease occurred as a result of this common
exposure.
The investigator should observe practices that may possibly contribute to the
occurrence of the outbreak. Depending on the circumstances of the outbreak,
these practices could involve patient or resident care, preparation of food, or
cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization of equipment and medical devices.
Note that rule number three in outbreak investigation is to observe the
practices being reviewed. Although policies and procedures may reflect appro-
priate infection prevention and control practices, personnel frequently do not
adhere to written protocols. Personnel will often state the proper method that
should be used; however, one should not assume that personnel are actually
practicing what they say. Careful observation, done in a nonthreatening man-
ner, will sometimes discover unrecognized breaks in proper technique. If an
outbreak involves postoperative infections, it is particularly important to
observe operating room and instrument and equipment processing practices.
Two cases illustrate the importance of observing practices. The first case
involved an investigation of an outbreak of Burkholderia cepacia lower respi-
ratory tract infection and colonization that occurred in the ICUs of a large ter-
tiary care hospital.51 Since 38 of the 44 case patients were on mechanical
ventilators, respiratory therapy was thought to play a role in the outbreak. A
literature search revealed a report of an outbreak of B. cepacia respiratory tract
infections that was associated with nebulized albuterol. A review of the cases
in the tertiary care hospital found that all 44 patients had received albuterol
bronchodilator therapy.51 Albuterol solutions were then tested and B. cepacia
was isolated from an opened in-use multidose vial of albuterol, and polymerase
chain reaction ribotyping showed that the albuterol isolate and 12 patient iso-
lates had identical banding patterns. Observation of the practices of the respi-
ratory therapists revealed that the albuterol was dispensed from a multidose
vial via a plastic eyedropper. The personnel would frequently touch the tip of
the eyedropper to the side of the nebulizer reservoir and then insert the eye-
dropper back into the vial, which they placed in their pockets for use on the
next patient. After aseptic technique and proper use of multidose vials were
reviewed with the respiratory therapy staff, no new cases occurred. The most
likely source of the B. cepacia was determined to be extrinsically contami-
nated albuterol.
The second case involved an outbreak of gram-negative bacteremia in open-
heart surgery patients that was traced to probable contamination of pressure-
monitoring equipment.52 The equipment (disposable transducers, intravenous
extension tubing, heparinized saline, and stopcocks) was frequently set up at the
end of the day for possible emergency use during the evening or night shifts. If it
was not used overnight, it was used for the first case of the day. The equipment
was not covered. When housekeeping practices were observed, it was discovered
that the housekeeping staff used a hose to spray a water-disinfectant mixture
into the operating room when they were cleaning the room. This mixture was
sprayed very close to the pressure-monitoring equipment. Contamination of the
equipment by the spray was thought to be responsible for the bacteremias
because the outbreak was terminated when cleaning practices were changed
and pressure-monitoring equipment was set up immediately before each open-
heart procedure.52
Investigators should consider using the opportunity of an outbreak investi-
gation to identify other practices that may contribute to a future outbreak.
These practices can than be reviewed, analyzed, and corrected after the out-
break investigation is completed.
Determine the Need for Additional Cultures or Other Diagnostic Tests

The investigative team must determine the need for collecting microbiologic
cultures or conducting other diagnostic tests, such as serologic studies or skin
tests. Additional testing will depend on the circumstances of the outbreak.
Microbiologic cultures. If microbiologic culturing of personnel, patients,

residents, or the environment is to be done, arrangements should be made
with the laboratory, with personnel in areas where testing will occur, and with
the organization’s administrator, who must determine how to cover the
expenses involved. The required specimens and culture methods should then
be identified, and the specimens should be collected and processed. The appro-
priate typing methods for the organism being studied must also be identified
and arrangements must be made to have these tests done on any isolates of
epidemiologic importance.
The decision whether or not to culture personnel, equipment, devices, or
environmental surfaces should be based on evidence that a person or an envi-
ronmental reservoir is epidemiologically linked to the outbreak.2 It is impor-
tant to remember that a person, item, or surface is not necessarily the source
of the outbreak just because it is culture positive; any of these may have
become contaminated by the true source or by an infected or colonized person.
Extensive microbiologic culturing of personnel or the environment is generally
not warranted and should not be done unless a full-scale epidemiologic study
is conducted, the study implicates a personnel carrier or an environmental
source, and the significant isolates are typed for evidence of strain relatedness.
If culturing is done, the isolates should be typed to determine strain related-
ness. There are many methods for typing microbial isolates.53 Phenotypic tech-
niques, which detect characteristics that are expressed by an organism,
include biotyping, serotyping, antimicrobial susceptibility, bacteriophage and
bacteriocin typing, polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE), multilocus
enzyme electrophoresis (MLEE), and immuno-blotting. Genotypic (or molecu-
lar) techniques, which examine an organism’s genetic content, include plasmid
analysis, restriction endonuclease analysis (REA), ribotyping, pulsed-field gel
electrophoresis (PFGE), and polymerize chain reaction (PCR).53 Typing sys-
tems have been shown to be a powerful tool for investigating outbreaks of
healthcare-associated infection when they are used as an adjunct to an epi-
demiologic investigation.54 They must be used and interpreted with caution,
however, to avoid erroneous conclusions. For instance, the finding that there is
only one strain circulating in a healthcare setting does not necessarily mean
that all of the infections are related—there may be only a single strain circu-
lating in the community even though there may be many reservoirs or sources.
Conversely, if multiple strains are found, there may still be an outbreak, as mul-
tiple strains have been found to cause an outbreak (based on epidemiologic evi-
dence). The use, advantages, and disadvantages of the various typing methods
are discussed in Chapter 11.
If culturing of personnel is done, specimens should be labeled with a code,
rather than with a healthcare worker’s name, to protect the identity of anyone
who is culture positive for the organism being studied. Only one person should
hold the key connecting the codes and names. Culturing creates substantial
anxiety among personnel because they will be concerned that they may be
involved in causing the outbreak. Therefore, the decision to culture personnel
must be made carefully, based on epidemiologic evidence, and personnel need
to be assured that the results of testing will remain confidential—to allay con-
cerns that they will be blamed for the outbreak if they are culture positive.
If an infectious agent has a carrier state or can cause colonization, it may

sometimes be desirable to culture patients or residents to determine the
extent of the spread in the population at risk. Culture surveys should not be
done unless the significant organisms that are isolated are typed or otherwise
characterized to determine if they are related strains.
Other diagnostic tests. For those diseases in which infection may occur
without signs or symptoms, other tests may be needed to determine if persons
were infected as a result of exposure during the outbreak. For instance, tuber-
culin skin testing would be needed to identify persons who become infected
following exposure to M. tuberculosis because most infections with this organ-
ism are asymptomatic. Those who are identified as newly infected could then
be given prophylaxis to prevent the development of disease. When investigat-
ing an outbreak of measles, serologic testing is frequently done to identify sus-
ceptible persons so they can be immunized to prevent infection and further
transmission of the disease.
Formulate a Tentative Hypothesis

One of the objectives of an outbreak investigation is to determine why cer-
tain individuals in a population develop disease. This is done by collecting
information on possible risk factors (exposures) and generating hypotheses.
Based upon an evaluation of the information collected up to this point, a ten-
tative hypothesis should be formulated regarding the likely causative factors
of the outbreak (e.g., reservoir, source, and mode of transmission of the agent if
the outbreak is of infectious etiology).
For example, a multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa has been iso-
lated from the respiratory tract of three patients in the ICU during a three-
week period. The ICU, laboratory, and previously established ICP personnel
recognize that this represents more cases of this organism than expected. An
initial review of the cases shows that one patient has pneumonia and two are
colonized. All three patients are on ventilators. Since mechanical ventilation
has been shown to be a risk factor for infection and colonization with P. aerugi-
nosa, a tentative hypothesis could be that exposure to mechanical ventilation is
associated with the nosocomial acquisition of a multidrug-resistant strain of P.
aeruginosa.
Implement Control Measures

Control measures should be implemented as soon as possible during the
investigative process. For an infectious disease outbreak of known etiology,
preventive interventions should be based on the characteristics of the
causative agent, including possible reservoirs and sources and the most likely
mode of transmission. Measures that have been shown to be effective in inter-
rupting the transmission of a variety of organisms have been discussed in
Chapters 3 through 7. The identified control measures could be as simple as
emphasizing good hand hygiene and adherence to contact precautions to help
control an outbreak or cluster of MRSA. To interrupt outbreaks of noninfec-
tious etiology, control measures should be based on the nature of the disease
or event. For example, in one published report, an excess number of needlestick
injuries in hospital personnel was traced to needles piercing the walls of infec-
tious waste containers.6 The outbreak was terminated when a different type of
container was used.
Evaluate the Efficacy of Control Measures

Surveillance activities should be continued to determine if any new cases are
occurring. If new cases continue to occur, control measures must be reevaluated,
and a more extensive epidemiologic investigation may be needed.
Evaluate and Test the Hypothesis

In a full-scale investigation, statistical tests are done to test the hypotheses
that explain the likely risk factors contributing to the outbreak. Many investi-
gations do not reach this stage. The investigation may end prior to this point if
the control measures are working and if the situation does not require further
study. The following outbreak situations should be pursued further: those
associated with considerable morbidity or mortality, those that continue to
occur despite the implementation of control measures, those that are sus-
pected to be facility-wide, and those adverse events that are associated with a
medical device or a commercial product.
This phase poses one of the greatest challenges when conducting an out-
break investigation. The investigators must carefully review the clinical, labo-
ratory, and epidemiologic findings and hypothesize which risk factors or
exposures could plausibly lead to disease. The hypotheses are then tested by
comparing the population with the disease (cases) with a population without
the disease (controls) in regards to exposures to postulated risk factors. These
comparisons are usually done by conducting a case-control or cohort study, as
discussed in Chapter 10. To ensure that the appropriate study design and sta-
tistical tests are used, those who are investigating an outbreak should consult
a trained statistician before beginning a case-control or cohort study. For a dis-
cussion of the use of case-control studies in outbreak investigations, the
reader is referred to a review article by Dwyer et al.55
When testing a hypothesis, investigators need to keep in mind the criteria
that should be used to judge if an association is causal: strength of association,
dose–response relationship, consistency of association, chronological relation-
ship, specificity of association, and biological plausibility, as discussed in Chap-
ter 1. Data should also be evaluated to determine if (1) there are any persons
who were not exposed to a particular risk factor who are affected, or (2) if
there are persons who were exposed to a particular risk factor who are not
affected.
For example, over a 9-day period, 5 personnel and 15 residents in an LTCF
develop a febrile illness with diarrhea or vomiting. Salmonella enteritidis is
isolated from several cases and is determined to be the etiologic agent of the
outbreak. Because an investigation shows that no other cases have recently
been reported in the community, the investigators hypothesize that exposure
to the source of the organism occurred in the LTCF. Because S. enteritidis out-
breaks are most frequently associated with a food-borne source, a further
hypothesis could be that consumption of some food or beverage in the facility
was the exposure necessary to develop disease. Therefore, the likely period of
exposure, based on the usual incubation period of the disease (6 to 48 hours),
would be identified and the cases would be interviewed to determine what
they had to eat or drink at the facility during that period. To determine if
exposure to certain foods eaten by the ill persons (cases) was associated with
disease, these exposures would be compared with exposures of persons who
were not ill (controls) by conducting statistical tests of association and signifi-
cance, as explained in Chapter 10.
To increase efficiency and promote accuracy, computers and appropriate
software programs should be used as much as possible to collect and organize
data and to calculate statistical tests. Epi Info, a software program developed
by the CDC to manage and analyze data collected during an epidemiologic
investigation, can be downloaded from the CDC’s Web site at http://www
.cdc.gov/epiinfo. Epi Info can be used to calculate statistical measures such as
odds ratios, relative risk, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), chi-squares, and P
values.
Continue Surveillance, Analysis, and Investigation

Investigators should continue to seek additional cases by searching both
retrospectively and concurrently. Concurrent (ongoing) surveillance should be
used to assess the effectiveness of the implemented control measures. The
investigative team should meet to review findings up to this point and to for-
mulate and evaluate additional hypotheses, as needed.
If other testing is warranted, such as microbiologic culturing or serologic
tests for hepatitis A or measles, these tests should be completed. The results of
all laboratory tests should be carefully recorded and analyzed by the inves-
tigative team.
Prepare and Distribute Written Reports
Investigators should carefully document their actions and organize their

findings at each step in the investigation. Interim reports should be prepared
and distributed, as needed, to the organization’s administrative staff, to those
who are affected by the outbreak, to the infection prevention and control com-
mittee, and to relevant government or public health agencies. When the inves-
tigation is completed, a final report should be prepared and submitted to the
departments, areas, or units involved in the outbreak, to the organization’s
administrative staff, to the infection prevention and control committee, and to
the health department and other authorities, as appropriate.
The final report should follow the usual scientific format: introduction and
background, methods, results, discussion, and summary and recommenda-
tions. The report should include the names and titles of those who prepared it
and those to whom it was provided. Guidelines for preparing a report of an
outbreak investigation are shown in Table 8–3. A good example of a detailed
report of an outbreak is the article by White et al. who describe an epidemic of
giardiasis in an NH.56
Table 8–3 Guideline for Preparing a Report of an Outbreak Investigation
Section Describes or explains, when appropriate

1. Introduction/Back Similar outbreaks that were previously reported; how the
ground outbreak was detected; who conducted the investigation; the
type of facility and area(s) where the outbreak occurred
2. Methods
a. Laboratory methods Types of culture media used; method for collecting
specimens; identification and typing systems used for
microorganisms isolated; serologic or other tests used
b. Epidemiologic methods Type of study used (e.g., case-control or cohort); case
definition (possible, probable, definite; asymptomatic vs.
symptomatic); how the cases and controls were selected;
sources of the data collected (e.g., patient or resident medical
records, infection control surveillance data, quality
management data, laboratory records, reports from
healthcare workers, health department records, phone or
written surveys, interviews with patients, personnel, or
visitors)
c. Statistical methods Statistical tests used
3. Results Findings of the study (facts only, with no discussion); may
also include tables of cases and risk factors, an epidemic
curve, and spot maps, as appropriate
4. Discussion The interpretation and discussion of the results
5. Summary/Re- The summary of the findings and recommendations
commendations
6. Distribution of report Notes the names and titles of those to whom the report was
given
7. Author(s) Notes the names and titles of those who prepared the report
Source: Author.
PUBLISHING AN ARTICLE ABOUT AN OUTBREAK

INVESTIGATION
A literature search is one of the crucial steps in conducting an outbreak

investigation because it helps the investigator identify potential risk factors
associated with a disease and control measures that have been shown to be
effective in preventing that disease in similar situations. Preparing a written
report of an outbreak investigation using the outline provided in Table 8–3, pro-
vides the investigator the basis for writing an article and submitting it for pub-
lication. Personnel who conduct outbreak investigations in healthcare settings
should consider publishing their findings—especially if the outbreak involves
an unusual organism or a previously unrecognized risk factor, source, reservoir,
or mode of transmission of an infectious agent. Since outbreak investigations
frequently advance knowledge of the epidemiology of infections and other
adverse outcomes in healthcare institutions, healthcare professionals who
Outbreak Prevention 303
investigate clusters and outbreaks of healthcare-related events should publish

their findings to assist others who are investigating similar conditions.10,11,57
RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES
Outbreaks can result in claims and lawsuits being filed against a healthcare
organization. In rare cases, members of the ICP department have been named
in these suits. Healthcare personnel, including the infection control staff, may
be subpoenaed to give a deposition or testify in court. In addition, during the
discovery process of a lawsuit, the defendant(s) will be required to produce
documents relating to the case. During an outbreak investigation, the investi-
gators should be careful to record facts, and not speculations or personal com-
ments, because documents produced during the investigation may be
subpoenaed. The organization’s risk management and legal departments
should be consulted to answer questions about risk and legal issues surround-
ing an outbreak investigation.
OUTBREAK INVESTIGATION SKILLS
According to Goodman et al., “The concepts and techniques used in field

investigations derive from clinical medicine, epidemiology, laboratory science,
decision analysis, skilled communications, and common sense.”58(p10) To success-
fully apply epidemiologic methods to recognizing, investigating, and controlling
an outbreak, the investigator must be skilled in a unique set of tasks:59
• Surveillance—the ongoing, systematic collection of data
• Investigation—careful observation and gathering of data for a detailed
descriptive study
• Analysis—observation followed by comparison of groups
• Evaluation—the assessment of the effectiveness of the actions and con-
trol measures taken to resolve a problem
In addition, the investigator should possess skills in communication, manage-
ment, consultation, presenting epidemiologic findings, and human relations.59
OUTBREAK PREVENTION
Outbreaks can result in significant morbidity and mortality; fear and anxi-
ety among personnel, patients, residents and the community; disruption of
services; lost revenue; and temporary closure of medical departments,
patient/resident care units, or even an entire facility.60,61 Many outbreaks that
have occurred in healthcare settings could have been prevented if healthcare
workers had routinely used appropriate infection prevention practices. To pre-
vent healthcare-associated infections and recognize potential outbreaks, each
healthcare organization should have an infection surveillance, prevention, and
control program that is appropriate for the setting. The program should incor-
porate evidence-based infection prevention practices, comply with applicable
regulations and requirements, and have a surveillance system that is capable
of detecting clusters and increases in the numbers and rates of infections and
epidemiologically significant organisms. A mechanism should be in place to
address clusters, increases in infections, and the occurrence of epidemiologi-
cally significant organisms as soon as possible so that measures can be imple-
mented to interrupt an outbreak or prevent one from occurring.
PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUES
Recognizing and Reporting Clusters and Suspected Outbreaks
Healthcare providers are well suited to assisting health departments in the

recognition and follow-up of community outbreaks of disease because persons
who are ill frequently present to a hospital emergency department or to a
healthcare provider for treatment. Community outbreaks of infectious dis-
eases such as salmonellosis and staphylococcal food poisoning have been first
recognized by hospital personnel, especially those in emergency departments,
when several patients presented during a short time period with gastroin-
testinal illnesses.62,63 In 1994 the staff of a community hospital reported a
cluster of community-acquired cases of LD, and this led to the detection of an
outbreak of LD among passengers of a cruise ship.64
Phares et al. described an investigation prompted by the discovery of two
cases of LD in residents of an LTCF.65 The investigation led to the detection of
seven confirmed cases of legionellosis: two residents of the LTCF, one visitor to
the LTCF, one inpatient in the hospital attached to the LTCF, one visitor to the
hospital, one patient seen in a nearby outpatient medical office building, and
one resident of the nearby community. No Legionella was isolated from multi-
ple samples of water and biofilm collected throughout the LTCF. However,
Legionella pneumophila was isolated from an industrial cooling tower located
0.4 km from the LTCF and was the same strain as that isolated from the
cases. The investigators concluded that the most likely source of infection for
the LTCF residents was the community cooling tower, and the occurrence of
LD in the LTCF residents was a sentinel event that led to the detection of a
community outbreak.
Healthcare organizations should have a mechanism for reporting suspected
community outbreaks of infectious and noninfectious conditions to the local
health department as soon as possible. All 50 states in the United States have
reportable disease requirements, and healthcare providers have the responsi-
bility for reporting cases of communicable diseases and other conditions to the
health department. Even though one case may not seem important, that one
individual may be involved in a larger outbreak that may not be recognized
unless several cases are reported.
Community Outbreaks Can Affect Healthcare Facilities
Widespread community outbreaks of infectious diseases such as salmonel-

losis and influenza may cause community-acquired infections in healthcare
personnel and their families and may result in increased admissions of per-
sons with communicable diseases and in nosocomial spread to other patients,
residents, or personnel.66 In addition, healthcare organizations may be asked
Public Health Issues 305
to assist health departments provide prophylaxis, immunization, or other follow-

up for persons potentially exposed to a communicable disease. Many hospital
ICPs have assisted local and state health departments in providing prophy-
laxis for family members of patients with meningococcal meningitis and
immunization for contacts of a patient with measles. If outbreaks affect many
persons, it may be necessary to set up special clinics and telephone hotlines.67
Guidelines for developing a written plan to address infectious disease emergen-
cies have been published by many organizations and health departments, and
these can be used to develop a facility-specific plan.
When widespread outbreaks are associated with commercial products, such
as food or medication, healthcare personnel must determine if their organiza-
tion has received that product and has used it. Food-borne outbreaks associated
with intrinsically contaminated commercial products put patients, residents,
personnel, visitors, and guests at risk—especially if the organization is
involved in catering meetings attended by members of the community.68
Emerging Infectious Diseases, Biological Weapons,

and Terrorist Attacks
ICPs, healthcare epidemiologists, healthcare providers, and clinical labora-

tory personnel play a critical role in detecting, reporting, and responding to
diseases and events of public health significance, such as emerging infectious
diseases and infections that could potentially be related to a bioterrorist
attack. A widespread outbreak or pandemic will affect many healthcare set-
tings, and each setting should have a system for detecting and reporting
emerging infectious diseases so that prevention and control measures can be
quickly implemented.69
The use of biological agents during a war or for a terrorist attack could
cause widespread outbreaks and paralyze the healthcare system. A religious
cult intentionally contaminated salad bars at 10 restaurants in Oregon, and
this resulted in at least 751 cases of Salmonella typhimurium in a county that
typically reports fewer than five cases per year.70 The bioterrorism-related
release of Bacillus anthracis spores in several states and Washington, DC, in
late 2001 resulted in 22 cases of anthrax, hundreds of persons receiving
antimicrobial prophylaxis, the closure of several buildings for decontamina-
tion, and considerable disruption of services at local hospitals.71 Healthcare
personnel should be familiar with the biological agents most likely to be used
in a bioterrorist attack—especially with their disease manifestations and
modes of transmission and with the measures that can be used to control their
spread.72
ICPs, healthcare administrators, and healthcare providers also play an
important role in ensuring that their organizations have emergency plans in
place to address a surge of infectious patients and reduce the adverse impacts
these events have on healthcare settings.69 These plans should be developed
by a multidisciplinary task force composed of personnel from the healthcare
organization that is developing its plan and personnel from surrounding
healthcare organizations, public health agencies, emergency responders, and
other stakeholders.
A discussion of emergency preparedness is beyond the scope of this text;

however, much information can be found on the websites of national, state,
and provincial government and public health agencies worldwide. Resources
for information on emerging infections and emergency planning include the
CDC’s Emergency Preparedness and Response website (http://www.bt.cdc.gov
/planning/), the online journal Emerging Infectious Diseases (http://www.cdc
.gov/nciod/EID), the World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/en/), and the
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Public Health Emergency Pre-
paredness website (http://www.ahrq.gov/prep/).
USING TECHNOLOGY TO AID IN OUTBREAK

DETECTION AND INVESTIGATION
Computers have greatly aided in the management and analysis of data col-
lected during routine surveillance activities and during outbreak investigations.
Information technology is regularly used in the detection and investigation of
outbreaks worldwide. For instance, following a report that several attendees of
a conference developed salmonellosis, the CDC initiated an epidemiologic inves-
tigation by sending a questionnaire to conference attendees via the e-mail sys-
tem of the organization that sponsored the conference.73 The attendees were
instructed to complete the survey and return it to the CDC via fax. Since the
attendees had come from all 50 states, this electronic communication facili-
tated the search for cases and aided in the identification and investigation of a
food-borne outbreak in a widely dispersed population. Using information sup-
plied by the attendees, the source of the organism was eventually traced to an
infected food handler at a restaurant near the convention site.
Many healthcare professionals subscribe to electronic notification systems
and e-mail lists that allow instant communication locally, nationally, and
internationally. These systems can be used to inquire about the experiences of
others during an outbreak and to alert healthcare institutions about out-
breaks associated with medical procedures or with commercial products and
devices. Technologies such as e-mail and e-mail lists play an integral role in
detecting and responding to outbreaks. The use of information technology for
outbreak detection and investigation is discussed in Chapter 9.
SUMMARY
Although outbreaks in healthcare settings account for only a small propor-

tion of healthcare-associated infections, they can result in significant morbid-
ity and mortality, disruption of services, and fear and anxiety among
personnel, patients, residents, and the community. Healthcare organizations
should have an infection surveillance, prevention, and control program that is
based on the needs and characteristics of the healthcare setting for which it is
designed. The personnel responsible for the program should have the ability to
(1) recognize clusters and potential outbreaks, (2) act promptly to evaluate
and investigate the situation, (3) follow the standard outbreak investigation
steps outlined in this chapter, and (4) implement appropriate prevention and
control measures to interrupt the outbreak and prevent it from recurring.
References 307
ICPs, healthcare providers, and administrators play a critical role in recog-

nizing, reporting, and responding to public health emergencies that may
result when a natural or man-made outbreak or pandemic occurs.
REFERENCES
1. Haley RW, Tenney JH, Lindsey JO, Garnet JS, Bennett JV. How frequent are outbreaks of
nosocomial infection in community hospitals? Infect Control. 1985;6:233–236.
2. Beck-Sague C, Jarvis WR, Martone WJ. Outbreak investigations. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1997;18:138–145.
3. Smith PW, Rusnak PG. Infection prevention and control in the long-term care facility. Am J
4. Martone WJ, Williams WW, Mortensen ML, et al. Illness with fatalities in premature infants:
association with intravenous vitamin E preparation, E-Ferol. Pediatr. 1986;78:591–600.
5. Shay DK, Fann LM, Jarvis WR. Respiratory distress and sudden death associated with
receipt of a peripheral parenteral nutrition admixture. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1997;18:814–817.
6. Anglim AM, Collmer JE, Loving J, et al. An outbreak of needlestick injuries in hospital
employees due to needles piercing infectious waste containers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1995;16:570–576.
7. Sacks JJ, Stroup DF, Will ML, Harris EL, Israel E. A nurse-associated epidemic of cardiac
arrests in an intensive care unit. JAMA. 1988;295:689–695.
8. Franks A, Sacks JJ, Smith JD, Sikes RK. A cluster of unexplained cardiac arrests in a surgi-
cal intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 1987;15:1075–1076.
9. Kafrissen ME, Grimes DA, Hogue CJ, Sacks JJ. Cluster of abortion deaths at a single facil-
ity. Obstet Gynecol. 1986;68:387–389.
10. Gastmeier P, Stamm-Balderjahn S, Hansen S, et al. How outbreaks can contribute to pre-
vention of nosocomial infection: analysis of 1022 outbreaks. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
2005;26:357–361.
11. Gastmeier P, Stamm-Balderjahn S, Hansen S, et al. Where should one search when con-
fronted with outbreaks of nosocomial infection? Am J Infect Control. 2006;34(9):603–605.
12. CDC. Prevention of invasive group A streptococcal disease among household contacts of case
patients and among postpartum and postsurgical patients: recommendations from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;35(8):950–959.
13. Gruteke P, van Belkum A, Schouls LM, et al. Outbreak of group A streptococci in a burn center:
use of pheno and genotypic procedures for strain tracking. J Clin Microbiol. 1996;34(1):114–118.
14. Greene CM, Van Beneden CA, Javadi M, et al. Cluster of deaths from group A streptococcus
in a long-term care facility—Georgia, 2001. Am J Infect Control. 2005;33(2):108–113.
15. Centers for Disease Prevention and Control. Measles. Vaccine Preventable Diseases Surveillance
Manual. 3rd ed. Atlanta, GA: CDC; 2002. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv-manual/
downloads/chpt06_measles.pdf. Accessed March 21, 2008.
16. Heyman DL. Control of Communicable Diseases Manual. 18th ed. Washington, DC: American
Public Health Association; 2005.
17. Tablan OC, Anderson LJ, Besser R, Bridges C, Hajjeh R. Guidelines for preventing health-
care associated pneumonia, 2003. Recommendations of CDC and the Healthcare Infection
Control Practices Advisory Committee. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/index.html. Accessed
March 21, 2008.
18. Siegel JD, Rhinehart E, Jackson M, Chiarello L, and the Healthcare Infection Control
Practices Advisory Committee, 2007. Guideline for isolation precautions: preventing trans-
mission of infectious agents in healthcare settings, June 2007. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/
dhqp/pdf/isolation2007.pdf. Accessed March 21, 2008.
19. Sabria M, Campins M. Legionnaires’ disease: update on epidemiology and management options.
Am J Respir Med. 2003;2(3):235–243.
20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevention and control of tuberculosis in facili-
ties providing long-term care to the elderly. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee for
Elimination of Tuberculosis. MMWR. 1990;39(10):7–20.
21. Bille J, Marchetti O, Calandra T. Changing face of health-care associated fungal infections.
Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2005;18(4):314–319.
22. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Renal insufficiency and failure associated with
immune globulin intravenous therapy—United States, 1985–1998. MMWR. 1999;48:518–521.
23. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Endotoxin-like reactions associated with intra-
venous gentamicin—California, 1998. MMWR. 1998;47:877–880.
24. Geiss HK, Schmitt J, Frank SC. Bleeding after cardiovascular surgery caused by detergent
residues in laparotomy sponges. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1997;18:579–581.
25. Beck-Sague CM, Jarvis WR, Bland LA, Arduino MJ, Aguero SM, Verosic G. Outbreak of gram-
negative bacteremia and pyrogenic reactions in a hemodialysis center. Am J Nephrol. 1990;
10:397–403.
26. Centers for Disease Control. Guidelines for investigating clusters of health events. MMWR.
1990;39(11):1.
27. Birnbaum D. Analysis of hospital infection surveillance data. Infect Control. 1984;5:332–338.
28. McGuckin MB, Abrutyn E. A surveillance method for early detection of nosocomial outbreaks.
29. Childress JA, Childress JD. Statistical test for possible infection outbreaks. Infect Control.
1981;2:247–249.
30. Mylotte JM. The hospital epidemiologist in long-term care: practical considerations. Infect
31. Birnbaum D. Nosocomial infection surveillance programs. Infect Control. 1987;8:474–479.
32. Jacquez GM, Waller LA, Grimson R, Wartenberg D. The analysis of disease clusters, part I:
state of the art. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;17:319–327.
33. Jacquez GM, Waller LA, Grimson R, Wartenberg D. The analysis of disease clusters, part II:
introduction to techniques. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;17:385–397.
34. Selleck JA. Statistical process control charts in hospital epidemiology. Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol. 1993;14:649–656.
35. Brewer JH, Gasser CS. The affinity between continuous quality improvement and epidemic
surveillance. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1993;14:95–98.
36. Benneyan JC. Statistical quality control methods in infection control and hospital epidemiol-
ogy, part I: introduction and basic theory. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1998;19:194–214.
37. Benneyan JC. Statistical quality control methods in infection control and hospital epidemiol-
ogy, part II: chart use, statistical properties, and research issues. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1998;19:265–283.
38. Birnbaum D. CQI tools: sentinel events, warning, and action limits. Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol. 1993;14:537–539.
39. Verweij PE, Bilj D, Melchers W, et al. Pseudo-outbreak of multiresistant Pseudomonas aerug-
inosa in a hematology unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1997;18:128–131.
40. Kline MW. Citrobacter meningitis and brain abscess in infancy: epidemiology, pathogenesis,
and treatment. J Pediatr. 1988;113:430–434.
41. Graham DR, Anderson RL, Ariel FE, et al. Epidemic nosocomial meningitis due to Citrobacter
diversus in neonates. J Infect Dis. 1981;144:203–209.
42. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outbreak of cryptosporidiosis associated with a
water sprinkler fountain—Minnesota, 1997. MMWR. 1998;47:856–860.
43. Standaert SM, Hutcheson RH, Schaffner W. Nosocomial transmission of Salmonella gastroen-
teritis to laundry workers in a nursing home. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1994;15:22–26.
44. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Transmission of measles among a highly vacci-
nated school population—Anchorage, Alaska, 1998. MMWR. 1999;47:1109–1111.
45. Sheretz RJ, Bassetti S, Bassetti-Wyss B. “Cloud” health-care workers. Emerg Infect Dis.
2001;7:241–244.
References 309
46. Boyce JM. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in hospitals and long-term care facil-
ities: microbiology, epidemiology, and preventive measures. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1992;13:725–737.
47. Ridgeway EJ, Allen KD. Clustering of group A streptococcal infections on a burns unit: impor-
tant lessons in outbreak management. J Hosp Infect. 1993;25:173–182.
48. Viglionese A, Nottebart V, Bodman HA, Platt R. Recurrent group A streptococcal carriage in
a health care worker associated with widely separated nosocomial outbreaks. Am J Med.
1991;91(Suppl 3B):329S–333S.
49. Paul SM, Genese C, Spitalny K. Postoperative group A beta-hemolytic Streptococcus outbreak
with the pathogen traced to a member of a health care worker’s household. Infect Control
50. Decker MD, Lavely GB, Hutcheson RHU, Schaffner W. Food-borne streptococcal pharyngitis
in a hospital pediatrics clinic. JAMA. 1986;353:679–681.
51. Reboli AC, Koshinski R, Arias K, Marks-Austin K, Stieritz D, Stull TL. An outbreak of
Burkholderia cepacia lower respiratory tract infection associated with contaminated
albuterol nebulization solution. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;17:741–743.
52. Redneck JR, Beck-Sague CM, Anderson RL, Schable B, Miller JM, Jarvis WR. Gram-negative
bacteremia in open-heart-surgery patients traced to probable tap-water contamination of
pressure-monitoring equipment. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;17:281–285.
53. Singh A, Goering RV, Simjee S, Foley SL, Zervos MJ. Application of molecular techniques to
the study of hospital infection. Clin Micro Rev. 2006;19:512–530.
56. White KE, Hedberg CW, Edmonson LM, Jones DBW, Osterholm MT, MacDonald KL. An out-
break of giardiasis in a nursing home with evidence for multiple modes of transmission. J
Infect Dis. 1989;160:298–304.
57. Gastmeier P, Loui A, Stamm-Balderjahn S, et al. Outbreaks in neonatal intensive care units
- they are not like others. Am J Infect Control. 2007;35:172–176.
58. Goodman RA, Buehler JW, Kaplan JP. The epidemiologic field investigation: science and judg-
ment in public health practice. Am J Epidemiol. 1990;132:9–16.
59. Last JM, Tyler CW. Epidemiology. In: Last JM, Wallace RB, eds. Maxcy-Rosenau-Last Public
Health and Preventive Medicine. 13th ed. Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange; 1992:11–39.
60. Baggett HC, Duchin JS, Shelton W, Zerr DM, Heath J, Ortega-Sanchez IR, Tiwari T. Two noso-
comial pertussis outbreaks and their associated costs—King County, Washington, 2004.
61. Hansen S, Stamm-Balderjahn S, Zuschneid I, et al. Closure of medical departments during
nosocomial outbreaks: data from a systematic analysis of the literature. J Hosp Infect.
2007;65(4):348–353.
62. Goodman LJ, Lisowski JM, Harris AA, et al. Evaluation of an outbreak of foodborne illness
initiated in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 1993;22:62–65.
63. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outbreak of staphylococcal food poisoning asso-
ciated with precooked ham—Florida, 1997. MMWR. 1997;46:1189–1191.
64. Guerrero IC, Filippone C. A cluster of Legionnaires’ disease in a community hospital—a clue
65. Phares CR, Russell E, Thigpen MC, et al. Legionnaires’ disease among residents of a long-term
care facility: The sentinel event in a community outbreak. Am J Infect Control. 2007;35:319–323.
66. Jarosch MJ, Sinwell G, Galviz CJ, et al. Activities of infection control practitioners during an
outbreak of Salmonella typhimurium. Am J Infect Control. 1989;17:159–161.
67. Frace RM, Jahre JA. Policy for managing a community infectious disease outbreak. Infect
68. Gellert GA, Tormay M, Rodriguez G, Brougher G, Dessey D, Pate C. Food-borne disease in
hospitals: prevention in a changing food environment. Am J Infect Control. 1989;17:136–140.
69. Petrosillo N, Puro V, DiCarlo A, Ippolito G. The initial hospital response to an epidemic. Arch
Med Res. 2005;36(6):706–712.
70. McDade JE, Franz D. Bioterrorism as a public health threat. Emerg Infect Dis. 1998;4:493–494.
71. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Update: investigation of bioterrorism-related
anthrax, 2001. MMWR. 2001;50(45):1008–1010.
72. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Medical examiners, coroners, and biologic ter-
rorism: a guidebook for surveillance and case management. MMWR. 2004;53(8):1–36.
73. Mahon BE, Rohn DD, Pack SR, Tauxe RV. Electronic communication facilitates investigation
of a highly dispersed foodborne outbreak: Salmonella on the superhighway. Emerg Infect Dis.
1995;1:94–95.
Additional Information
For additional information on investigating outbreaks in the healthcare setting, refer to the
Web sites of national, state, and provincial public health agencies and to the chapter on outbreak
investigation in one of the infection prevention and control texts (Bennett and Brachman, May-
hall, Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, and Wenzel) in the Sug-
gested Reading list.
Suggested Reading
APIC Text of Infection Control and Epidemiology. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Association for
Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology; 2005.
Beck-Sague C, Jarvis WR, Martone WJ. Outbreak investigations. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1997;18:138–145.
Heyman DL. Control of Communicable Diseases Manual. 18th ed. Washington, DC: American
Public Health Association; 2005.
Jarvis WR, ed. Bennett and Brachman’s Hospital Infections. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott
An Introduction to Applied Epidemiology and Biostatistics. 3rd ed. Atlanta, GA: Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Workforce and Career Development; 2005. p. 1–46.
http://www2a.cdc.gov/TCEOnline/registration/detailpage.asp?res_id=1394. Accessed May 12,
2008.
Dwyer DM, Strickler H, Goodman RA, Armenian HK. Use of case-control studies in outbreak
Mayhall CG. Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control. 3rd ed. Baltimore, MD: Lipincott,
Pickering LK, ed. Red Book: 2008 Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases, 27th ed. Elk
Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2008.
Reingold AL. Outbreak investigations—a perspective. Emerg Infect Dis. 1998;4:21–27.
Roueche B. The Medical Detectives. New York, NY: Washington Square Press; 1986.
Roueche B. The Medical Detectives, Vol. II. New York, NY: Washington Square Press; 1986.
Roueche B. The Medical Detectives. Reprint edition. New York, NY: Plume; 1991.
Smolinski MS, Hamburg MA, Lederberg J. eds. Committee on emerging microbial threats to
health in the 21st century. Microbial threats to health: emergence, detection, and response.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2003. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record
_id=10636. Accessed March 26, 2008.
Wallace RB. Public Health and Preventive Medicine (Maxcy-Rosenau-Last Public Health and
Preventive Medicine), 15th ed. Columbus: McGraw-Hill; 2007.
Wenzel RP, ed. Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections. 4th ed. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott
Resources
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Web site (http://www.cdc.gov) can be used to
access the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the online journal Emerging Infectious
Diseases, the Division of Healthcare Quality and Promotion, and other information on out-
breaks, infection prevention and control, and infectious diseases.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Epi Info. http://www.cdc.gov/epiinfo. Accessed
March13, 2008. Epi Info is free downloadable software that the user can use to develop a
questionnaire or form, customize the data entry process, enter and analyze data, and produce
epidemiologic statistics, tables, graphs, and maps.
CHAPTER 9
Information Technology and

Outbreak Investigation
Information technology is the use of modern technology to create, store,

exchange, and manipulate information and use this as a basis for reason-
ing, discussion, or calculation.
—L. Goss. APIC Text of Infection Control and Epidemiology1
INTRODUCTION
In 2003 news of an outbreak of a mysterious atypical pneumonia that was

causing much morbidity and mortality in the People’s Republic of China was
reported on the Program for Monitoring Emerging Diseases (ProMED)-mail.2
Details of the outbreak, which was affecting hundreds of people, including
nurses, doctors, and other healthcare workers, were rapidly transmitted
worldwide via the Internet. Within a few months, the illness, now known as
severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), had spread to over 20 countries in
Asia, North America, Europe, and South America.3 The information posted on
ProMED-mail provided the opportunity for information exchange among
numerous entities (public health agencies, professional organizations, and the
healthcare community) and allowed these groups to prospectively follow the
progression of the outbreak and rapidly contribute to the development of
infection control strategies to prevent further transmission of the disease.
The term information technology (IT), as used in this chapter, is the use of
computer systems (hardware, software, and Internet based) that are used to
collect, store, manipulate, analyze, report, and transmit data and information.
IT plays an increasingly essential role in infection surveillance, prevention,
and control programs. Events of the past decade, such as the emergence of
SARS and the intentional release of Bacillus anthracis spores in the United
States, have highlighted the critical need for accurate surveillance data and
rapid transfer of information when responding to outbreaks and other public
health emergencies.
This chapter focuses on the use of IT for detecting, investigating, preventing,
and controlling outbreaks in the healthcare setting. It provides an overview of
the role of IT in infection surveillance, prevention, and control programs in
healthcare settings; supplies information on public domain software programs
for outbreak investigation; gives examples of public health surveillance systems,
e-mail lists, and electronic notification and reporting systems; discusses the
313
314 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND OUTBREAK INVESTIGATION
use of electronic methods for conducting literature and information searches;

and provides a list of resources relating to outbreak investigation and infec-
tion prevention and control. The information is presented here under the
assumption that the reader knows how to use a personal computer, an e-mail
program, a search engine, and how to enter an address (i.e., a uniform
resource locator or URL) into a Web browser.
USING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR SURVEILLANCE IN

HEALTHCARE SETTINGS
The use of information technology for healthcare epidemiology and surveil-

lance has rapidly grown as a broad range of patient data has become accessible
electronically. As healthcare organizations expand their use of computerized
data management systems and electronic patient records, infection prevention
and control professionals (ICPs) gain the ability to access this data for use in
the surveillance of infections and other adverse events.
The traditional method of conducting surveillance solely by manual chart
review is labor intensive and time consuming. Because efficiency and accuracy
can be improved by computerizing the data collection, management, and
reporting processes, many manual surveillance steps have been effectively
replaced by information systems and computer programs.4–7 The time needed
to collect and analyze data is decreased, and more time is gained to guide
infection prevention activities. ICPs should routinely use computers to collect,
manage, store, review, analyze, and report data used for both routine surveil-
lance and outbreak investigation.
Data Collection, Management, and Storage
Because manual chart review is labor intensive, data collection should be

automated as much as possible. ICPs should work with the information ser-
vices personnel in their organization to identify how they can extract and
download data from a variety of sources, such as patient records, the labora-
tory, pharmacy, radiology, operating room, and admissions departments. For
instance, microbiology laboratory results and patient demographic data
should be provided electronically to the infection prevention and control
department. Ideally, these data should be downloaded directly into a retriev-
able database so they can be easily accessed for review and analysis.
Data collection is frequently done using paper forms; however, the data col-
lected on paper should be transferred into a computerized system. Storage on
paper forms should be avoided as much as possible because the data is not
readily retrievable for analysis if a cluster or outbreak is suspected. When data
are stored in a database program such as Microsoft Access it can be queried
and retrieved quickly when needed. Data stored in a spreadsheet program,
such as Microsoft Excel, can be manipulated and sorted using pivot tables.
Some ICPs enter data collected during chart review directly into a personal
notebook computer or a handheld device such as a personal digital assistant
(PDA).8
Public Domain Software for Outbreak Investigation 315
Data Review, Analysis, and Reporting
Routine surveillance data should be reviewed and analyzed with the aid of
computer programs that can sort and group the data for analysis and calcu-
late incidence rates and other statistics used in healthcare epidemiology, as
discussed in Chapter 10. The information derived from data analysis should
be reported using computer-generated tables, graphs, and charts, as appropri-
ate, as discussed in Chapter 12.
Computerized systems for screening patients for potential nosocomial or
healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and for automating infection surveil-
lance have been developed and effectively used by many hospitals.4,5,9–13 How-
ever, developing and maintaining these systems is beyond the ability of many
hospital information services departments, and in-house programs are not
widely used.14 Commercial programs for automated surveillance and data
mining are used by many healthcare organizations. At the time of press, these
include Premier SafetySurveillor (http://www.premierinc.com/quality-safety/
index.jsp), Vecna Technologies QC Pathfinder (http://www.vecna.com/), Thera-
Doc Infection Control Assistant (http://www.theradoc.com/), and Cardinal
Health’s MedMined (http://www.cardinalhealth.com/medmined/). These pro-
grams can provide real-time data access and reporting capabilities and will
alert the user if significant events, such as a cluster or potential outbreak, are
detected.15
In addition to automated and data mining systems, there are commercial
software programs for infection surveillance data management and reporting,
such as the ICPA AICE! programs (http://www.icpa.net), EpiQuest Healthcare
Epidemiology and Statistics programs (http://www.epiquest.com), and ICNet
software (http://www.icnet.org.uk).
The CDC National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) developed an Internet-
based data management and reporting system that is used by healthcare
organizations that submit data to the NHSN (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/
dhqp/nhsn_members.html).
The use of computerized data management and automated surveillance and
data mining systems in healthcare settings is expected to grow as regulators,
government agencies, and healthcare payers worldwide expand mandatory
reporting requirements for HAI-related data.
PUBLIC DOMAIN SOFTWARE FOR OUTBREAK INVESTIGATION
Two data management programs that are useful for investigating an out-
break are Epi Info and EpiData. Epi Info can store data and perform statisti-
cal analyses. Although it was developed for use in outbreak investigation, it is
used by some ICPs for routine surveillance activities.
Epi Info was developed by the CDC in the 1970s to allow public health per-
sonnel to efficiently manage data collected on-site during an outbreak investiga-
tion. Epi Info can be used to create data collection forms; store and analyze data;
perform a variety of statistical calculations; and produce tables, graphs, and
maps. Although Epi Info is a CDC trademark, the programs, documentation,
and teaching materials are in the public domain and may be freely copied, dis-
tributed, and translated. The various programs that are part of Epi Info are
available in Microsoft Windows and DOS formats. Information, tutorials, and
the Microsoft Windows version are available at http://www.cdc.gov/epiinfo/. A
DOS version, including user manual, frequently asked questions, and tutori-
als, is still available at http://www.cdc.gov/epiinfo/Epi6/ei6.htm.
EpiData software is based on Epi Info. An initiative to create the EpiData
software was established by Jens M. Lauritsen, MD, PhD, in 1999 in Denmark.
The goal was to produce a Windows-based version of Epi Info that uses simple
text files (ASCII) instead of the Microsoft Access database used by the Windows
version of Epi Info. The first version of EpiData software was released
in 2000. The EpiData Entry and EpiData Analysis software programs, includ-
ing supporting documents and a field guide (users manual), are available free
of charge through the EpiData Association at http://www.epidata.dk/index.htm.
USING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR PUBLIC HEALTH

SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS
Public health surveillance systems are used worldwide to collect and moni-
tor data on disease trends and to detect outbreaks. These systems may be
local, state, regional, or national. Many of the programs also have a mecha-
nism for disseminating information on outbreaks to public health agencies,
healthcare organizations, and healthcare providers.
One example is the CDC’s National Electronic Disease Surveillance System
(NEDSS). It is designed to detect outbreaks rapidly, facilitate the electronic
transfer of information from clinical information systems in the healthcare
system to public health departments, enhance both the timeliness and quality
of information provided, and advance the development of efficient and integrated
surveillance systems at federal, state, and local levels. NEDSS is a major com-
ponent of the CDC’s Public Health Information Network (PHIN) (http://www
.cdc.gov/phin/about.html).
Another example is the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Con-
trol’s Enter-Net. Enter-Net is an international surveillance network for human
gastrointestinal infections and involves 15 countries of the European Union
(EU), plus Australia, Canada, Japan, South Africa, Switzerland, and Norway
(http://ecdc.europa.eu/Activities/surveillance/ENTER_NET/index.html).
There are many state, local, and regional public health agency surveillance
programs. Each state in the United States has a public health agency that is
responsible for collecting data on notifiable diseases and providing guidelines
for infection prevention and control. Contact information and a link to state
and territory public health agency Web sites can be obtained at StatePub-
licHealth.org (http://www.statepublichealth.org/index.php). Links to state
health departments can also be found on the CDC Web site (http://www.cdc
.gov/mmwR/international/relres.html).
Another surveillance system is the World Health Organization Global Out-
break Alert and Response Network (GOARN). GOARN is a network of public
health agencies and technical and operational resources from scientific insti-
Electronic Notification, Reporting Systems, and E-mail Lists 317
tutions in member states, laboratories, United Nations organizations, the Red

Cross, and international humanitarian nongovernmental organizations that
pool human and technical resources for the rapid identification, confirmation,
and response to outbreaks of international importance (http://www.who
.int/csr/outbreaknetwork/en/).
In addition to surveillance for specific diseases, syndromic surveillance is
used in many countries to monitor disease trends at the local, state, regional,
and national levels by collecting data on disease syndromes.16–26 Syndrome
surveillance systems collect information such as patient signs, symptoms, and
laboratory results before final diagnoses are made. Although data is frequently
collected from health information systems already in place in emergency
departments, some programs monitor over-the-counter medications purchased
at pharmacies and stores.27 The purpose of syndrome surveillance is to provide
an early detection system for naturally occurring or terrorism-related events
and outbreaks. There is much variation in existing syndrome surveillance pro-
grams and their ability to detect outbreaks and other events of public health
significance; many of these systems are still evolving.28,29
ELECTRONIC NOTIFICATION, REPORTING SYSTEMS,

AND E-MAIL LISTS
Many government agencies and infection prevention and control organiza-

tions have electronic systems that send or receive information on outbreaks.
Some are set up only to send alerts to users, and some are capable of two-way
communication. Several systems that are useful for ICPs and epidemiologists
in healthcare settings are listed here.
Notification systems may use e-mail alerts and/or RSS (rich site summary
or really simple syndication) feeds to send notification to users about out-
breaks and other public health issues. It is easy to subscribe to these services
by going to the Web site of the organization, clicking on the box or link to the
specific system and following the instructions.
To receive RSS feeds on a computer, one must first install a program called a
news reader or feed reader that will allow the RSS feed from the sender to be
received and displayed. There are many different news readers available for
free download or purchase on the Internet. The sender’s Web site will provide
instructions for those who wish to subscribe to the RSS feed and install the
reader needed for its system. A feed reader allows the user to subscribe to
news, blogs, and other frequently updated content and view the new informa-
tion separate from an e-mail inbox. RSS feeds can also be read on PDAs and
cell phones.
E-mail lists are programs that allow subscribers to send an e-mail to one
address from which that message is broadcast to all of the other subscribers to
the list.
Examples of notification systems and e-mail lists are:
• Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Public Health Pre-
paredness Update—The AHRQ provides e-mail alerts to subscribers
when it updates its Public Health Emergency Preparedness Web site
(http://www.ahrq.gov/prep/). Subscribe at https://subscriptions.ahrq

.gov/service/user.html?code=USAHRQ.
• APICList—The APICList is a moderated e-mail list provided by the Asso-
ciation for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology that is open
to those interested in infection prevention and control. Subscribe at http://
www.apic.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Networking_and_Communities&
Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=9479.
• CDC Clinician Communication Updates—This free communication net-
work was developed by the CDC to provide clinicians with real-time infor-
mation to help prepare for (and possibly respond to) public health
emergencies. Subscribers receive regular e-mail updates on terrorism and
other emergency issues. Subscribe at http://www.bt.cdc.gov/clinregistry.
• CDC Rapid Notification System for Healthcare Professionals—The CDC
Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion (formerly Hospital Infections
Program) provides occasional time-sensitive e-mail messages about impor-
tant healthcare events (e.g., outbreaks, product recalls) and publications
(e.g., new health care guidelines) to persons interested in the prevention
of healthcare-acquired infections and antimicrobial resistance. Subscribe
either at http://www2.cdc.gov/ncidod/hip/rns/hip_rns_subscribe.html or
address an e-mail to [email protected]. Leave the subject line blank
and in the message box type: subscribe HIP-RNS. The RNS is not an inter-
active system; however, in September 2007 the CDC used this e-mail list to
solicit reports of infections or clusters of infections that occurred in total
joint recipients and were caused by Enterococcus galinarum or E. fae-
cium. The CDC was collecting information for an investigation that it was
conducting on a cluster of deep surgical site infections caused by these
organisms.
• FDA MedWatch—MedWatch, the US Food and Drug Administration’s
Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program, has two
functions:
1. To provide information about safety issues involving medical prod-
ucts, biologics, medical devices, and special nutritional products (e.g.,
medical foods, dietary supplements, and infant formulas) to con-
sumers and healthcare professionals. The program distributes alerts
on contaminated medical products, such as intravenous solutions, and
suspected outbreaks associated with medical devices and products.
Safety alerts, recalls, and withdrawals are disseminated via the Med-
Watch Web site (http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/index.html) and the
MedWatch E-list. One can subscribe to the MedWatch E-list at
http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/elist.htm.
2. To collect reports on serious adverse events and suspected product
quality problems, such as contamination of a medical device or prod-
uct. Healthcare providers should report these events to the Adverse
Event Reporting Program through links on the MedWatch home page
as noted.
• Health Canada’s Consumer Product Safety (CPS) division has a program
for providing advisories, warnings, and recalls to subscribers via e-mail or
RSS feeds (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/advisories-avis/index_e.html).
Using IT for Literature and Information Searches 319
• ProMED-mail—the Program for Monitoring Emerging Diseases was

established in 1994 and is now a program of the International Society for
Infectious Diseases. According to its Web site, ProMED-mail is “an Inter-
net-based reporting system dedicated to rapid global dissemination of
information on outbreaks of infectious diseases and acute exposures to
toxins that affect human health . . . By providing early warning of out-
breaks of emerging and re-emerging diseases, public health precautions
at all levels can be taken in a timely manner to prevent epidemic trans-
mission and to save lives.” A team of moderators posts reports to ProMED
from various sources, including public health agencies, the media, local
observers, and ProMED-mail subscribers. The ProMED program provides
a platform for discussion, requests for information, and collaboration in
outbreak investigations and prevention efforts. One can subscribe to
ProMED-mail at http://www.promedmail.org.
USING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR LITERATURE AND

INFORMATION SEARCHES
One of the first steps in an outbreak investigation is to conduct a search of

the literature and other resources. A literature search should provide a review
of previous research and experience on a particular disease or infectious agent.
For an outbreak investigation, the purpose of the search is to identify the fol-
lowing: if other healthcare organizations have had a similar experience with
the implicated organism; risk factors for exposure to the suspected causative
agent or disease; sources, reservoirs, and modes of transmission for the agent;
potential case definitions; and effective prevention and control measures.30–32
Information that can be used when conducting an outbreak investigation can
be found in a variety of formats such as medical journals, books, the Internet,
electronic databases and indexes, and government and public health agency
publications. The most efficient method for doing a literature search is to access
the many sources on the Internet by using a personal computer. An advantage
of using a computer in a medical or public library is that library personnel can
assist the investigator in conducting the literature and information search.
Medical Literature Search Services
Ideally, literature searches should be conducted electronically by using a

medical literature search service. General search engines, such as Google and
Yahoo!, can also be used to identify relevant information; however, a medical
literature search service is more efficient than a general search engine for
accessing peer-reviewed medical publications. There are many medical litera-
ture search services that provide access to comprehensive databases of infor-
mation. Some are available free of charge and others are subscription-based.
All of the following services described provide information and tutorials at the
URL addresses provided.
Examples of search services that are free of charge include PubMed and
Google Scholar.
PubMed is a free service of the US National Library of Medicine and the
National Institutes of Health that includes over 17 million citations from
MEDLINE (approximately 5000 worldwide journals in 37 languages) and

other life science journals for biomedical articles back to the 1950s. PubMed
provides abstracts and links to full-text articles and other related resources.
Some publishers provide access to full-text articles at no cost through
PubMed. An overview of PubMed and a tutorial on how to use the service can
be accessed through the PubMed home page (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
PubMed). PubMed can provide e-mail alerts to update the user on new articles
relating to a query.
Google Scholar is a free service of Google that provides the ability to broadly
search for scholarly literature from a variety of sources: peer-reviewed papers,
theses, books, abstracts and articles from academic publishers, professional
societies, universities, and other organizations. The Google Scholar home page
(http://scholar.google.com) provides a Help button to access information on
how to use the program.
Subscription-based search services provide access to a broader range of
sources for a fee. Examples include Scopus and ISI Web of Knowledge.
Scopus is a subscription-based service that provides an abstract and citation
database of research literature and Web sources that offers access to 15,000
peer-reviewed journals from more than 4000 publishers and includes journals,
conference proceedings, trade publications, and book series. Scopus can pro-
vide e-mail alerts to update the user on new articles relating to a query
(http://info.scopus.com).
ISI Web of Knowledge is a subscription-based service that provides access
to 22,000 journals and to conference proceedings, Web sites, and books (http://
isiwebofknowledge.com).
Journals and Periodicals on the World Wide Web
Many peer-reviewed journals and periodicals that are used by ICPs and
healthcare epidemiologists when gathering information on outbreaks and
infection prevention and control can be accessed via the Internet.33 In addi-
tion, one can register on each of the Web sites noted here to receive the table of
contents of each issue at no cost via e-mail or RSS feed.
Many journals provide links to their table of contents, abstracts, articles in
current and past issues, and related information. Although the table of con-
tents, abstracts, and links to related information are available to all at no cost,
most of the full-text articles are only available for free to subscribers. Exam-
ples of these journals include the following:
• American Journal of Infection Control—the official journal of APIC:

http://journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/ymic
• British Journal of Infection Control—the official journal of the Infection
Prevention Society (formerly the Infection Control Nurses Association):
http://bji.sagepub.com
• Clinical Infectious Diseases—published by the Infectious Diseases Society
of America: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/cid/current
• Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology—the official journal of the
Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA): http://www.journals
.uchicago.edu/toc/iche/current
Other Sources of Information on the Internet 321
• Journal of Hospital Infections—the official journal of the Hospital Infec-

tion Society (HIS): http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription
.cws_home/623052/description#description
Free or open access online journals that are peer-reviewed and provide
abstracts, full text of the articles at no cost, and links to related information
include:
• BMJ (British Medical Journal)—published by BMJ Publishing Group
Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of the British Medical Association: http://
www.bmj.com
• BMC Public Health—an open access journal published by BioMed Cen-
tral: http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcpublichealth
• BMC Microbiology—an open access journal published by BioMed Central:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcmicrobiol
• Emerging Infectious Diseases—published by the CDC: http://www.cdc
.gov/NCIDOD/eid
Public health agency periodicals that are available online and provide free
subscriptions and electronic notification when each issue is published include:
• Canada Communicable Disease Report (CCDR): http://www.phac-aspc
.gc.ca/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/index-eng.php
• Eurosurveillance Report: http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ew/2007/070621
.asp
• Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR): http://www.cdc.gov/
mmwr/
OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET
Web sites that provide access to public health and infection prevention and
control information have proliferated since the 1990s. This section lists addi-
tional examples of resources that are useful for outbreak detection, investiga-
tion, reporting, prevention, and control in the healthcare setting.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Division of Healthcare Quality

and Promotion (DHQP)—The CDC DHQP provides guidelines for preventing
infections in patients and healthcare workers, information on organisms of
epidemiological importance, such as Clostridium difficile and MRSA, and
links to a variety of resources.
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)—The ECDC

was established in 2005 to “identify, assess, and communicate current and
emerging threats to human health posed by infectious diseases.” It works in
partnership with national health protection agencies across Europe to
strengthen and develop disease surveillance and early warning systems.
Links to the various EU surveillance systems are on the ECDC Web site under
Activities/Surveillance. A discussion of the EU Disease Surveillance Networks
and their Web sites can be found in the May 2006 issue of Eurosurveillance
Report34 (http://ecdc.europa.eu/index.html).
Public Health Agency Web Sites—Many state, regional and national public
health agencies worldwide develop guidelines for investigating and prevent-
ing outbreaks in healthcare settings and post these on their Web sites. Ex-
amples include:
• California Department of Public Health—offering their Healthcare-

Associated Infections and Infection Control Guidelines, including in-
vestigating and preventing outbreaks in long-term care and residential
facilities: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/pubsforms/Guidelines /Pages/HAIandIC.
aspx
• Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene—Epidemiology and
Disease Control Program (EDCP). Infection prevention and control guide-
lines for a variety of settings, including outbreak investigations in LTCFS:
http://www.cha.state.md.us /edcp/html/cd_guide.html
• State Government of Victoria, Australia, Department of Human Ser-
vices—Guidelines for the Investigation of Gastrointestinal Illness. Pro-
vides guidelines for investigating, controlling, and preventing outbreaks
of gastrointestinal illness: http://www.health.vic.gov.au/ideas/diseases/
gas_ill_index
Web Search Engines—Web search engines are programs that search, gather,
and return information on the World Wide Web in response to a query from a
user. The Spider’s Apprentice: A Helpful Guide to Search Engines describes
search engines and their use (http://www.monash.com/spidap.html). Com-
monly used search engines include Google (http://www.google.com/), Yahoo!
(http://www.yahoo .com/), and Ask (http://www.ask.com/).
World Health Organization Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response (EPR)—
The EPR provides information on, and links to, international alert and
response operations, diseases monitored by WHO, the Global Outbreak Alert
and Response Network, and the 2005 International Health Regulations
(http://www.who.int/csr/en/). It also provides information and links to resources
on its Web page “Infection prevention and control in healthcare for prepared-
ness and response to outbreaks” (http://www.who.int/csr/bioriskreduction
/ infection_control/en/).
WWW Virtual Library: Medicine and Health—Epidemiology—This site is

maintained by the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the Uni-
versity of California, San Francisco. It provides links to government and pub-
lic health agencies, professional societies and organizations, news and
discussion groups, universities, and other related sites worldwide (http://www
.epibiostat.ucsf.edu/epidem/epidem.html).
Additional Information—Additional Web-based resources can be found in

many of the Suggested Reading and Resources sections at the end of the chap-
ters in this text.
References 323
SUMMARY
Events of the past decade, such as the rapid global spread of SARS and its
transmission to healthcare providers in several countries, have highlighted
the need for accurate surveillance data and rapid transfer of information
when responding to outbreaks and other public health emergencies. IT plays a
critical role in identifying HAI and in detecting, investigating, and responding
to outbreaks in both the healthcare and community settings. ICPs should use
the wide variety of IT resources available and should work to automate as
many surveillance activities as possible. Using IT to collect, manage, analyze,
and report surveillance data reduces the time needed to perform these tasks
and subsequently provides more time for infection prevention activities and
investigating clusters and potential outbreaks.
REFERENCES
1. Goss LK. Information technology. In: APIC Text of Infection Control and Epidemiology.
2nd ed. Washington, DC: Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology.
2005;33–2.
2. ProMED-mail. Pneumonia-China (Guangdong). ProMed-mail 2002; 11 February:
20030211.0369. http://www.promedmail.org. Accessed March 29, 2008.
3. Outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome—worldwide, 2003. MMWR. 2003;52:226–228.
[Erratum in: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2003;52:284].
4. Bates DW, Evans RS, Murff H, Stetson PD, Pizziferri L, Hripcsak G. Detecting adverse
events using information technology. Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003;10(2):115–128.
5. Bellini C, Petignat C, Francioloi P, et al. Comparison of automated strategies for surveillance
of nosocomial bacteremia. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28:1030–1035.
6. Wisniewski M, Kieszkowski P, Zagorski B, et al. Development of a clinical data warehouse for
hospital infection control. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003;10:454–462.
7. Haas JP, Mendonca EA, Ross B, Friedman C, Larson E. Use of computerized surveillance to
detect nosocomial pneumonia in neonatal intensive care unit patients. Am J Infect Control.
2005;33:439–443.
8. Farley JE, Srinivasin A, Richards A, Song X, McEachen J, Perl TM. Handheld computer sur-
veillance: shoe-leather epidemiology in the ‘‘palm’’ of your hand. Am J Infect Control.
2005;33:444–449.
9. Doherty J, Noirot LA, Mayfield J, et al. Implementing GermWatcher, an enterprise infection
control application. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006;209–213.
10. Carr JR, Fitzpatrick P, Izzo JL, et al. Changing the infection control paradigm from off-line to
real time: the experience at Millard Fillmore Health System. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1997;18(4):255–259.
11. Evans RS, Larsen RA, Burke JP, et al. Computer surveillance of hospital-acquired infections
and antibiotic use. JAMA. 1986;256:1007–1011.
12. Kahn MG, Steib SA, Fraser VJ, Dunagan WC. An expert system for culture-based infection
control surveillance. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1993;171–175.
13. Pokorny L, Rovira A, Martín-Baranera M, Gimeno C, Alonso-Tarres C, Vilarasau J. Automatic
detection of patients with nosocomial infection by a computer-based surveillance system: a
validation study in a general hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006;27:500–503.
14. Peterson D. Automating infection surveillance efforts. Accurate outbreak data can cut costs,
antibiotics use. Mater Manag Health Care. 2007;16:17–19.
15. Wright MO, Perencevich EN, Novak C, et al. Preliminary assessment of an automated sur-
veillance system for infection control. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004;25(4):325–332.
16. Muscatello DJ, Churches T, Kaldor J, et al. An automated, broad-based, near real-time public
health surveillance system using presentations to hospital emergency departments in New
South Wales, Australia. BMC Public Health. 2005;5:141. http://www.biomedcentral.com/
1471-2458/5/141. Accessed March 30, 2008.
17. Cooper D, Smith G, Baker M, et al. National symptom surveillance using calls to a telephone
health advice service—United Kingdom, December 2001–February 2003. MMWR. 2004;
53(Suppl):179–183.
18. Tsung-Shu Joseph Wu, Fuh-Yuan Frank Shih, Muh-Yong Yen, et al. Establishing a nation-
wide emergency department-based syndromic surveillance system for better public health
responses in Taiwan. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:18. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-
2458/8/18. Accessed March 30, 2008.
19. Lombardo J, Burkom H, Elbert E, et al. A systems overview of the electronic surveillance sys-
tem for the early notification of community-based epidemics (ESSENCE II). J Urban Health.
2003;80(2 Suppl 1):i32–i42.
20. Yuan CM, Love S, Wilson M. Syndromic surveillance at hospital emergency departments–
Southeastern Virginia. MMWR. 2004;53(Suppl):56–58.
21. Hammond L, Papadopoulos S, Johnson C, Mawhinney S, Nelson B, Todd J. Use of an Internet-
based community surveillance network to predict seasonal communicable disease morbidity.
Pediatrics. 2002;109(3):414–418.
22. Heffernan R, Mostashari F, Das D, et al. New York City syndromic surveillance systems.
MMWR. 2004;53(Suppl):23–27.
23. Lewis M, Pavlin J, Mansfield J, et al. Disease outbreak detection system using syndromic
data in the greater Washington, DC area. Am J Prev Med. 2002;23(3):180–186.
24. Tsui F, Espino J, Dato V, Gesteland P, Hutman J, Wagner M. Technical description of RODS: a
real-time public health surveillance system. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003;10:399–408.
25. Dembek Z, Carley K, Siniscalchi A, Hadler J. Hospital admissions syndromic surveillance-
Connecticut, September 2001–November 2003. MMWR. 2004;53(Suppl):50–52.
26. Platt R, Bocchino C, Caldwell B, et al. Syndromic surveillance using minimum transfer of
identifiable data: the example of the national bioterrorism syndromic surveillance demon-
stration program. J Urban Health. 2003;80(2 Suppl 1):i25–i31.
27. Wagner M, Robinson J, Tsui F, Espino J, Hogan W. Design of a national retail data monitor
for public health surveillance. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003;10:409–418.
28. Mandl KD, Overhage M, Wagner MM, et al. Implementing syndromic surveillance: a practi-
cal guide informed by the early experience. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004;11(2):141–150.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=14633933.
Accessed March 30, 2008.
29. Watkins RE, Eagleson S, Hall RG, Dailey L, Plant AJ. Approaches to the evaluation of out-
break detection methods. BMC Pub Health. 2006;6:263. http://www.biomedcentral.com/
1471-2458/6/263. Accessed March 30, 2008.
30. Gastmeier P, Stamm-Balderjahn S, Hansen S, et al. How outbreaks can contribute to preven-
tion of nosocomial infection: analysis of 1022 outbreaks. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
2005;26:357–361.
31. Gastmeier P, Stamm-Balderjahn S, Hansen S, et al. Where should one search when con-
fronted with outbreaks of nosocomial infection? Am J Infect Control. 2006;34:603–605.
32. Gastmeier P, Loui A, Stamm-Balderjahn S, et al. Outbreaks in neonatal intensive care
units—they are not like others. Am J Infect Control. 2007;35:172–176.
33. Abbas UL, Yu VL. Infectious diseases journals on the world wide web: attractions and limita-
tions. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;33:817–828. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/
322701. Accessed April 1, 2008.
34. Lenglet A, Hernández Pezzi G. Comparison of the European Union Disease Surveillance Net-
works’ websites. Euro Surveill. 2006;11(5):119–122. http://www.eurosurveillance.org/em/
v11n05/1105-227.asp. Accessed March 31, 2008.
Suggested Reading 325
SUGGESTED READING
Goss LK. Information technology. In: APIC Text of Infection Control and Epidemiology. 2nd ed.
Washington, DC: Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology; 2005.
Woeltje KF. Use of computerized systems in health care epidemiology. In: Jarvis WR, ed.
Bennett and Brachman’s Hospital Infections. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams &
Wilkins; 2007;121–128.
CHAPTER 10
Statistical Methods Used in

Outbreak Investigation
Deborah Y. Phillips and Kathleen Meehan Arias
The source(s) and route(s) of exposure must be determined to understand

why an outbreak occurred, how to prevent similar outbreaks in the future,
and, if the outbreak is ongoing, how to prevent others from being exposed
to the source(s) of infection.
—Arthur L. Reingold1
INTRODUCTION
It can be challenging to have a sense that there is an outbreak occurring

and yet have little or no data to substantiate this belief. Basic statistical meth-
ods can be used to organize, summarize, and analyze data to determine if
there are trends or associations in observations. Statistical methods allow
the researcher to find the answers to epidemiologic questions such as the
following:
• Are there more cases of a disease than usual or expected? (The term dis-
ease is used in this chapter to describe an adverse health-related event
such as an infection, illness, or injury.)
• Is there a cause-and-effect relationship between an exposure and a disease?
• Could the event be random occurrence?
This chapter includes a basic description of the statistical measures used to
describe and analyze an outbreak and is intended to be an introduction to the
statistical methods commonly used in healthcare epidemiology, such as fre-
quency measures and measures of central tendency, association, and disper-
sion. It includes a brief discussion on the use of analytic studies (cohort and
case-control studies) and on statistical inference theory (including the con-
cepts of hypothesis testing, probability, and statistical significance). Since a
thorough discussion of each of these concepts cannot be accomplished in one
chapter, the reader who wishes to obtain more information on these topics is
referred to the references noted and to the resources listed in the Suggested
Reading and Other Resources sections at the end of this chapter. 2–7
Numerous computer database and statistical programs are available, and
these have virtually eliminated the need to calculate complicated statistical
formulas by hand or by using a handheld calculator. Nevertheless, those
responsible for implementing infection prevention and control and quality
management programs in healthcare settings still need to be familiar with the
327
328 STATISTICAL METHODS USED IN OUTBREAK INVESTIGATION
statistical measures discussed in this chapter and when these measures are to
be used.
When investigating an outbreak, the investigator begins by using descrip-
tive statistics to describe the person, place, and time characteristics of the out-
break, as described in Chapter 8. If the most likely risk factors responsible for
the outbreak cannot be identified during the descriptive phase, then an ana-
lytic study may be designed and conducted. An analytic study attempts to
associate potential risk factors or exposures with the development of disease
and to determine the strength of that association. Case-control or cohort stud-
ies are the analytic study methods that are most frequently used in outbreak
investigations to compare rates of disease in various populations in order to
determine which exposures or risk factors are most likely responsible for the
disease. Although the investigator must be familiar with the use and limita-
tions of these studies, the authors recommend that a statistician be consulted
if advanced statistical analysis is necessary when conducting an outbreak
investigation.
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
Frequency Measures
Frequency measures are used to characterize the occurrence and risk of dis-
ease in a given population during a specified time period. The frequency mea-
sures commonly used in healthcare epidemiology are ratios, proportions, and
rates. These three measures are based on the same formula:
x/y 10n
in which x (the numerator) and y (the denominator) are the two groups that
are being compared, and 10n is a constant that is used to transform the result
to a convenient number (usually a number that has at least one digit to the
left of the decimal place).
Ratios and Proportions

A ratio is a fraction in which the values in the numerator are not necessar-
ily included in the denominator. This means that a ratio can be used to
express the relationship between a x and a y when the two have independent
values. One may use a ratio to indicate a relationship between two groups.
The odds ratio and the risk ratio (or relative risk), which are discussed later
in the chapter, are commonly used to measure associations between two
groups.
A proportion is a type of ratio in which the values in the numerator are
included in the denominator. A proportion is often expressed as a percent-
age. For example, in a sample of 69 case patients who developed a catheter-
associated UTI over a 1-year period, 46 cases are females and 23 cases are
males.
Descriptive Statistics 329
To calculate the ratio of female cases to male cases, the following formula is
used:
x/y 100
in which x is 46 female cases, y is 23 male cases, and the constant is 1 (i.e.,

n = 0 and 100 = 1).
The ratio of females to males would be 46/23 1 = 2/1. Thus there are two
females for each male who developed a catheter-associated UTI. Note that the
values in the numerator (the female patients) are not included in the denomi-
nator (the male patients).
To calculate the proportion of cases who are males, the following formula is
used:
x/y 100
in which x is equal to 23 male cases, y is equal to 69 total cases who have a

catheter-associated UTI, and 100 is equal to 1.
The proportion of cases who are males would be 23/69 1 = 1/3. This means
that one in every three cases is male. If 10n is 102 (100), then the proportion
can be expressed as a percentage: 23/69 100 = 33%. In this calculation, the
values in the numerator (the male cases) are included in the denominator (the
total number of cases).
Rates
As Last explains, “Rates describe the frequency with which events occur.” In
other words, a rate measures the occurrence of an event in a defined popula-
tion over time. Rates are used to track trends, such as the occurrence of HAIs,
over time. The rates most frequently used in healthcare epidemiology are inci-
dence, prevalence, and attack rates. When an increase in a disease or other
health-related event is suspected, rates can be calculated and used to deter-
mine if there is a change in the occurrence of disease from one period of time
to the next.
Incidence rates. Incidence rates are used to measure and compare the fre-
quency of new cases or events in a population. The formula is as follows:
the number of new cases that occur in a defined period

Incidence rate = 10n.
the population at risk during the same period
One type of frequency measure is incidence density, which incorporates

time (such as person-years, person-days, or device-days) in the denominator.
This gives a more accurate reflection of the population at risk when the likeli-
hood of developing a disease increases as the time of exposure increases. Inci-
dence density is commonly used to calculate the incidence of HAIs because
the risk of developing an infection increases as the length of time of exposure
to medical devices and the healthcare environment increases, as discussed in
Chapter 2. HAI rates are generally expressed as the number of infections per
1000 person-days (such as patient-days or resident-days) or per 1000 device-
days. Incidence density rates used to express the incidence of HAIs that are
associated with medical devices, such as mechanical ventilators or intravas-
cular catheters, are commonly expressed as the number of infections per 1000
device-days (such as 3.2 central line-associated bloodstream infections per
1000 central line-days). The formula is as follows:
the number of new cases that occur in a defined period

Incidence density = 10n
the time each person in population at risk is observed,
totaled for all persons
in which 10n is usually 1000 (to provide uniformity of results and to have the
final value displayed with at least one digit to the left of the decimal point).
Another type of incidence rate, attack rate, is an incidence rate that is
expressed as cases per 100 population (or as a percentage). It is used to
describe the new cases of disease that have been observed in a particular
group during a limited time period in special circumstances, such as during an
epidemic. The formula is as follows:
the number of new cases in a population in a specified time period

Attack rate = 100.
the population at risk at the beginning of time period
For example, a newborn nursery reports 17 infants with loose stools in 1

month. During this month, there were 120 patients and 480 patient-days in
the newborn nursery. Using the formula above, the incidence rate would be
calculated as follows:
17 cases of loose stools in one month

100 = 0.142 100 = 14.2 cases per 100 patients.
120 patients in newborn nursery
during the month
In this example, the incidence rate is expressed as an attack rate (i.e., 14.2%
of patients were affected) because n = 2 and 10n = 102 or 100. Using the for-
mula above, the incidence density would be calculated as follows:
17 cases of loose stools in 1 month

1000 = 0.0354 1000 = 35.4 cases per 1000 patient-days
480 patient-days in the
same month
To determine if this incidence is higher than expected, this rate can be com-
pared to the rates for the prior months. Sometimes it may not even be neces-
sary to calculate a rate to determine if an event is unusual; it may be apparent
if the disease is rare (such as an HAI with group A streptococcus). For example,
during a 2-month period there were 175 patients admitted to the medical/
surgical intensive care unit. 40 of the patients subsequently developed an
influenza-like illness (ILI). 80 of the patients were medical patients, and the
remainder were surgical patients. Of the 40 patients with ILI, 30 were med-
ical patients. The patient-days for this period were 450 for medical patients
and 110 for surgical patients.
The overall attack rate for ILI on the unit would be calculated as follows:
40/175 100 = 22.8%.
The ILI attack rate for medical patients would be calculated as follows:
30/80 100 = 37.5%.
The ILI attack rate for surgical patients would be calculated as follows:
10/95 100 = 10.5%
(i.e., 40 total patients with ILI – 30 medical patients with ILI / 175 total
patients on unit – 80 medical patients 100 = 10.5%).
The incidence density of ILI infection for medical patients would be calcu-
lated as follows:
30/450 1000 patient-days = 66.7 ILI cases per 1000 patient-days.
The incidence density of ILI infection for surgical patients would be calcu-
lated as follows:
10/110 1000 patient-days = 90.9 ILI cases per 1000 patient-days.
When analyzing the incidence of infections over time among patients on a

healthcare unit, an investigator should calculate the incidence density using
patient-days as the denominator, because incidence density (which includes a
measurement of risk over time) more accurately reflects the population at risk
than the incidence rate.
Finally, in determining incidence rates, numerators and denominators
must be chosen with care. As soon as an outbreak is suspected, cases should
be identified using a case definition. When calculating incidence rates, the
cases are included in the numerator data. Those in the population at risk are
placed in the denominator data. It is important that those who are identified
as the population at risk (i.e., the denominator) are free of the disease at the
beginning of the study period. The selection of an appropriate denominator is
one of the most important aspects of measuring disease frequency, as dis-
cussed in Chapter 2.
Prevalence rate. Prevalence is a measure of the number of (new and old)
cases present in a specified population either during a given period of time
(period prevalence) or at a given point in time (point prevalence). The formula
for calculating the prevalence rate is as follows:
all new and old cases present for a given period or a given point in time
Prevalence rate = 10n.
population at risk during same time period
A prevalence rate is used to describe the current status of active disease at

a particular time in a particular population. It is sometimes helpful to
review the incidence and prevalence simultaneously. A low incidence (new
cases) may be due to a high prevalence (new and old cases present) in a
given population. For instance, if the incidence of infection or colonization
with MRSA is relatively low on a patient care unit, but colonized patients
remain in this unit for prolonged periods, an explanation for the low inci-
dence (number of new cases) may be the high prevalence. This is because
there are very few patients who are at risk, or free of MRSA, to become a
new case.
Under stable conditions, that is, when incidence is not changing, the follow-
ing formula can be used to show the relationship between incidence and
prevalence9:
P=ID
where P is prevalence, I is incidence, and D is the average duration of disease.

A high prevalence of disease in a population can occur if the incidence is high
or if the duration of disease is long (such as occurs with chronic diseases or
long-term colonization or infection with an infectious agent).
Adjusting rates. The rates of two dissimilar populations should not be com-
pared unless the rates are adjusted for appropriate risk factors, such as age,
gender, underlying medical conditions, or other factors that affect the risk of
disease. For instance, rates of infection in a population exposed to a medical
device are frequently risk-adjusted by incorporating into the denominator the
number of days the medical device is in use (e.g., rates of central line-associated
bloodstream infections are calculated using central line-days as the denomina-
tor). Similarly, rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia are calculated using
ventilator-days as the denominator. The CDC’s NHSN is an example of a sur-
veillance system in which rates are risk-adjusted to allow for interfacility com-
parison.10
Measures of Central Tendency
Measures of central tendency describe the values around the middle of a set
of data. The mean, median, and mode are the principal measures of central
tendency.
Mean
The mean is the mathematical average of the values in a set of data. The
formula is as follows:
Σ xi
x– =
n
in which Σxi is the sum of the individual values in a set and n is the number of
values in the set. For example, if the ages among 5 cases in an outbreak are
11, 7, 5, 3, and 4 years, then the mean is:
11 + 7 + 5+ 3 + 4
= 30/5 = 6 years.
5
The value of the mean is affected by extreme values in the data set. For
example, if a 65 year-old patient is added to the cases in the above data set, the
mean, or average, would increase to 15.8 years [(11 + 7 + 5+ 3 + 4 + 65)/6].
When extreme values are in a data set, the data become skewed and the mean
does not give a representative picture of the data, as shown in Figure 10–1.
When there are extreme values in a data set, the median should be calculated.
Median
The median is the middle point—the value at which half the measurements
lie below the value and half the measurements lie above the value.8(p80) The
median is useful when there are extreme values in a data set (i.e., the data are
skewed).
The median in a data set is calculated as follows:
1. Rank-order the values in either ascending or descending order.
2. Identify the midpoint of the sequence.
a. If there are an odd number of values, the median is the middle value.
For example, in the ranked data set is 11, 7, 5, 4, and 3, the median is
the middle value of 5.
b. If there are an even number of values, then the midpoint between the
two middle values is calculated. For example, if the ages in the ranked
data set are 11, 7, 6, 5, 4, and 3 years, then the median is the midpoint
between the two middle values of the set (6 and 5) or (6 + 5)/2 = 5.5
years.
Figure 10–1 Effect of Skewness on the Mean, Median, and Mode

Mode
The mode is the most frequently occurring value in a set of observations. For
example, if the ages in a group of controls are 5, 6, 7, 7, 7, 8, and 12, then the
mode would be 7.
Some data sets are characterized as bimodal, or having two modes. For
example, a sample of ages of cases consisting of the values 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5,
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, and 13 would be bimodal, the two modes being 5 and 9
years of age. Some authors have described such a distribution by identifying
the major and the minor modes (in this case, the value 5 would be the major
mode because it occurs six times, and the value 9 would be the minor mode
because it occurs five times). The mode is less affected by skewness (outliers)
than is the mean or the median. Mode is infrequently used as a measure of
central tendency, particularly in small data sets.
Skewness
In a normal (symmetric) distribution, the mean, median, and mode have the
same value as shown in Figure 10–1a. A curve or histogram that is not sym-
metrical is referred to as skewed or asymmetrical, as shown in Figure 10–1b.
A curve that is said to be negatively skewed, as shown in Figure 10–1b, has a
tail off to the left and most of the values lie above (to the right of ) the mean.
The mean is less than the median, which is less than the mode. In contrast, a
positively skewed curve would depict a mirror image of this, and the mean is
greater than the median, which will be greater than the mode (and the
median and mode are to the left of the mean).
Measures of Dispersion
The measures of dispersion describe the distribution of values in a data set

around its mean. The most commonly used measures of dispersion are range,
deviation, variance, and standard deviation.
Range
The difference between the highest and lowest values in a data set is termed
the range.8(p110) For example, if the length of antibiotic use among cases is 7, 8,
9, 10, and 14 days; the range is 14 – 7 = 7 days.
Deviation
The deviation is the difference between an individual measurement in a
data set and the mean value for the set. It is expressed as follows:
deviation = xi – x–
in which xi is the ith observation and x– is the mean.

A measurement may have no deviation (it is equal to the mean), a negative
deviation (it is less than the mean), or a positive deviation (it is greater than
the mean).
Variance
The variance measures the deviation around the mean of a distribution. It is
also called the mean sum of squares or mean square because it is the sum of the
squares of deviations from the mean divided by the number of degrees of free-
dom in the sample set. The variance (s2) for a sample is expressed as follows:
¦ (x i −
x )2
s2
n1
in which Σ is the sum of, i is the i-th observation (x1 = first observation, x2 =
second observation, etc.), x̄ is the mean, and n is the number of observations.
Standard Deviation
The standard deviation, which may be represented as s or SD, is a measure
of dispersion that reflects the distribution of values around the mean. When
calculating the standard deviation for a sample, the following formula is used:
¦(x i −
x )2
SD
n1
in which Σ is the sum of, xi is the ith observation, x– is the mean, and n is the
number of observations.
As can be seen by comparing the two formulas, the standard deviation is the
square root of the variance. The standard deviation is always a nonnegative
quantity. If the values in a data set are close to the mean, the standard devia-
tion is small (i.e., the values are distributed closely around the mean). If the
values in a data set are not close to the mean, the standard deviation is large.
For example, the incubation periods for six cases of hepatitis A related to a
food-borne outbreak range from 24 to 31 days. Calculate the variance and
standard deviation to describe this distribution. Use the data shown in Table
10–1, and the formulas above to calculate the variance and standard deviation.
1. Calculate the mean using the data in the first column (xi):
x– = Σ xi /n = 168/6 = 28.0.
2. Subtract the mean from each observation to find the deviations from the
mean (shown in the second column). (Note: the sum of the deviations
from the mean will always equal zero because the mean is the arith-
metic center of the distribution.)
3. Square the deviations from the mean (shown in the third column).
4. Sum the squared deviations (see the third column):
Σ (xi – x)
– 2
= 40.
5. Divide the sum of the squared deviations by n – 1 to find the variance:

Σ (xi – x)
– 2
/ n – 1 = 40/5 = 8.
6. Take the square root of the variance to calculate the standard deviation:
SD z S2 z8 z2.8.
Table 10–1 Calculating the Variance and Standard Deviation
xi xi – x– – 2
(xi – x)
(observations) (deviations from the mean) (square of the deviations)
24 24 – 28.0 = –4.0 16
25 25 – 28.0 = –3.0 9
29 29 – 28.0 = +1.0 1
29 29 – 28.0 = +1.0 1
30 30 – 28.0 = +2.0 4
31 31 – 28.0 = +3.0 9
168 –7.0 + 7.0 = 0 40
–
xi = i th observation ; x = mean
Source: CDC. Principles of Epidemiology: An Introduction to Applied Epidemiology and Biostatistics.

2nd ed. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health & Human Services; 1992;174–175.
Normal Distribution
A normal distribution represents the natural distribution of values around
the mean with progressively fewer observations toward the extremes of the
range of values. A normal distribution plotted on a graph shows a bell-shaped
curve, in which 68.3 percent of the values will fall within one standard devia-
tion of the mean, 95.5 percent of the values will fall within two standard devi-
ations of the mean, and 99.7 percent of the values will fall within three
standard deviations of the mean as shown in Figure 10–2. Statistical infer-
ences about a sample, such as the cases of disease in a population, are fre-
quently based on a normal distribution.
Measures of Association
Measures of association are used during outbreak investigations to evaluate

the relationship between exposed and unexposed populations. These statisti-
cal measures can express the strength of association between a risk factor
(exposure) and an outcome (disease). The measures of association used for out-
break investigations are the risk ratio (or relative risk) and the odds ratio. A
two-by-two table (shown in Table 10–2) is used to show comparisons between
exposures and outcomes and to calculate risk ratios and odds ratios.
The Risk Ratio (Relative Risk)

The risk ratio (also called the relative risk) is the ratio of the attack rate (or
risk of disease) in the exposed population to the attack rate (or risk of disease)
in the unexposed population. Using Table 10–2, the attack rate for the exposed
population would be a/a + b and the attack rate for the unexposed population
would be c/c + d. The risk ratio is therefore calculated as follows:
a/a + b
Risk ratio = .
c/c + d
68.3% of data
95.5% of data
99.7% of data
–3SD –2SD –1SD MEAN +1SD +2SD +3SD
Figure 10–2 Areas Under the Normal Curve that Lie Between 1, 2, and 3 Standard
Deviations on Each Side of the Mean
If the value of the risk ratio is equal to 1, the risk is the same in the two
groups, and there is no evidence of association between the exposure and out-
come. If the risk ratio is greater than 1, the risk is higher for the exposed
group, and the exposure may be associated with the outcome. If the risk ratio
is less than 1, the risk is lower for the exposed group, and the exposure may
possibly protect against the outcome. An investigator can calculate a risk
ratio, or relative risk, from the data collected in a cohort study, which is dis-
cussed later.
Table 10–2 The Two-by-Two Table
Disease No disease Total

Exposed a b a+b
Unexposed c d c+d
Total a+c b+d N
Note: a = those with exposure and disease; b = those with exposure and no disease; c = those with no
exposure and disease; d = those with no exposure and no disease; a + c = total of those with disease;
b + d = total of those with no disease; a + b = total of those with exposure; c + d = total of those with no
exposure; and N = a + b + c + d = total population in the study.
The Odds Ratio

The odds ratio is similar to the risk ratio except that the odds, instead of the
risk (attack rates), are used in the calculation. An odds ratio can be used to
approximate the strength of association between an exposure and a disease
(outcome). The odds ratio is the ratio of the probability of having a risk factor
if the disease is present to the probability of having the risk factor if the dis-
ease is absent. Using the two-by-two table, it is calculated as follows:
a/b ad
Odds ratio = = or
c/d bc
exposed cases/exposed controls exposed cases unexposed controls

=
unexposed cases/unexposed controls exposed controls unexposed cases
Those with disease are considered cases (a and c) and those without disease
are considered controls (b and d).
If the odds ratio is equal to 1, the odds of disease are the same if the expo-
sure is present and if it is absent (i.e., there is no evidence of association
between the exposure and disease). If the odds ratio is greater than 1, the odds
of disease are higher for the exposed group, and the exposure is probably asso-
ciated with the disease.
Confidence Intervals
In an outbreak investigation, if the exposure rates of the cases differ from

those of the controls, statistical tests of significance can be done to determine
if the difference was likely to have occurred by chance alone or if there may
indeed be a causal relationship between the exposure and disease. Probability,
or P, values traditionally have been used to describe the significance of the
findings; however, many authors have recommended that confidence intervals
be used, either in place of or in addition to the P value to explain the find-
ings.11–16 A P value provides information on statistical significance but does
not provide information on the magnitude or precision of the findings. By com-
puting an odds ratio or a risk ratio (which are termed point estimates) and a
confidence interval, the investigator can provide information on the strength
of an association, the precision of the estimate, and the statistical significance.
The confidence interval (CI), sometimes referred to as the margin of error
of a study, has been defined as “the computed interval with a stated probabil-
ity (usually 95%) that the true value of a variable, such as the mean, propor-
tion, or rate, falls within the interval.”17(p26) In other words, a person using a
95% CI can be confident that if a study were repeated many times, the
observed value would fall within the CI in 95 out of 100 studies. Unlike the
P value, which provides information on statistical significance only, the CI
expresses the statistical precision of a point estimate (an observed effect, such
as a risk ratio or odds ratio) and the strength of an association. The statistical
precision is measured by the size (range) of the confidence interval: the nar-
rower the computed interval, the more precise the estimate. The strength of
the association is measured by the magnitude of the difference in the mea-

sured outcomes between the two groups (e.g., the higher the numerical value
of the risk ratio, the more likely the exposure is related to the outcome).
Confidence intervals provide an alternative to hypothesis testing when ra-
tios of risk or rates are being compared. A 95% CI provides information on
whether or not an observation is statistically significant with a P value less
than or equal to .05. As noted previously, an odds (or risk) ratio of 1.0 means
that the odds (or risk) of disease are the same between the comparison groups
whether or not the exposure occurs. If the value of an odds ratio is greater
than 1.0, the probability of having a risk factor if the disease is present is
greater than the probability of having the risk factor if the disease is absent. If
the value of a risk ratio is greater than 1.0, the risk of disease in the exposed
population is greater than the risk of disease in the unexposed population. If a
ratio’s 95% CI does not include 1.0, then statistical significance is implied (P ≤
0.05). If the confidence interval for an odds or risk ratio includes 1.0, then the
findings are not statistically significant.
For example, if the odds ratio (the point estimate) for an exposure is said to
be 8.2 with a 95% CI of 6.2–10.6, this means: (1) persons with the disease were
8.2 times more likely to have been exposed to the risk factor than those with-
out the disease, and (2) one can be 95% confident (probability of 0.95) that the
odds ratio in the population is between the confidence limits of 6.2 and 10.6
(i.e., it may be as low as 6.2 or as high as 10.6). In addition, since the lower
limit of this observed CI (6.2) is well above 1.0 (which equals no association), it
is implied that the results are statistically significant at the 0.05 level.
As another example, if an odds ratio is 1.6 with a 95% CI of 0.8–2.4, then the
findings are considered not statistically significant because 1.0 is included in
the confidence interval.
Although P values traditionally have been used to show the statistical sig-
nificance between disease and risk factors in outbreaks, odds or risk ratios and
95% CIs are now usually used. For example, in a 2007 report of an outbreak of
Salmonella oranienburg infections that was found to be associated with eating
fruit salad served in healthcare facilities, the CDC presented the following
data18:
14 (70%) of 20 case-patients, compared with four (13%) of 30 controls,

ate fruit salad [matched odds ratio (mOR) = 8.9; 95% CI = 2.3–35.5].
Illness was associated with eating fruit salad in a health-care facility.
As illustrated by this report, when a point estimate (odds ratio) and CI are
given, the reader has more information with which to interpret the results
than if a P value alone is reported because the magnitude of the odds ratio
provides an estimate of the strength of association between a disease and a
risk factor, and the CI provides an estimate of the statistical significance and
the precision of this finding. For instance, in this report, the odds ratio for fruit
salad was 8.9, which means that those who were ill were 8.9 times more likely
to have eaten fruit salad than those who were not ill. The CI of 2.3 to 35.5
infers that these findings are statistically significant because the lower confi-
dence limit of 2.3 is above 1.0.
Confidence intervals can be computed using computer programs, formulas,

tables, or graphs, and the method varies according to the type of data. Because
the methods used to calculate them are complex, a discussion of the computa-
tion of confidence intervals is beyond the scope of this chapter. For more infor-
mation, the reader should refer to the references given11–16 or to one of the
statistics texts listed in the Suggested Reading list at the end of this chapter.
In practice, an investigator should consult a statistician to ensure that the cor-
rect method will be used to compute any confidence intervals used to describe
the findings of an outbreak investigation.
ANALYTIC STUDIES
Analytic studies are used to compare rates of disease between two groups.
This comparison allows an investigator (1) to quantify relationships between
risk factors and disease, and (2) to determine the strength of association in
these causal relationships. Analytic studies are used to test the hypotheses
proposed to explain the occurrence of an outbreak.
The two major categories of epidemiologic studies used to examine cause
and effect are experimental and observational. In experimental studies, the
investigator controls the exposures to specific factors and then follows the sub-
jects to determine the effect of the exposure (e.g., a clinical trial of a new drug).
In observational studies, the investigator observes the natural course of
events. Observational studies are used to analyze outbreaks because the
investigator is observing the outcomes to prior exposures over which the
investigator has no control. The two types of observational studies most com-
monly used in outbreak investigations are the retrospective cohort study and
the case-control study.
Cohort Studies and the Risk Ratio (Relative Risk)
In a cohort study, subjects are categorized based on their exposure to a spe-

cific factor and then they are observed to see if they develop a disease. A cohort
study may be conducted prospectively or retrospectively. In a prospective
cohort study, subjects may be observed over a prolonged period of time in order
to examine the natural history or incidence (risk) of a disease. The Nurses’
Health Study is an example of a long-term (over 30 years) prospective cohort
study and is among the largest prospective investigations into the risk factors
for major chronic diseases in women.19 Using a retrospective cohort study, an
event that has already occurred (such as an outbreak) can be analyzed by
reconstructing records of exposures and studying their outcomes. A retrospec-
tive cohort study can be used only when studying a well-defined population,
such as the attendees of a luncheon or the patients of a surgeon. It cannot be
used if the true population at risk cannot be identified (such as an outbreak
associated with a widely distributed commercial product because it would not
be possible to identify all the users of the product).
Analytic Studies 341
When conducting a cohort study, it is helpful to develop a spreadsheet list-

ing potential risk factors and attack rates, as shown in the example in Table
10–3. The investigator can then scan the data to look for three characteris-
tics20(p375):
1. A high attack rate in those exposed to the factor
2. A low attack rate in those not exposed to the factor
3. A factor to which most of the cases were exposed (so that exposure could
possibly be implicated as a risk factor responsible for the outbreak)
For example, residents, personnel, and visitors developed acute gastroen-
teritis after attending a Sunday luncheon at an LTCF that provides assisted
living and nursing care. Of the 90 persons who attended the luncheon, 86 were
available for interview, and 41 met the case definition for acute gastroenteri-
tis. Attack rates for those who did and those who did not eat particular food
items are shown in Table 10–3.
According to the data in Table 10–3: (1) the ice cream is the item that has the
highest attack rate (88%), (2) the attack rate is low among those who did not
eat ice cream (9.1%), and (3) most of those who met the case definition for gas-
troenteritis ate ice cream (37/41). Therefore, it is likely that the ice cream was
the vehicle.
The risk ratio (relative risk) can be calculated to show the association
between eating ice cream and developing gastroenteritis. The relative risk is
the ratio of the attack rate in the exposed population to the attack rate in the
unexposed population. A two-by-two table (Table 10–4) can be used to demon-
strate the comparison of attack rates between the exposed (ate ice cream) and
unexposed (did not eat ice cream) groups. Using the data in Table 10–4, the
risk ratio would be the attack rate for those who ate ice cream (88) divided by
the attack rate for those who did not eat ice cream (9.1), or 88/9.1 = 9.7.
Table 10–3 Attack Rates by Items Served at a Luncheon at a Long-Term Care Facility.
Number of Persons Who Did

Number of Persons Who Ate Item Not Eat Item
Ill Well Total Attack Ill Well Total Attack
rate (%) rate (%)
Egg salad 20 17 37 54 18 27 45 40
Ham sandwich 23 18 41 56 19 36 55 35
Turkey sandwich 22 18 40 55 8 40 48 17
Ice cream 37 5 42 88 4 40 44 9.1
Water 27 17 44 61 22 20 42 52
Milk 18 25 43 42 17 26 43 40
Coffee 17 32 49 35 21 16 37 57
Table 10–4 Attack Rate by Consumption of Ice Cream.
Ill Well Total Attack rate (%)

Ate ice cream 37 5 42 88
Did not eat ice cream 4 40 44 9.1
Total 41 45 86 48
Once a measure of association, such as a risk ratio, has been computed to

quantify a relationship between exposure and outcome, the investigator can
use a statistical test of significance, such as a chi-square test, to determine the
likelihood of this relationship occurring by chance alone. In practice, a combi-
nation of cohort and case-control studies are frequently used when investigat-
ing clusters and outbreaks. Exhibit 10–1 demonstrates the use of rates and the
risk ratio to identify an apparent risk factor for developing an MRSA infection.
A case-control study could then be designed to further delineate risk factors
associated with developing disease (in this example, a case-control study could
be designed to identify risk factors that may exist on a trauma service but not
on a surgical service).
Exhibit 10–1 Using Rates and Ratios (Measures of Association) to Identify Risk Factors
The following information was collected during an investigation of an outbreak of infections

caused by MRSA in a surgical intensive care unit (SICU): During a three-month period,
180 patients were admitted to the SICU and 15 patients developed an MRSA infection.
Twenty-five patients were on the trauma service, and the other patients were on the
surgical service. Of the 15 patients who developed MRSA infection, 10 were on the trauma
service. From the information presented, it appears that being on the trauma service may
be a risk factor for developing an MRSA infection. An investigator can use a two-by-two
table to display this data and to calculate attack rates (incidence or risk of disease) and a
risk ratio:
Number of Cases of MRSA and Attack Rates, by Service, in the SICU

During a three-Month Period
MRSA MRSA
infection infection Attack
present absent Total rate(%)
Trauma service a = 10 b = 15 a + b = 25 40
Surgical service c=5 d = 150 c + d = 155 3.2
Total a + c = 15 b + d = 165 a + b + c + d = 180 8.3
Calculate the following rates:

1. Overall attack rate of MRSA infection in the SICU: a + c /a + b + c + d 100 = 15/180
100 = 8.3%
2. Attack rate for patients on the trauma service: a /a + b 100 = 10/25 100 = 40%
3. Attack rate for patients on the surgical service: c /c + d 100 = 5/155 100 = 3.2%
Calculate the risk ratio between patients on the trauma service and those on the surgical
service:
risk ratio = attack rate for trauma service/attack rate for surgical service
risk ratio = (a /a + b) / (c /c + d ) = 40/3.2 = 12.5
Interpretation: The risk for MRSA infection for patients on the trauma service (40%)
appears to be 12.5 times higher than the risk for patients on the surgical service (3.2%).
Therefore, being a patient on the trauma service appears to be a risk factor for developing
an MRSA infection.
As discussed in the previous section, confidence intervals of the risk ratio

are frequently determined and presented in the final report of an outbreak
investigation. This is illustrated in a report of an outbreak of gram-negative
bacterial bloodstream infections (BSIs) associated with contamination of the
waste drain port in hemodialysis machines21:
Results of a cohort study of all patients receiving dialysis at the cen-
ter during the two-month epidemic period indicated that the risk for
gram-negative BSI was associated with exposure to any of three par-
ticular dialysis machines (seven BSIs in 20 patients who were
exposed to one or more of the three machines versus three BSIs in 64
patients who were exposed to the other machines; relative risk = 7.5;
95% CI = 2.1–26.2).
The interpretation of this report is that persons who were exposed to the
particular dialysis machines were 7.5 times more likely to develop a gram-
negative BSI than those who were not exposed to the machines. This finding is
considered statistically significant at P ≤ .05 because the CI does not include
1.0.
The Case-Control Study and the Odds Ratio

The case-control study is used to demonstrate whether or not an association
exists between a disease (outcome) and a risk factor (exposure) in an outbreak
investigation. A case-control study begins with the identification of persons
with the disease being studied (the cases). A suitable comparison group of per-
sons without the disease (the controls) is then chosen, and the two groups are
compared in relation to their exposures. As in the cohort study, associations
and quantitative comparisons of risk are made through the use of two-by-two
tables, as shown in Table 10–2. A cohort study allows the computation of a risk
ratio; however, a case-control study yields an odds ratio. This is because attack
rates (needed to compute the risk ratio) cannot always be calculated in a case-
control study because the entire population at risk may not be defined. Once
the strength of association is measured (i.e., the odds ratio is calculated), the
investigator can use statistical tests of significance and confidence intervals to
evaluate the likelihood of the association occurring by chance.
The case-control study is the method most commonly used to investigate

outbreaks because it is relatively inexpensive to conduct, is usually of short
duration, can be used for rare diseases, requires relatively few study subjects,
and allows for testing of multiple hypotheses.17,22 A case-control study can be
used when the population at risk (the cohort) cannot be adequately defined or
cannot be fully identified (such as may occur in a multistate outbreak of sal-
monellosis associated with a contaminated food).
(Note: A case-control study differs from a cohort study in that the subjects
are enrolled into a case-control study based on whether or not they have a dis-
ease. In a cohort study, subjects are included in the study based on their expo-
sure and are then followed for the development of disease.)
In an outbreak investigation, the magnitude of an odds ratio is indicative of
the strength of an association between an exposure and a disease. As in a
cohort study, it has become common practice to compute the confidence inter-
vals of the odds ratio as shown in this report of an outbreak of SARS in an
apartment complex23(p1734):
For building E, apartment units (not persons) on the middle and

upper floors had higher probabilities of infection than did units on
lower floors, with an odds ratio of 5.15 (95% CI, 2.6–10.3; P < 0.001)
for the middle floors and 3.1 (95% CI, 1.6–6.2; P < 0.01) for the upper
floors.
An odds ratio of 5.15 for the middle floors implies that those apartments on
the middle floors were 5 times more likely to be infected than those on the lo-
wer floors. A 95% CI of 2.6–10.3 means that these odds could be as low as 2.6
or as high as 10.3 Since the CI does not include 1.0, the findings are consid-
ered statistically significant at a P value less than or equal to 0.05. The calcu-
lated P value for the middle floors was less than .001.
Designing and Conducting a Case-Control Study

Case-control studies must be carefully designed and conducted in order to
ensure valid results. Although a detailed explanation of the design of a case-
control study is beyond the scope of this chapter, the reader should be aware of
several methodological problems that can affect the study results: improper or
biased selection of cases or controls, information bias, confounding, and too
small a sample size.
The reader who wishes detailed information on designing and conducting a
case-control study may refer to the text by Schlesselman in the Suggested
Reading section of this chapter or to the articles by Wacholder et al. in the ref-
erences listed.24–26 In practice, a statistician should be consulted before con-
ducting a case-control study to ensure that the study is appropriately
designed.
Bias
Bias is “the deviation of results or inferences from the truth, or processes
leading to such deviation.”8 Bias can lead to conclusions that are distorted (dif-
ferent from the truth). Some types of bias may occur in either a case-control or
cohort study. Selection bias can occur when the cases selected for study do not
represent the entire population at risk. This can occur if a nonrandom method
is used to select study subjects (e.g., the selection is unconsciously or con-
sciously influenced in some way) or if some of the study subjects are unavail-
able (e.g., they refuse to participate, their records are missing, their disease is
mild and they do not seek medical care and are therefore not detected, or they
seek medical care and their disease is undiagnosed or misdiagnosed). Informa-
tion bias can occur if the information collected is incorrect because of inaccu-
rate recall (e.g., a participant at a luncheon does not correctly remember what
he ate) or because it is inconsistently collected (observer bias). Observer bias
occurs when collection or interpretation of data about exposures is systemati-
cally different for persons who have the disease than those who do not or data
about outcomes is systematically different for persons who are exposed than
for persons who are not exposed.
Selecting Cases
Cases are selected based on a case definition, as discussed in Chapter 8. A
case-control study conducted as part of an outbreak investigation differs from
other case-control studies in that the case definition in an outbreak investiga-
tion frequently changes during the course of the investigation. In the initial
stages, a case definition may be broad in order to identify all potential cases
(e.g., all persons who developed gastroenteritis from April 10 through 17). The
case definition may be refined as the investigation progresses and potential risk
factors are identified (e.g., all persons who developed gastroenteritis from April
11 through April 15 and who ate food prepared by the hospital kitchen).
In many outbreaks in healthcare facilities, the number of cases is small, and
it is possible to include all of them in a case-control study. All of the cases
should be included whenever possible to avoid the need to select a sample and
introduce biases. In a large outbreak, however, it may not be practical, or pos-
sible, to identify or include all of the cases. In this instance, cases may be
selected (sampled) from those who are ill. Care must be taken to ensure that
the cases sampled are representative of the entire population with disease so
that the study findings can be validly extrapolated to the whole population. To
help eliminate some sampling biases, additional cases should be sought out
during an outbreak to determine the magnitude of the problem.
Selecting Controls
Controls must come from the same environment where the cases’ exposures
occurred (i.e., they must be from the same population at risk for exposure and
must be at the same risk of acquiring the disease).24 Controls should be simi-
lar to the cases in many respects except for the presence of the disease being
studied. For instance, if a case-control study is being designed to investigate
an outbreak of group A streptococcal infections in postpartum patients, then
the controls should be selected from postpartum patients who were hospital-
ized at the same time as the cases but who did not develop a group A strepto-
coccal infection. Ideally, controls should be randomly selected from the
population at risk to avoid selection bias.
Confounding Variables
“Comparisons may differ from the truth and therefore be biased when the
association between exposure and the health problem varies because a third
factor confounds the association.”17(p24) This difference can happen when a
third factor is associated with both the exposure and the disease. Confounding
factors that can bias results include age, sex, length of stay in a healthcare
facility, or underlying disease. For example, confounding could occur if there
were a community outbreak of gastroenteritis and the investigators selected
only those cases who were seen in a hospital. If most of the cases seen at a hos-
pital were elderly, it could be inferred that the illness had struck the elderly
population when in fact this population may be more likely to become clini-
cally ill and then go to a hospital for treatment. One method of reducing con-
founding errors is to choose controls that are the same age and sex as each
case.
Sample Size
A case-control study must contain a sufficiently large number of study sub-
jects in order to be able to detect an association, if one exists, between an expo-
sure and a disease. Multiple mathematical formulas are available to
determine an appropriate sample size, and these can be found in many statis-
tics textbooks and articles.27–30 However, it is advisable to consult a trained
statistician to assist with this task. As the number of study subjects (cases)
increases, the power to detect a statistically significant association increases.
One control for each case is generally sufficient if there are more than 50 cases
in an outbreak31 Since outbreaks in healthcare facilities generally involve
fewer than 50 cases, two controls are frequently selected for each case when-
ever possible.
For example, if investigating an outbreak of six cases of aspergillosis that
occurred among patients on a bone marrow transplant unit, the investigator
would want to select at least two controls for each case, and the controls would
be chosen from the population of patients who were on the bone marrow trans-
plant unit at the same time as the cases but who did not develop aspergillosis.
HYPOTHESIS TESTING (INFERENTIAL STATISTICS)
The following is a simplified explanation of statistical significance testing as

it is used for investigating an outbreak. The reader is referred to one of many
statistics textbooks, including the Suggested Reading and Other Resources at
the end of this chapter, for a detailed discussion of the concepts noted here.
During an outbreak investigation, descriptive studies are used to describe
those who are ill, when they became ill, and where they were when they
became ill. From this information, the population at risk can generally be
identified. Although this information may be enough to allow the investigator
to identify potential risk factors and implement control measures that will
interrupt the outbreak, it may sometimes be necessary, or desirable, to more
specifically pinpoint the exposure that resulted in the disease. This is done by
conducting an analytic epidemiologic study (usually a case-control or retro-
spective cohort study). Before conducting an analytic study, the investigator
Hypothesis Testing (Inferential Statistics) 347
must first formulate a hypothesis (a statement that says a specific exposure

results in disease) and then design the analytic study to test this hypothesis
(i.e., use tests of statistical significance to assess the relationship between the
specific exposure and the disease being studied). Statistical significance test-
ing helps the investigator evaluate the role of chance by determining the prob-
ability that an association between an exposure and a disease actually exists.
There are six steps in the statistical significance testing process32(p22):
1. State the hypothesis
2. Formulate the null hypothesis
3. Choose a statistical significance cutoff level
4. Conduct an analytic study
5. Apply statistical significance test
6. Reject, or fail to reject, the null hypothesis
State the Hypothesis
To generate a hypothesis about the likely causative risk factor(s) or expo-

sure(s) responsible for disease in an outbreak situation, the investigator
should carefully review the existing epidemiologic and laboratory data and
conduct a literature search, as discussed in Chapter 8. The hypothesis states
that a difference exists between the study group and the control group. Care
must be taken when generating the hypothesis. Although the source of an out-
break may appear to be obvious, it is prudent to hold an open mind and look
for answers that may not have been considered. For example, an investigation
of an outbreak of nosocomial legionellosis at a hospital in Rhode Island
revealed that Legionella pneumophila was in the hospital potable water sup-
ply and this was the likely source for the outbreak. When a sudden increase in
new cases occurred, it was believed to be related to the potable water; however,
an extensive epidemiologic investigation demonstrated that a new cooling
tower at the hospital was the source of the second outbreak.33
Formulate the Null Hypothesis
A null hypothesis is generated before testing for statistical significance. The

null hypothesis states that no difference exists between the study group and
the control group (i.e., the results observed in a study are no different from
what might have occurred by chance alone). In other words, the null hypothe-
sis states that the proportion of disease in the exposed group is the same as
the proportion of disease in the nonexposed group (i.e., the exposure has no
effect on the development of disease). It should be noted that an investigator
can never “prove” an association between a factor (exposure) and an outcome
(disease); however, inferences can be made based on statistical testing.
For example, if investigating an outbreak of group A streptococcal surgical
site infections, an investigator could state that a likely risk factor for develop-
ing disease would be exposure to a colonized or infected health care provider. A
possible study hypothesis would be “Patients exposed to surgeon N are more
likely to develop a group A streptococcal surgical site infection than patients
not exposed to surgeon N.” This hypothesis is based on published reports of

investigations of outbreaks of group A streptococcal surgical site infections in
which a colonized or infected member of the surgical team was found to be the
most likely source of the organism. The null hypothesis for this study hypothe-
sis could be “There is no difference in group A streptococcal surgical site infec-
tion rates between patients who were exposed to surgeon N and patients who
were not exposed to surgeon N.”
Choose a Statistical Significance Cutoff Level
In outbreak investigations, a 5% chance of occurrence is traditionally used

as the statistical cutoff level. This means that the investigator will accept the
fact that an association that is found between an exposure and the disease
being studied may occur by chance alone 5% of the time. This also means that
the P value must be less than .05 in order for the investigator to be able to
reject the null hypothesis.
Conduct an Analytic Study
As previously discussed, when conducting an investigation of an outbreak in

a healthcare setting, a case-control or retrospective cohort study is usually
used to allow the investigator to collect data on a study group (the cases or the
cohort) and a control group so the two groups can be compared in relationship
to their exposures and the presence or absence of disease.
Apply a Statistical Significance Test

Tests of statistical significance are then used to determine the probability
that the results of comparison testing could have occurred by chance alone if
the exposure is not related to the disease. If differences are found between the
study group and the control group, the investigator must choose which test of
statistical significance to use to determine the probability that these differ-
ences would occur if no true difference exists (i.e., if the null hypothesis were
true). In outbreak investigations in healthcare settings, the most commonly
used tests of significance are the chi-square and Fisher exact tests, which will
be discussed later.
Reject, or Fail to Reject, the Null Hypothesis
If 5% is used as the statistical cutoff level, the investigator can reject the
null hypothesis (and thus can accept the study hypothesis) if the statistical
test shows that the association is likely to occur less than 5% of the time by
chance alone (i.e., the P value is less than .05).
Type I and Type II Errors

An investigator’s inference about an association can be wrong if the findings
are due to bias or confounding in the study or to chance alone. A type I error
Tests of Statistical Significance 349
Table 10–5 The Four Possible Outcomes of Statistical Significance Testing
Association Between No Association Between

Factor and Outcome Factor and Outcome
Exists (Null Hypothesis Exists (Null Hypothesis
Is Not True) Is True)
Reject null hypothesis Correct Type I error
Fail to reject null hypothesis Type II error Correct
occurs when an investigator states that there is an association when in fact

there is no association (i.e., the investigator rejects a null hypothesis that is
actually true). A type II error occurs when the investigator states that there is
no association when, in fact, there is an association (i.e., the investigator fails
to reject a null hypothesis that is actually false). Table 10–5 uses a two-by-two
table to illustrate the four possible outcomes of statistical significance testing.
Although these errors are not always avoidable, the likelihood of making a
type II error can be minimized by using a larger sample size. By choosing the
statistical cutoff level, the investigator decides before beginning the study what
probability of committing a type I error can be accepted (usually 5%).
TESTS OF STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The Chi-Square Test
The chi-square test is commonly used in outbreak investigations to evaluate

the probability that observed differences between two populations, such as
cases and controls, could have occurred by chance alone if an exposure is not
truly associated with disease. There are several variations of the chi-square
test.6 Since a detailed explanation of this test is beyond the scope of this chap-
ter, the reader is referred to the article by Gaddis and Gaddis6 or to one of the
statistics references noted in the Suggested Reading section at the end of the
chapter.
Using the two-by-two table shown in Table 10–2, a frequently used formula
for calculating chi-square is as follows20(p377):
N[ |ad – bc| – N/2 ]2 .

Chi-square =
(a + b)(c + d)(a + c)(b + d)
Once the value for chi-square has been calculated, the investigator then
uses a table of chi-squares (found in a textbook of statistical tables) to look up
the associated P value. An example of a table of chi-squares is shown in
Table 10–6.
Table 10–6 Table of Chi-Squares
Probability
Degree of
Freedom 0.50 0.20 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.001
1 .455 1.642 2.706 3.841 5.412 6.635 10.827
2 1.386 3.219 4.605 5.991 7.824 9.210 13.815
3 2.366 4.642 6.251 7.815 9.837 11.345 16.268
4 3.357 5.989 7.779 9.488 11.668 13.277 18.465
5 4.351 7.289 9.236 11.070 13.388 15.086 20.517
10 9.342 13.442 15.987 18.307 21.161 23.209 29.588
15 14.339 19.311 22.307 24.996 28.259 30.578 37.697
20 19.337 25.038 28.412 31.410 35.020 37.566 43.315
25 24.337 30.675 34.382 37.652 41.566 44.314 52.620
30 29.336 36.250 40.256 43.773 47.962 50.892 59.703
Source: Reprinted from Principles of Epidemiology: An Introduction to Applied Epidemiology and

Biostatistics, 2nd ed. Atlanta, GA: CDC; 1992:378.
To use a table of chi-squares, the degrees of freedom, defined as the number

of independent comparisons that can be made between the members of a sam-
ple, must be known. A two-by-two table has one degree of freedom. Using
Table 10–6 and a statistical cutoff point of 0.05, if the computed chi-square
value is greater than 3.841, then the probability, or P value, would be less than
0.05, and the null hypothesis can be rejected.
Because it can be quite time consuming to calculate chi-square by hand,
most investigators opt to use a computer with a statistical software package.
The chi-square test can be used if the number of subjects in a study is approx-
imately 30 or more.31(p6–44) For smaller populations, or if the value of any of the
cells in a two-by-two table is less than 5, Fisher’s exact test should be used.6
Fisher’s Exact Test
Fisher’s exact test, which is used for evaluating data in two-by-two contin-
gency tables, is a variant of the chi-square test. Fisher’s exact test is the pre-
ferred test for studies with few subjects. The formula for Fisher’s exact test
calculates the P value directly, so a table of chi-squares is not needed. Since
calculating Fisher’s exact test manually or with a calculator is arduous, a com-
puter program should be used for calculating this test statistic.
USING COMPUTERS TO MAKE LIFE EASIER
Computers have greatly enhanced accuracy and reduced the time it takes to
calculate complex mathematical formulas; however, the investigator still
needs to understand which statistical methods to use and when to use them.
There are two basic types of software programs that can be used to manage
Interpreting Results: The Meaning of Statistical Significance 351
epidemiologic data: database managers, which store and organize data, and
statistical packages, which can analyze it. There are many computer software
programs that can be used to store, manage, and analyze epidemiologic data.
Examples are SPSS (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL), SAS (SAS Institute, Cary, NC),
Epi Info, and infection control-specific programs such as AICE (Automated
Infection Control Expert) (Infection Control and Prevention Analysts, Inc.,
Austin, TX). Epi Info is a software program that was developed by the CDC to
manage and analyze data collected during an epidemiologic investigation. Epi
Info, which can be used to calculate odds ratios, relative risk, 95% CIs, chi-
squares, P values, and so on, can be downloaded free of charge from the CDC
Web site at http://www.cdc.gov/epiinfo. Epi Info Tutorials and training resources
are also available on the CDC Web site.
Examples of other programs and resources for performing statistical tests
can be found in the Resources section at the end of this chapter.
INTERPRETING RESULTS: THE MEANING OF

STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE
A result is said to be statistically significant if the computed P value is lower

than the significance level chosen for the study because this means that it is
highly unlikely that the observed association occurred by chance alone. If an
investigator is using a significance level of P = .05, and the computed P value
is lower than .05, this result is said to be statistically significant because the
probability that the findings occurred by chance alone are less than 1 in 20. As
discussed earlier in the chapter, many researchers recommend calculating the
P value and/or the confidence intervals in addition to a measurement of asso-
ciation, such as an odds ratio, when analyzing the findings of an epidemiologic
study.
The results of statistical significance tests and other statistical measure-
ments, such as rates, ratios, and proportions, must be interpreted with caution.
As discussed in Chapter 1, two important concepts in analytic epidemiology
are cause and association. A cause is a factor that directly influences the oc-
currence of a disease. An association is a statistical relationship between two
or more variables, such as an exposure and a disease. While an investigator
cannot use statistics to prove that a particular factor caused a disease, if sta-
tistical testing shows that a group of people with exposure to a specified factor
are more likely to have a disease than a group of people who are not exposed
to that factor, then the factor is said to be associated with the disease. It is
important to keep in mind that findings may be statistically significant but cli-
nically irrelevant. This is because a statistically significant finding may be arti-
factual or spurious (i.e., a type I error, which is a false association due to chance
or some bias in the study) or may be the result of confounding (e.g., a third factor
may account for an apparent association). The following criteria can be used to
judge whether or not an association is causal (i.e., the suspected factor is the
likely cause of the event)17(p27):
1. Strength of association: The prevalence of disease is higher in the
exposed group than in the nonexposed group.
2. Dose–response relationship: There is a quantitative relationship between

the amount of exposure to the factor and the frequency of disease.
3. Consistency of association: The findings have been confirmed by differ-
ent investigators in different populations.
4. Chronological relationship: Exposure to the factor precedes the onset of
disease.
5. Biologically plausible: The findings are coherent with existing informa-
tion; they are acceptable in light of current knowledge.
SUMMARY
When investigating an outbreak, the investigator should conduct a litera-

ture search to gather clues about the possible risk factors associated with the
disease or condition. Data should be collected to describe the characteristics of
the cases so that potential risk factors can be identified and analyzed and a
hypothesis explaining the occurrence of an outbreak can be generated. In
many outbreak investigations, the information gathered in a descriptive epi-
demiologic study will be sufficient to identify likely risk factors so that effec-
tive control measures can be implemented to interrupt the outbreak. Further
statistical analysis will be needed to pinpoint the associated risk factors more
precisely if the problem continues or recurs, if the disease or condition
involves significant morbidity or mortality, or if the outbreak is unique and the
investigator wishes to publish the findings of the investigation. The authors
strongly recommend that those who are investigating an outbreak consult a
statistician before conducting an analytic epidemiologic study, such as a case-
control or cohort study, and use computers as much as possible for managing
data and performing statistical tests.
REFERENCES
1. Reingold AL. Outbreak investigations—a perspective. Emer Infect Dis. 1998;4:24.

2. Gaddis ML, Gaddis GM. Introduction to biostatistics: part 1, basic concepts. Ann Emerg Med.
1990;19:86–89.
3. Gaddis ML, Gaddis GM. Introduction to biostatistics: part 2, descriptive statistics. Ann
Emerg Med. 1990;19:309–315.
4. Gaddis ML, Gaddis GM. Introduction to biostatistics: part 3, sensitivity, specificity, predictive
value, and hypothesis testing. Ann Emerg Med. 1990;19:591–596.
5. Gaddis ML, Gaddis GM. Introduction to biostatistics: part 4, statistical inference techniques
in hypothesis testing. Ann Emerg Med. 1990;19:820–825.
6. Gaddis ML, Gaddis GM. Introduction to biostatistics: part 5, statistical inference techniques
for hypothesis testing with nonparametric data. Ann Emerg Med. 1990;19:1054–1059.
7. Gaddis ML, Gaddis GM. Introduction to biostatistics: part 6, correlation and regression. Ann
Emerg Med. 1990;19:1462–1468.
8. Last JM, Spasoff RA, Harris S, Thuriaux M. A Dictionary of Epidemiology. International Epi-
demiological Association. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2000.
References 353
9. Freeman J, Hitchison GB. Prevalence, incidence and duration. Am J Epidemiol. 1980;

112:707–723.
report, data summary for 2006, issued June 2007. Am J Infect Control. 2007;35:290–301.
11. Young KD, Lewis RJ. What is confidence? Part 1: the use and interpretation of confidence in-
tervals. Ann Emerg Med. 1997;30:307–310.
12. Young KD, Lewis RJ. What is confidence? Part 2: detailed definition and determination of con-
fidence intervals. Ann Emerg Med. 1997;30:311–318.
13. Gardner MJ, Altman DG. Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than
hypothesis testing. Br Med J. 1986;292:746–750.
14. Morris JA, Gardner MJ. Calculating confidence intervals for relative risks (odds ratios) and
standardized ratios and rates. Br Med J. 1988;296:1313–1316.
15. Birnbaum D, Sheps SB. The merits of confidence intervals relative to hypothesis testing.
16. Woolson RF, Kleinman JC. Perspectives on statistical significance testing. Ann Rev Public
Health. 1989;10:423–440.
17. Last JM, Tyler CW. Epidemiology. In: Wallace RB, ed. Maxcy-Rosenau-Last Public Health and
Preventive Medicine. 14th ed. Stamford, CT: Appleton & Lange; 1998:5–33.
18. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Salmonella oranienburg infections associated
with fruit salad served in health-care facilities—Northeastern United States and Canada,
2006. MMWR. 2007;56(39):1025–1028.
19. Harvard School of Public Health. Nurses’ Health Study. http://www.channing.harvard
.edu/nhs/index.html. Accessed March 14, 2008.
20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Principles of Epidemiology: An Introduction to
Applied Epidemiology and Biostatistics. Atlanta, GA: CDC; 1992.
21. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outbreaks of gram-negative bacterial blood-
stream infections traced to probable contamination of hemodialysis machines—Canada,
1995, United States, 1997, and Israel, 1997. MMWR. 1998;47:55–58.
23. Yu ITS, Li Y, Wong TW, et al. Evidence of airborne transmission of the severe acute respira-
tory syndrome virus. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:1731–1739.
24. Wacholder S, McLaughlin JK, Silverman DT, Mandel JS. Selection of controls in case-control
studies. I. Principles. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;135:1019–1028.
studies. II. Types of controls. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;135:1029–1041.
studies. III. Design options. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;135:1042–1050.
27. Kelsey JL, Thompson WD, Evans AS. Methods in Observational Epidemiology. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press; 1986.
28. Kleinbaum D, Rosner B. Fundamentals of Biostatistics. Boston, MA: Duxbury Press; 1982.
29. Hennekens CH, Buring J. Epidemiology in Medicine. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Com-
pany; 1987:260.
30. Edmiston CE, Josephson A, Pottinger J, Ciasco-Tsivitis M, Palenik C. The numbers game:
sample-size determination. Am J Infect Control. 1993;21:151–154.
31. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Principles of Epidemiology in Public Health
Practice. 3rd ed. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2004.
32. Riegelman RK, Hirsch RP. Analysis. In: Studying a Study and Testing a Test: How to Read the
Health Science Literature. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1996:22–39.
33. Garbe PL, Davis BJ, Weisfeld JS. Nosocomial Legionnaires’ disease: epidemiologic demon-
stration of cooling towers as a source. JAMA. 1985;254:521–524.

Campbell MJ, Machin D. Medical Statistics: A Common Sense Approach. Chichester, UK: John
Wiley & Sons; 1990.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Principles of Epidemiology in Public Health Practice.
3rd ed. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2004.
Dwyer DM, Strickler H, Goodman RA, Armenian HK. Use of case-control studies in outbreak
Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW, Wagner EH. Clinical Epidemiology: The Essentials. Baltimore, MD:
Hennekens CH, Buring J. Epidemiology in Medicine. Boston/Toronto: Little, Brown and Company;
1987.
Hulley SB, Cummings SR. Designing Clinical Research: An Epidemiologic Approach. Baltimore,
MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1988.
Kleinbaum D, Kupper L, Morgenstern H. Epidemiologic Research: Principles and Quantitative
Methods. Belmont, CA: Lifetime Learning Publications; 1982.
Muñoz A, Townsend T. Design and analytical issues in studies of infectious diseases. In: Wenzel
RP. Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins;
1997:215–230.
Ning L. Statistics in infection control studies. In: Wenzel RP. Prevention and Control of Nosoco-
mial Infections. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1997:231–240.
Reingold AL. Outbreak investigations—a perspective. Emerg Infect Dis. 1998;4:21–27.
Riegelman RK, Hirsch RP. Studying a Study and Testing a Test: How to Read the Health Science
Literature. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1996.
Schlesselman JJ. Case-Control Studies: Design, Conduct, Analysis. New York, NY: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 1982.
Zar JH. Biostatistical Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc; 1981.
Resources
Epi Info was developed by the CDC in Atlanta, Georgia, in the 1970s to allow public health per-
sonnel to efficiently manage data collected on site during an outbreak investigation. Epi Info
can be used to create data collection forms; store and analyze data; perform a variety of sta-
tistical calculations; and produce tables, graphs, and maps. Although Epi Info is a CDC trade-
mark, the programs, documentation, and teaching materials are in the public domain and
may be freely copied, distributed, and translated. Information, tutorials, and the Microsoft
Windows version are available at http://www.cdc.gov/epiinfo/. A DOS version, including user
manual, frequently asked questions, and tutorials, is still available at http://www.cdc.gov/
epiinfo/Epi6/ei6.htm.
Principles of Epidemiology in Public Health Practice, 3rd ed, Course Number SS1000, is a training
course that is available from the CDC. It is a print-based self-study course covering basic epi-
demiology principles, concepts, and procedures generally used in the surveillance and inves-
tigation of health-related events. It includes information on the applications of descriptive
and analytic epidemiology and addresses how to calculate and interpret frequency measures
(ratios, proportions, and rates) and measures of central tendency. This course may be
accessed through the Public Health Training Network of the CDC at http://www2a.cdc
.gov/PHTN/alpha.asp. The print text for the course is Principles of Epidemiology in Public
Health Practice: An Introduction to Applied Epidemiology and Biostatistics. 3rd ed. Atlanta,
GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Workforce and Career Development;
2005. It can be downloaded free of charge at http://www2a.cdc.gov/TCEOnline/registration/
detailpage.asp?res_id=1394.
Lane, D. National Science Foundation’s division of undergraduate education Rice virtual lab in
statistics. http://onlinestatbook.com/rvls.html. Contains an online statistics book, demonstra-
tions, case studies and an analysis lab to assist the user with statistical calculations.
SISA (Simple Interactive Statistics Analysis). http://home.clara.net/sisa. Allows the user to do sta-
tistical analysis directly on the Internet.
STATS—STeve’s Attempt to Teach Statistics. Children’s Mercy Hospital and Clinics. http://www
.childrens-mercy.org/stats/index.asp. This is an online resource offering basic and advanced
statistics lessons with a Q&A option; answers are posted online by a statistician, in a person-
able manner.
Swinscow TDV. Revised by Campbell MJ. Statistics at Square One. 9th ed.
BMJ Publishing Group; 1997. http://www.bmj.com/collections/statsbk/index.dtl. Accessed March
14, 2008. Contains definitions and descriptions of basic statistics terms and formulas.
57793_CH11_ARIAS .qxd 1/19/09 2:34 PM Page 357
CHAPTER 11
The Role of the Laboratory in

Outbreak Detection, Prevention, and
Investigation
The microbiology laboratory’s rapid and consistent identification of noso-

comial pathogens is a keystone in the surveillance and control of hospital-
acquired infections.
—R. A. Weinstein, 19781
INTRODUCTION
With their elusive epidemiology, infectious diseases present new

threats and increasingly complex challenges for healthcare systems.
Ecological changes, global warming, and the massive increases in
movements of people and foodstuffs around the globe facilitate the
dispersion of microbial pathogens. Emerging infections as well as
increasing antimicrobial resistance in community- and hospital-
acquired infections demand close monitoring and continuous revision
of diagnosis, management and control strategies.2(pg1)
The clinical microbiology laboratory plays an essential role in the detection,
prevention, and control of infectious diseases. Through the analysis of speci-
mens for bacteria, viruses, fungi, and other pathogens, clinical microbiology
laboratory personnel contribute to the diagnosis and treatment of infectious
diseases. By actively participating in the infection surveillance, prevention,
and control (ISPC) programs in healthcare facilities, they assist in the identifi-
cation and prevention of HAI and outbreaks.1,3–8 Through data collection and
reporting, microbiology laboratories support infection surveillance programs at
the local, national, and international levels.9–12
This chapter discusses the critical role that the clinical microbiology labora-
tory plays in outbreak detection, prevention, and investigation and specifically
addresses how the laboratory participates in the following:
• ISPC programs
• Providing timely and accurate identification of microorganisms
• Detecting antimicrobial resistance
• Addressing challenges presented by emerging and reemerging infectious
diseases
• Infection surveillance
• Identifying clusters and outbreaks
357
358 THE LABORATORY IN OUTBREAK DETECTION, PREVENTION, AND INVESTIGATION
• Outbreak investigation and response

• Meeting reporting needs and requirements
• Public health activities
• Consultation and education
• Supporting employee and personnel health programs
INFECTION SURVEILLANCE, PREVENTION,

AND CONTROL PROGRAMS
The clinical microbiology lab is an essential partner in a healthcare organi-

zation’s ISPC.1,3-8 ICPs use laboratory and clinical data to detect patients with
HAI, determine the site of infection, and identify risk factors so that infection
prevention measures can be implemented. Since most HAIs are initially
detected through microbiology laboratory data, the clinical microbiology labo-
ratory plays an essential role in preventing infections by providing these
data.
The microbiology laboratory should identify a microbiologist who is inter-
ested in infection prevention and control and select that person to serve as its
liaison to the ISPC program and its representative on the infection control
committee. Active participation on the infection control committee provides
opportunities for the clinical microbiologist to explain laboratory tests and
practices to the committee members, inform the committee members about
new developments in identifying microorganisms and detecting antimicrobial
resistance, learn about the types and incidence of HAIs in the organization,
discuss surveillance findings, understand the scope and role of the ISPC pro-
gram, and identify microbiologic approaches that could be used to solve ISPC
problems.
IDENTIFICATION OF MICROORGANISMS
The clinical microbiology laboratory is responsible for providing timely and

accurate detection and identification of an ever-expanding variety of microor-
ganisms.3–5,11,13 Technological developments in the past two decades have
greatly aided the recovery and identification of infectious agents.3,5,11,13–20 How-
ever, the development of new and often costly microbiological testing methods
challenges the clinical microbiology laboratory to identify and adopt those
methods that are appropriate for the clinical setting and patient populations
that it serves.17
Rapid Test Methods and Molecular Procedures for Detecting and

Identifying Microorganisms
There are many diagnostic tests that can provide rapid (same-day) identifi-
cation of microorganisms. Commercial biochemical and immunological tests,
such as those that detect Staphylococcus aureus in positive blood cultures, and
direct antigen screens for Neisseria meningitidis, Streptococcus pneumoniae,
Detection of Antimicrobial Resistance 359
and group B streptococcus in cerebral spinal fluid, have long been used. The
biotechnology boom of the 1990s provided new technology and molecular test
methods for detecting, identifying, and characterizing microorganisms, includ-
ing many agents that do not grow in culture media.3,13–18 Examples of molecu-
lar tests for identifying microorganisms that frequently cause outbreaks in
healthcare settings include the following3,14,17,21–23:
• PCR for identification of MRSA and varicella-zoster virus in clinical spec-
imens
• PCR and transcription-mediated amplification (TMA) for detection of My-
cobacterium tuberculosis in clinical specimens and cultures
• PCR for detection of Bordetella pertussis in nasopharyngeal secretions,
norovirus in stool specimens, and influenza A virus in respiratory specimens
Molecular typing methods for characterizing microorganisms are discussed
later in this chapter under “Outbreak Investigation.”
Clinical microbiology laboratory personnel should work with clinicians and
members of the infection prevention and control team to determine which
microbiologic tests are appropriate for use.3,17 Since the sensitivity and speci-
ficity of laboratory test methods differ, the clinical microbiologist should edu-
cate healthcare providers and ICP personnel on the use, advantages, and
limitations of the various tests and the interpretation of test results.14 For
instance, pertussis (whooping cough) is characterized by nonspecific signs and
symptoms that makes early and accurate diagnosis challenging. There are
several laboratory methods for diagnosing or screening for pertussis, including
culture, serology, direct fluorescent antibody stain, and PCR; however, these
tests vary in sensitivity and specificity.22,24–26 There are currently no standard
protocols for pertussis PCR testing, and false-positive results and subsequent
misdiagnoses have been documented with PCR.24–26
DETECTION OF ANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE
The laboratory plays a critical role in detecting and reporting antimicrobial-

resistant organisms and resistance trends.3,7 Antimicrobial resistance can be
detected using a variety of methods, including traditional disc diffusion and
broth dilution, automated systems, the E test, and molecular tests.27 Molecu-
lar methods for detecting antimicrobial resistance are available for many
organisms, including MRSA, VRE, M. tuberculosis, and extended spectrum
beta-lactamase (ESBL) producing E. coli and K. pneumoniae as shown in
Table 11–1.14,17
Each of these methods has advantages and disadvantages, and they differ in
sensitivity. The clinical microbiologist should explain the methods used for
determining antimicrobial resistance, and how to interpret the results, to clin-
icians and the infection prevention and control team.
The microbiology laboratory should provide cumulative antimicrobial sus-
ceptibility data (antibiograms) to clinicians and the infection control committee.
When compiling an antibiogram, the laboratory should follow the guidelines
published by the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards
(NCCLS) (now the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute).28
Table 11–1 Molecular Methods for Detecting Antimicrobial Resistance
Organism(s) Antimicrobial Gene Detection Method

Agent(s)
Staphylococci Methicillin mec Aa Standard DNA probe
Oxacillin Branched-chain DNA
probe; PCR
Enterococci Vancomycin van A, B, C, D b Standard DNA probe
PCR
Enterobacteriaceae Beta-lactams bla TEM Standard probe
Haemophilus and PCR and RFLP
influenzae ; Neisseria blaSHVc PCR and
gonorrhoeae sequencing
Enterobacteriaceae Quinolones Point mutations in gyr PCR and
and gram-positive A, gyr B, par C, and sequencing
cocci par E
Mycobacterium Rifampin Point mutations in rpo PCR and SSCP
tuberculosis d Isoniazid B PCR and sequencing
Ethambutol Point mutations in kat PCR and SSCP
Streptomycin G, inh A, and ahp C PCR and sequencing
Point mutations in PCR and RFLP
emb B ; Point mutations
in rps L and rrs
Herpes virusese Acyclovir and Mutations or deletions PCR and sequencing
related drugs in the TK gene PCR and sequencing
Foscarnet Point mutations in DNA
polymerase gene
HIV f Nucleoside reverse Point mutations in RT PCR and sequencing
transcriptase gene PCR and LIPA
inhibitors; Protease Point mutations in PCR and sequencing
inhibitors PROT gene
a
mecA encodes for the altered penicillin-binding protein PBP2a’; phenotypic methods may require
48 hours incubation or more to detect resistance and are less than 100% sensitive. Detection of mecA
has potential for clinical application in specific circumstances.
b
Vancomycin resistance in enterococci may be related to one of four distinct resistance genotypes of
which vanA and vanB are most important. Genotypic detection of resistance is useful in validation of
phenotypic methods.
c
The genetic basis of resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics is extremely complex. The blaTEM and blaSHV
genes are the two most common sets of plasmid encoded beta-lactamases. The presence of either a
blaTEM or blaSHV gene implies ampicillin resistance. Variants of the blaTEM and blaSHV genes (ESBL) may
also encode for resistance to a range of third-generation cephalosporins and to monobactams.
d
M. tuberculosis is very slow growing. Four weeks or more may be required to obtain phenotypic sus-
ceptibility test results. Detection of resistance genes in M. tuberculosis has potential for clinical applica-
tion in the short term.
e
There are no phenotypic methods sufficiently practical for routine clinical detection of resistance to
antiviral agents. Genotypic methods represent a practical method for routine detection of antiviral
resistance.
f
Abbreviations not defined in text: RFLP, restriction fragment length polymorphism; SSCP, single-
stranded conformational polymorphism; LIPA, line probe assay; TK, thymidine kinase; RT, reverse tran-
scriptase; PROT, protease.
Source: Pfaller MA. Molecular approaches to diagnosing and managing infectious diseases: practicality
and costs. Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7:312–318. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no2/pfaller.htm.
Challenges Presented by Diseases and Bioterrorism 361
CHALLENGES PRESENTED BY EMERGING AND REEMERGING

DISEASES AND BIOTERRORISM
In addition to providing timely and accurate identification of known

pathogens in routine clinical specimens, clinical microbiology laboratory person-
nel must be able to recognize the occurrence of new diseases and the biological
agents thought to be most likely used in a bioterrorist event.29 Since the
1970s, over 35 new human pathogens have been identified, and many known
pathogens have emerged or reemerged.30–39 Examples of pathogenic microbes
and infectious diseases recognized since 1973 are shown in Table 11–2,34–39
and a list of microbes identified as potential biological terrorism agents is in
Table 11–3.40
Table 11–2 Examples of Pathogenic Microbes and Infectious Diseases Recognized

Since 1973
Year Microbe Type Disease

1973 Rotavirus Virus Major cause of infantile diarrhea
worldwide
1975 Parvovirus B19 Virus Aplastic crisis in chronic hemolytic
anemia
1976 Cryptosporidium parvum Parasite Acute and chronic diarrhea
1977 Ebola virus Virus Ebola hemorrhagic fever
1977 Legionella Bacteria Legionnaires’ disease
pneumophila
1977 Hantaan virus Virus Hemorrhagic fever with renal
syndrome (HFRS)
1977 Campylobacter jejuni Bacteria Enteric pathogens distributed
globally
1980 Human T-lymphotropic Virus T-cell lymphoma-leukemia
virus I (HTLV-1)
1981 Toxin-producing Bacteria Toxic shock syndrome (tampon
strains of Staphylococcus use)
aureus
1982 Escherichia coli O157:H7 Bacteria Hemorrhagic colitis; hemolytic
uremic syndrome
1982 HTLV-II Virus Hairy cell leukemia
1982 Borrelia burgdorferi Bacteria Lyme disease
1983 Human immunodeficiency Virus Acquired immunodeficiency
virus (HIV) syndrome (AIDS)
1983 Helicobacter pylori Bacteria Peptic ulcer disease
1985 Enterocytozoon bieneusi Parasite Persistent diarrhea
1986 Cyclospora cayetanensis Parasite Persistent diarrhea
1988 Human herpes-virus-6 Virus Roseola subitum
(HHV-6)
1988 Hepatitis E Virus Enterically transmitted non-A,
non-B hepatitis
continues
Year Microbe Type Disease

1989 Ehrlichia chafeensis Bacteria Human ehrlichiosis
1989 Hepatitis C Virus Parenterally transmitted non-A,
non-B liver infection
1991 Guanarito virus Virus Venezuelan hemorrhagic fever
1991 Encephalitozoon hellem Parasite Conjunctivitis, disseminated
disease
1991 New species of Babesia Parasite Atypical babesiosis
1992 Vibrio cholerae O139 Bacteria New strain associated with
epidemic cholera
1992 Bartonella henselae Bacteria Cat-scratch disease; bacillary
angiomatosis
1993 Sin Nombre virus Virus Adult respiratory distress syndrome
1993 Encephalitozoon cuniculi Parasite Disseminated disease
1994 Sabia virus Virus Brazilian hemorrhagic fever
1994 Hendra virus Virus Acute respiratory syndrome
1995 HHV-8 Virus Associated with Kaposi sarcoma
in AIDS patients
1996 Australian bat lyssavirus Virus Encephalitis
1998 Nipah virus Virus Encephalitis
2001 Human metapneumovirus Virus Respiratory disease
2003 Sudden acute respiratory Virus Sudden acute respiratory
syndrome (SARS) syndrome
coronavirus (SARS CoV)
Source: Adapted from Lederberg J. Infectious disease as an evolutionary paradigm. Emerg Infect Dis.
1997;3(4): 417–423. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol3no4/adobe/lederber.pdf. Accessed May 20,
2008.
Many of these new and reemerging pathogens, such as the noroviruses,

Legionella pneumophila, the hepatitis B and C viruses, Clostridium difficile,
multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis, influenza virus, and MRSA,
have caused outbreaks in hospitals and other healthcare settings and are dis-
cussed elsewhere in this book. Outbreaks will continue to occur as new dis-
eases emerge and known pathogens evolve. Human-to-human transmission of
avian influenza A H5N1 has been documented, and a pandemic with this or
another influenza virus is likely to occur.33
The ability of a previously unrecognized human pathogen to emerge and
rapidly cause a pandemic was demonstrated by the outbreak of SARS that
began in late 2002 in the People’s Republic of China and spread to more than
25 countries on five continents before it was brought under control in July
2003.32 Clinical, research, and public health laboratories played a critical role
in diagnosing and investigating this new disease even before the etiologic agent
was identified. To diagnose patients who fit the clinical picture of SARS, labora-
tories performed bacterial and viral cultures, direct microscopic examinations
Challenges Presented by Diseases and Bioterrorism 363
using Gram stain, electron microscopy, and a variety of serologic and molecular
tests to detect a respiratory pathogen.41 When all of these tests were negative,
the likelihood that a suspected case patient had SARS increased, treatable
infections could be ruled out, and isolation precautions and contact tracing
could be done to interrupt further transmission. Clinical and public health lab-
oratories collaborated to isolate the causative agent of SARS and in March
2003, a novel coronavirus, SARS CoV, was identified and specific diagnostic
tests were quickly developed.32
When Bacillus anthracis spores were mailed in letters via the United States
postal system in September 2001, some of the resulting anthrax cases were
Table 11–3 Critical Biological Agent Categories for Public Health Preparedness
Biological Agent(s) Disease

Category A
Variola major Smallpox
Bacillus anthracis Anthrax
Yersinia pestis Plague
Clostridium botulinum (botulinum toxins) Botulism
Francisella tularensis Tularemia
Filoviruses and arenaviruses (e.g., Ebola virus, Lassa virus) Viral hemorrhagic fevers
Category B
Coxiella burnetii Q fever
Brucella spp. Brucellosis
Burkholderia mallei Glanders
Burkholderia pseudomallei Melioidosis
Alphaviruses (VEE, EEE, WEEa) Encephalitis
Rickettsia prowazekii Typhus fever
Toxins (e.g., ricin, staphylococcal enterotoxin B) Toxic syndromes
Chlamydia psittaci Psittacosis
Food safety threats (e.g., Salmonella spp., Escherichia coli
O157:H7)
Water safety threats (e.g., Vibrio cholerae, Cryptosporidium
parvum)
Category C
Emerging threat agents (e.g., Nipah virus, hantavirus)
a
Venezuelan equine (VEE), eastern equine (EEE), and western equine encephalomyelitis (WEE)
viruses
Source: Rotz LD, Khan AS, Lillibridge SR, Ostroff SM, Hughes JM. Public health assessment of poten-
tial biological terrorism agents. Emerg Infect Dis. 2002;8(2):226. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/
vol8no2/pdf/01-0164.pdf. Accessed May 20, 2008.
detected and reported by clinical microbiology laboratory personnel.42 Micro-

biology laboratories nationwide were notified of the intentional release of an-
thrax spores and conducted surveillance for cases. However, clinical
microbiology laboratories in hospitals near the sites that received or processed
the contaminated mail were inundated with requests to culture clinical speci-
mens, environmental samples, and powder for B. anthracis. These laboratories
had to work quickly to implement an emergency response to effectively meet
the challenge. By working with clinicians and public health and law enforce-
ment personnel, they played an integral role in detecting cases so that inter-
ventions could be taken to prevent additional exposures.42
INFECTION SURVEILLANCE
The microbiologist and the ICP should collaborate to identify the informa-
tion and data sources that are needed for HAI surveillance, such as results of
cultures, acid-fast bacilli smears, antimicrobial susceptibility testing, tests for
epidemiologically significant organisms, and serologic tests.3,4,43 These results
should be made readily available to the ICP and should be provided electroni-
cally rather than on paper. When possible, the data should be downloaded into
a retrievable database in the ISPC department. Although most clinical micro-
biology laboratories have automated data collection, management, and report-
ing processes, many ISPC programs do not effectively use computerized
systems. ICPs can greatly benefit by working with lab personnel to identify how
already available data and reports can be provided directly to the personal
computer in their office and what special reports can readily be produced by a
few keystrokes. Many clinical microbiology laboratory data management sys-
tems can provide epidemiologic reports, such as trends of pathogens identified
in a particular patient care unit or type of specimen, and antibiotic suscepti-
bility patterns for specific isolates and antimicrobials. The ICP, clinical micro-
biology laboratory, and infection control committee should collaborate to
determine what reports are available, which would be beneficial for clinicians
and the ISPC program, and how they could be provided.
The laboratory should maintain a list of epidemiologically important organ-
isms and test results, such as positive tests for Bordetella pertussis and Neisse-
ria meningitidis and sputum smears that contain acid-fast bacilli, that should
be immediately reported to the patient care unit and the ICP. Clinical microbi-
ology laboratory personnel play an important role in outbreak prevention by
reporting epidemiologically significant findings such as a positive pertussis test
result to the ICP and the patient’s health care providers so that measures
promptly can be taken to prevent disease transmission.
Infectious disease surveillance is not limited to the hospital inpatient set-
ting. In the past few decades much health care has moved from inpatient to
outpatient, home care, and long-term care settings.7,44 Many hospital-based
ICPs are responsible for the ISPC programs in hospital-affiliated ambulatory
care services such as same-day surgery centers, dialysis units, and clinics.
Since diagnostic testing for the patients in these settings may be performed
through the hospital laboratory, clinical microbiology laboratory personnel
Outbreak Investigation and Response 365
play an important part in detecting healthcare- and community-associated

infections and outbreaks in nonhospital healthcare settings.7
Identification of Clusters and Outbreaks
Because microbiology laboratory personnel are familiar with the microor-

ganisms commonly isolated from the clinical specimens that they receive, they
are frequently among the first to detect an unusual organism, cluster of infec-
tions, or unique antimicrobial resistance pattern.3,4 By reporting these findings
immediately to the ICP and healthcare providers, they serve as an early warn-
ing system for outbreaks and multidrug-resistant organisms. For instance,
laboratory personnel in the author’s hospital notified the ISPC department
about the admission of two patients who had gastroenteritis and presumptive
Salmonella species isolated from stool cultures. The ICP discovered that the
patients were friends who had attended a wedding reception the day prior to
developing diarrhea and who knew that a few more attendees were also ill.
The ICP notified the health department about the two cases and the subse-
quent investigation uncovered a community Salmonella outbreak that was
traced to contaminated meat.
OUTBREAK INVESTIGATION AND RESPONSE
The clinical microbiology laboratory plays an integral role in outbreak

investigation by doing the following:
• Participating as an active member of the outbreak investigation team
• Providing and analyzing data on the usual or endemic occurrence of
organisms3,4
• Identifying and storing microbial isolates that are involved in a suspected
cluster or outbreak so they will be available for further testing3,4
• Conducting supplemental studies such as serologic tests for immunity or
cultures of specimens from patients, personnel, or environmental
sources3,4,43
• Identifying the need for selective or other specialized culture media to iso-
late the etiologic agent involved in the outbreak4,27,46
• Providing information and guidance on the type of specimens needed for
special studies and the methods for collecting and transporting speci-
mens27,46
• Identifying the appropriate typing tests that should be used to determine
if the isolates are related and whether the tests can be done on site or the
isolates should be sent to a reference laboratory14–16
The ICP should immediately notify the laboratory when an outbreak is sus-
pected so that isolates of possible etiologic agents can be saved in case further
analysis is needed. Since outbreaks result in much fear and confusion, the lab-
oratory and infection control committee should prepare an action plan in
advance to guide response activities should an outbreak occur.
Special Studies
Supplemental cultures or other diagnostic tests may be needed during the

course of an outbreak investigation to identify (1) persons who are infected or
colonized, (2) potential sources or reservoirs of an etiologic agent, (3) the likely
modes of transmission of an organism, (4) if transmission is still occurring, or
(5) the immune status of exposed persons. The laboratory should only perform
supplemental studies under the direction of the outbreak investigation team
and only after the team has determined why the studies are being done and
how the results will be interpreted and used.
Microbiologic Cultures
“Microbiologic sampling of air, water, and inanimate surfaces (i.e., environ-

mental sampling) is an expensive and time-consuming process that is compli-
cated by many variables in protocol, analysis, and interpretation.”47(p88)
Supplemental cultures should only be done as part of an outbreak investiga-
tion when a person or environmental source is implicated epidemiologically in
the transmission of an infectious agent.45,47 Extensive microbiologic culturing
of personnel or the environment is generally not warranted and should not be
done unless a full-scale epidemiologic study is conducted and the study impli-
cates a personnel carrier or an environmental source and the significant iso-
lates are typed for evidence of strain relatedness.45,47 Neither environmental
nor personnel cultures should be done unless there is a plan for interpreting
and acting on the results obtained.47 Microorganisms isolated from personnel
or environmental cultures should be linked to clinical isolates by molecular
strain typing whenever possible.47
It is important to remember that a person, item, or surface is not necessarily
the source of an outbreak just because it is culture positive; any of these may
have become contaminated by the true source or by an infected or colonized
person. As discussed in Chapter 8, if microbiologic culturing of personnel,
patients, residents, or the environment is to be done, arrangements should be
made with the laboratory, with personnel in areas where testing will occur,
and with the organization’s administrator, who must determine how to cover
the expenses involved.
Culturing Personnel
If culturing of personnel is done, specimens should be labeled with a code,

rather than with a person’s name, to protect the identity of anyone who is cul-
ture positive for the organism being studied. Only one person should hold the
key connecting the codes and names. Culturing creates substantial anxiety
among personnel because they will be concerned that they may be involved in
causing the outbreak. Therefore, the decision to culture personnel must be
made carefully, based on epidemiologic evidence, and personnel should be
assured that the results of testing will remain confidential—to allay concerns
that they will be blamed for the outbreak if they are culture positive.
If an infectious agent has a carrier state or can cause colonization, it may
sometimes be desirable to culture patients or residents to determine the extent
Epidemiologic Typing Methods 367
of the spread in the population at risk. Culture surveys should not be done on
persons or the environment unless the significant organisms that are isolated
are typed or otherwise characterized to determine if they are related
strains.
Specimen Collection
If special studies are to be done, the laboratory should identify the appropri-
ate specimen needed to identify or isolate the etiologic agent and how to col-
lect and transport it.48 The lab should provide instructions to those who will
collect the specimens and those who will be tested, as needed. The types of
specimens, the sites to be cultured, and the collection methods will depend on
the agent being studied. For instance, S. aureus is usually best detected in
nares and wound cultures49 and viruses and enteric bacilli causing gastroen-
teritis in stool samples or rectal swabs.50,51
Protocols for determining what types of specimens are needed and how to
collect and transport specimens have been developed by the CDC,50,51 the
American Society for Microbiology,46 and many state health departments.52–55
EPIDEMIOLOGIC TYPING METHODS
When used as an adjunct to an epidemiologic investigation, the character-

ization or typing of microorganisms is a powerful tool for investigating out-
breaks of healthcare-associated infection. 14–17,45,47,56 There are many
methods for typing microbial isolates.3,15,16 Phenotypic techniques, which
detect characteristics that are expressed by an organism, include biotyping,
serotyping, antimicrobial susceptibility, bacteriophage and bacteriocin typ-
ing, PAGE, MLEE, and immuno-blotting.3,16 Genotypic (or molecular) tech-
niques, which examine an organism’s genetic content, include plasmid
analysis, REA, ribotyping, PFGE, and PCR. 3,15,16 Examples of genotypic
methods for epidemiologic typing of microorganisms are shown in Table
11–4. Molecular typing can be used for a variety of purposes, including to
demonstrate the occurrence of an outbreak,56–58 the transmission of organ-
isms from patient to patient 17,59,61 and between patients and health care
providers,59–61 and to identify likely environmental sources and reservoirs of
microorganisms.47,58
The results of typing tests must be used and interpreted with caution to
avoid erroneous conclusions.14,16 As noted by van Belkum et al. “It must be
emphasized that typing results can never stand alone and need to be inter-
preted in the context of all available epidemiological, clinical, and demo-
graphic data relating to the infectious disease under investigation.”16(p1)
For instance, the finding that there is only one strain circulating in a health-
care setting does not necessarily mean that all of the infections are related—
there may be only a single strain circulating in the community even though there
may be many reservoirs or sources. Conversely, if multiple strains are found,
there may still be an outbreak, as multiple strains have been found to cause
an outbreak (based on epidemiologic evidence). For additional information on
Table 11–4 Genotypic Methods for Epidemiologic Typing of Microorganisms*
Method Examples Comments

Plasmid analysis Staphylococci Plasmids may be digested with
Enterobacteriaceae restriction endonucleases
Only useful when organisms
carry plasmids
Restriction endonuclease Enterococci Large number of bands
analysis of chromosomal Staphylococcus aureus Difficult to interpret
DNA with conventional Clostridium difficile Not amenable to computer
electrophoresis Candida spp. analysis
PFGE Enterobacteriaceae Fewer bands
Staphylococci Amenable to computer analysis
Enterococci Very broad application
Candida spp.
Genome restriction fragment Enterobacteriaceae Fewer bands
length polymorphism Staphylococci Computer analysis
analysis: ribotyping, insertion Pseudomonas aeruginosa Sequence-based profiles
sequence, probe finger- Mycobacterium Automated
printing tuberculosis ; Candida spp.
PCR-based methods: Enterobacteriaceae Crude extracts and small
repetitive elements PCR Acinetobacter spp. amounts of DNA may suffice
spacer typing, selective Staphylococci
amplification of genome M. tuberculosis
restriction fragments, Hepatitis C virus
multilocus allelic sequence-
based typing
Library probe genotypic Burkholderia cepacia Unambiguous yes-no result
hybridization schemes: S. aureus Less discrimination than other
multilocus probe dot-blot M. tuberculosis methods
patterns, high-density Couple with DNA chip
oligonucleotide patterns technology
* The table contains examples of available methods and applications and is not intended to be all-inclusive.
Source: Pfaller MA. Molecular approaches to diagnosing and managing infectious diseases: practical-
ity and costs. Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7:312–318. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no2/pfaller.htm.
typing systems, the reader is referred to the guidelines by van Belkum et al.16
and the review by Singh et al.15
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
In the United States, every state has notifiable disease requirements man-
dating laboratories to report specific diseases and conditions to state and local
health departments.62,63 The diseases and conditions that laboratories must
report to the state health department varies by state. State health depart-
Emergency Preparedness 369
ments subsequently transmit data to the CDC’s National Notifiable Diseases

Surveillance System (NNDSS). The list of nationally notifiable infectious dis-
eases can be found in Chapter 2 (Exhibit 2–2) and on the CDC Web site (http://
www.cdc.gov/ncphi/disss/nndss/phs/infdis.htm). Local, state, and national pub-
lic health agencies use data collected at the local level to monitor trends and
detect outbreaks so that prevention and control measures can be implemented.
Public health reporting requirements and case definitions for notifiable diseases
are discussed in Appendix B (Appendix B is available for download at this
text’s web site: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/9780763757793/). The clinical
microbiology laboratory should work with the ISPC program personnel to
implement procedures that ensure the reporting of notifiable diseases.
As a result of pressure from legislators, regulators, health care payers, accred-
itation agencies, and others to reduce the occurrence of HAIs, data reporting
requirements for infectious diseases and HAI-related information have increased
significantly since 2000. In addition to notifiable diseases, many states require
laboratories and/or health care facilities to report data on the incidence of spe-
cific organisms, such as MRSA, VRE, and Clostridium difficile, and on specific
HAIs such as central line-associated bloodstream infections.64–66 Because
these mandates will increase as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Ser-
vices (CMS) phases in its HAI reporting requirements,67 the clinical microbiol-
ogy lab and ISPC personnel should collaborate to keep up with the changing
requirements and identify the most efficient methods for reporting these data.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH ACTIVITIES
Clinical microbiology laboratory personnel should subscribe to public health

electronic communication networks such as the ProMED-mail (http://www
.promedmail.org) and the CDC Clinician Updates (http://www.bt.cdc.gov
/clinregistry) as discussed in Chapter 9. These networks support the early
detection and response to outbreaks of common and unusual pathogens and
the measurement of the effectiveness of public health interventions.
When applicable, clinical microbiology laboratories should serve as sentinel
laboratories in the CDC’s Laboratory Response Network (LRN). Information on
sentinel laboratories and the LRN can be found on the CDC (http://www.bt.cdc.gov/
lrn/biological.asp) and American Society for Microbiology (ASM) (http://www.asm
.org/policy/index.asp?bid=6342) Web sites. The emergence and reemergence of
infectious diseases, the demands of increasing regulatory requirements and eco-
nomic constraints, and the occurrence of multistate and international food-borne
outbreaks have served as an impetus for public health and clinical laboratories to
“communicate, cooperate, and collaborate as never before to seek the common
ground where knowledge and resources can be shared.”68(p9)
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
As demonstrated by SARS and the anthrax bioterrorist event in the United

States, laboratories play a critical role in the response to natural and man-made
outbreaks.32,41,42 Education and training on emerging infectious diseases,
emergency response, and likely bioterrorism agents (Table 11–3) should be
provided to laboratory personnel who should be prepared for the influx of
specimens that will occur during a widespread community, regional, or

national outbreak; a pandemic; or a bioterrorist event.29,69–72 The clinical
microbiology laboratory should have an emergency preparedness plan that
addresses bioterrorism, other infectious disease emergencies, and surge capac-
ity.29,69–72 The plan should include “event recognition, access to and interaction
with the various LRN level laboratories, communication protocols, safety
guidelines, training of personnel to ensure competence and awareness, pack-
aging and shipment of infectious substances, and laboratory security.”69(p4) It
should be integrated into the hospital’s institutional emergency preparedness
plan and coordinated with local and state public health and emergency
response agencies, the public health laboratory system, law enforcement agen-
cies, and other stakeholders. The ASM provides a template that can be used
for a clinical laboratory bioterrorism readiness plan.71
Emergency preparedness and bioterrorism information is available from the
ASM,71–72 CDC,73 academic institutions,74 professional organizations,75 and
state and local health departments.
EMPLOYEE (PERSONNEL) HEALTH
The clinical laboratory supports occupational health programs in health

care settings by doing the following:
• Providing timely and accurate testing for routine preemployment screen-
ing, such as immunity for hepatitis B and varicella zoster virus (VZV)76,77
and latent tuberculosis (TB) infection using a blood assay test for Mycobac-
terium tuberculosis (BAMT).78 Accurate screening can prevent infections
in personnel and subsequent outbreaks.76
• Assisting in the follow-up of personnel exposed to communicable diseases
such as measles, chickenpox, and tuberculosis (Appendix C)
• Implementing safety practices in the laboratory to prevent exposure of
personnel to infectious agents27,46,69,77,79
Laboratory personnel that handle clinical specimens, cultures, and infec-
tious materials are at risk for exposure to human pathogens and laboratory-
acquired infections.77,80–82 Laboratory-acquired infections have been caused by
a wide variety of bacteria, viruses, fungi, and parasites, and exposure has
occurred through ingestion, inoculation, inhalation, and contamination of skin
or mucous membranes.77,80,81 Clinical microbiology laboratories should ensure
that personnel are trained in, and use, safe work practices (such as safe sharps
handling and no food or drink consumption in the laboratory), safety equip-
ment (such as biological safety cabinets), and personnel protective equipment
(such as gloves, masks, face shields, and lab coats).80 Guidelines for safe work
practices in the laboratory have been written by the CDC and NIH,79 the
NCCLS,83 the WHO,84 and others.80
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND PSEUDO-OUTBREAKS
Pseudo-outbreaks, or clusters of false infections, occur frequently in health

care settings, as discussed in Chapter 6. Many pseudo-outbreaks are related to
References 371
cross-contamination and technical errors in the laboratory. Pseudo-outbreaks

have been traced to the introduction of new laboratory procedures85 and
equipment,86,87 specimen cross-contamination due to faulty ventilation in the
laboratory,88 contaminated saline used as dilutent in processing specimens,89,90
laboratory errors in processing respiratory specimens,91 contaminated instru-
ments,92,93 and cross-contamination during processing specimens.94 Pseudo-
outbreaks may result in much time spent by those who are investigating the
outbreak, and pseudo-infections may result in unnecessary treatment or pro-
phylaxis of patients, residents, or staff and the loss of confidence in medical
personnel and the laboratory. Laboratory personnel should ensure that good
routine microbiological techniques are used at all times to reduce the risk of
specimen and culture contamination and the occurrence of a pseudo-outbreak.
The reader is referred to Chapter 6 for additional information on pseudo-
outbreaks related to the laboratory and measures to prevent them from occurring.
SUMMARY
The clinical microbiology laboratory plays a critical role in health care and
public health by contributing to the diagnosis and treatment of infectious dis-
eases, identifying antimicrobial resistance and epidemiologically important
organisms, and detecting and responding to outbreaks. At the local level, the
clinical microbiology laboratory provides information used to identify, treat,
and prevent community- and health care-associated infections and forms the
backbone of ISPC programs in health care facilities. At the national and inter-
national levels, the laboratory supports the public health infrastructure needed
to rapidly detect, prevent, and contain the spread of infectious diseases.
Advances in clinical microbiology laboratory testing methodology and
automation, molecular epidemiology, and information technology have
enhanced the ability of the clinical microbiology laboratory to support ISPC
programs at many levels. These advances place clinical microbiology labora-
tory personnel on the front line of efforts to identify, prevent, and control the
spread of infectious agents in health care and community settings.
REFERENCES
1. Weinstein RA, Mallison GF. The role of the microbiology laboratory in surveillance and con-
trol of nosocomial infections. Am J Clin Pathol. 1978;69(2):130–136.
2. Struelens MJ, Van Elder J, and participants in the workshop. Introduction: progress towards
meeting the challenges in clinical microbiology and infectious diseases. Clin Micro Infect Dis.
2005;11(Suppl. 1):1–2.
3. Pfaller MA, Herwaldt LA. The clinical microbiology laboratory and infection control: emerging
pathogens, antimicrobial resistance, and new technology. Clin Infect Dis. 1997;25(4):858–870.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/515557. Accessed May 6, 2008.
4. Emori G, Gaynes RP. An overview of nosocomial infections, including the role of the microbi-
ology laboratory. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1993;6(4):428–442. http://cmr.asm.org/cgi/reprint/6/4/428?
view=long&pmid=8269394. Accessed May 6, 2008.
5. Diekema DJ, Pfaller MA. Chapter 10. Infection control epidemiology and clinical microbiol-
ogy. In: Murray PR, Baron EJ, Jorgensen JH, Landry ML, Pfaller MA. eds. Manual of Clinical
Microbiology. 9th ed. Washington, DC: ASM Press. 2007.
6. Kolmos HJ. Interaction between the microbiology laboratory and clinician: what the microbi-
ologist can provide. J Hosp Infect. 1999;43(Suppl:S)285–291.
7. Simor AE. The role of the laboratory in infection prevention and control programs in long-
term care facilities for the elderly. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2001;22:459–463.
8. Boyce J. Hospital epidemiology in smaller hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1995;
16:600–606.
9. Dato V, Wagner MM, Fapohunda A. How outbreaks of infectious disease are detected: a review
of surveillance systems and outbreaks. Pub Health Rep. 2004;119:464–471. http://www.public
healthreports.org/userfiles/119_5/119464.pdf. Accessed May 16, 2008.
10. Weinberg J. Surveillance and control of infectious diseases at local, national and interna-
tional levels. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2005;11(Suppl. 1):12–14. http://www.blackwell-synergy
.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2005.01083.x. Accessed May 16, 2008.
11. Canton R. Role of the microbiology laboratory in infectious disease surveillance, alert, and
response. Clin Micro Infect. 2005;11(Suppl. 1):3–8. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/
10.1111/j.1469-0691.2005.01081.x. Accessed May 16, 2008.
12. Panackal AA, M’ikanatha NM, Tsui FC, et al. Automatic electronic laboratory-based report-
ing of notifiable infectious diseases at a large health system. Emerg Infect Dis. 2002;8:685–
691. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol8no7/01-0493.htm. Accessed May 16, 2008.
13. Cockerill FR III, Smith TF. Response of the clinical microbiology laboratory to emerging (new)
and reemerging infectious diseases. J Clin Microbiol. 2004;42:2359–2365. http://www.pubmed
central.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1390794&blobtype=pdf. Accessed May 7, 2008.
14. Speers DJ. Clinical applications of molecular biology for infectious diseases. Clin Biochem
Rev. 2006;27:39–51. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1390794&blobtype=
pdf. Accessed May 7, 2008.
15. Singh A, Goering RV, Simjee S, Foley SL, Zervos MJ. Application of molecular techniques to
the study of hospital infection. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2006;19(3):512–530. http://cmr.asm.org/
cgi/reprint/19/3/512. Accessed May 20, 2008.
16. van Belkum A, Tassios PT, Dojksoom L, et al for the European Society of Clinical Microbiology
and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) Study Group on Epidemiological Markers (ESGEM).
Guidelines for the validation and application of typing methods for use in bacterial epidemi-
ology. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2007;13(Suppl 3):1–46. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/
clm/13/s3. Accessed May 6, 2008.
17. Pfaller MA. Molecular approaches to diagnosing and managing infectious diseases: practi-
cality and costs. Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7:312–318. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no2/pfaller
.htm. Accessed May 29, 2008.
18. Weber S, Pfaller MA, Herwaldt LA. Role of molecular epidemiology in infection control. Infect
Dis Clin North Am. 1997;11(2):257–278.
19. Espy MJ, Uhl JR, Sloan M, et al. Real-time PCR in clinical microbiology: applications for rou-
tine laboratory testing. Clin Micro Rev. 2006;19(1):165–256. http://cmr.asm.org/cgi/reprint/
19/1/165. Accessed May 30, 2008.
20. Pfaller MA. Diagnosis and management of infectious diseases: molecular methods for the new
millennium. Clinical Laboratory News. 2000;26:10–13.
21. Harbarth S, Masuet-Aumatell C, Schrenzel J, et al. Evaluation of rapid screening and pre-
emptive contact isolation for detecting and controlling methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus in critical care: an interventional cohort study. Crit Care. 2006;10:128. http://ccforum
.com/content/10/2/128. Accessed May 29, 2008.
22. Sotir MJ, Cappozzo DL, Warshauer DM, et al. Evaluation of polymerase chain reaction and
culture for diagnosis of pertussis in the control of a county-wide outbreak focused among ado-
lescents and adults. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44:1216–1219.
23. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Norovirus activity—United States, 2002.
MMWR. 2003;52(03):41–45. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5203a1.htm.
References 373
24. Lievano FA, Reynolds MA, Waring AL, et al. Issues associated with and recommendations for
using PCR to detect outbreaks of pertussis. J Clin Micro. 2002;40(8):2801–2805. http://jcm
.asm.org/cgi/reprint/40/8/2801. Accessed May 28, 2008.
25. Fry NK, Tzivra O, Ting Li Y, et al. Laboratory diagnosis of pertussis infections: the role of
PCR and serology. J Med Microbiol. 2004;53:519–525.
26. Outbreaks of respiratory illness mistakenly attributed to pertussis—New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, and Tennessee, 2004–2006. MMWR. 2007;56(33):837–842. http://iier.isciii.es/
mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5633a1.htm. Accessed May 7, 2008.
27. Murray PR, Baron EJ, Jorgensen JH, Landry ML, Pfaller MA, eds. Manual of Clinical
Microbiology. 9th ed. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 2007.
28. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS). Analysis and presentation
of cumulative antimicrobial susceptibility test data: approved standard. NCCLS document
M39-A. Wayne, PA: NCCLS; 2002.
29. Kleitman WF, Ruoff KL. Bioterrorism: implications for the clinical microbiologist. Clin
Microbiol Rev. 2001;14(2):364–381. http://cmr.asm.org/cgi/content/full/14/2/364. Accessed May
19, 2008.
Nature. 2004;430:250–256.
31. Lederberg J, Shope R, Oaks S, eds. Emerging infections: microbial threats to health in the
United States. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1992:36–41. http://www.nap.edu/
Biol Sci. 2004;29;359:1075–1079. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=
1693390. Accessed May 18, 2008.
33. Yuen KY, Wong SSY. Human infection by avian influenza A H5N1. Hong Kong Med J.
2005;11(3)189–199. http://www.hkmj.org/article_pdfs/hkm0506p189.pdf. Accessed May 19,
2008.
34. Fauci AS, Touchette NA, Folkers GK. Emerging infectious diseases: a 10-year perspective from
the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11:519–524.
http://www.cdc.gov/Ncidod/eid/vol11no04/04-1167.htm. Accessed May 29, 2008.
35. Lederberg J. Infectious disease as an evolutionary paradigm. Emerg Infect Dis. 1997;3(4):417–423.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol3no4/adobe/lederber.pdf. Accessed May 20, 2008.
36. Smolinski MS, Hamburg MA, Lederberg J, eds. Microbial Threats to Health: Emergence,
Detection, and Response. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2003:1. http://www
.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10636. Accessed April 21, 2008.
37. Fauci AS. Infectious diseases: considerations for the 21st century. Clin Infect Dis.
2001;32(5):675–685. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/319235. Accessed
September 27, 2008.
38. Mackenzie JS, Chua KB, Daniels PW, et al. Emerging viral diseases of southeast Asia and the
western pacific. Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7(Suppl.3):497–504. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/
vol7no3_supp/pdf/mackenzie.pdf. Accessed May 20, 2008.
39. van den Hoogen BG, deJong JC, Groen J, et al. A newly discovered human pneumovirus iso-
lated from young children with respiratory tract disease. Nat Med. 2001;7:719–724.
40. Rotz LD, Khan AS, Lillibridge SR, Ostroff SM, Hughes JM. Public health assessment of
potential biological terrorism agents. Emerg Infect Dis. 2002;8(2):226. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/
eid/vol8no2/pdf/01-0164.pdf. Accessed May 20, 2008.
41. Health Canada. Epidemiology, clinical presentation and laboratory investigation of severe
acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in Canada, March 2003. Can Comm Dis Report.
2003;29:71–75. http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/03pdf/cdr2908.pdf. Accessed
May 18, 2008.
42. Jenigan DB, Raghunathan PL, Bell BP, et al. Investigation of bioterrorism-related anthrax,
United States, 2001: epidemiologic findings. Emerg Infect Dis. 2002;8:1019–1028. http://www
.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol8no10/02-0353.htm. Accessed May 29, 2008.
43. McGowan JE Jr, Metchock BG. Basic microbiology support for hospital epidemiology. Infect
44. Jarvis WR. Infection control and changing health-care delivery systems. Emerg Infect Dis.
2001;7:171–173.
45. Beck-Sague C, Jarvis WR, Martone WJ. Outbreak investigations. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
1997;18:138–145.
46. Garcia LS. Clinical Microbiology Procedures Handbook. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: ASM Press.
2004/2007.
47. Sehulster LM, Chinn RYW, Arduino MJ, et al. Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control
in Health-Care Facilities. Recommendations from CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control
Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). Chicago IL:American Society for Healthcare
Engineering/American Hospital Association; 2004. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/gl_environ
infection.html. Accessed May 30, 2008.
48. Miller JM, Krisher K, Holmes HT. General principles of specimen collection and handling. In:
Murray PR, Baron EJ, Jorgensen JH, Landry ML, Pfaller MA, eds. Manual of Clinical
Microbiology. 9th ed. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 2007.
49. Wenzel RP, Reagan DR, Bertino JS, Baron EJ, Arias K. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus outbreak: a consensus panel’s definition and management guidelines. Am J Infect
Control. 1998;26:102–110.
50. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Norwalk-like viruses. Public health conse-
quences and outbreak management. MMWR. 2001;50(No.RR-9):1–17.
51. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outbreak Response and Surveillance Team
(ORST): foodborne disease surveillance and outbreak investigation toolkit. http://www.cdc
.gov/foodborneoutbreaks/toolkit.htm. Accessed May 30, 2008.
52. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Guidelines for the epidemiological
investigation of gastroenteritis outbreaks in long-term care facilities, 2001. http://www
.cha.state.md.us/edcp/guidelines/ge96.html. Accessed May 30, 2008.
53. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Guidelines for the prevention and con-
trol of upper and lower acute respiratory illnesses (including influenza and pneumonia) in
long-term care facilities, 2000. http://www.cha.state.md.us/edcp/guidelines/resp97.html.
54. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Guidelines for control of scabies in
long-term Care Facilities. http://www.cha.state.md.us/edcp/guidelines/scabies96.html.
55. California Department of Health Services Division of Communicable Disease Control.
Prevention and control of gastroenteritis in California long-term care facilities. 2000. http://
www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/dcdc/disb/pdf/PCofGE0900_ms.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2008.
57. Lopman BA, Gallimore C, Gray JJ, et al. Linking healthcare associated norovirus outbreaks:
a molecular epidemiologic method for investigating transmission. BMC Infect Dis.
2006;6:108–118.
58. Ganeswire R, Thongi KL, Puthucheary SD. Nosocomial outbreak of Enterobacter gergoviae
bacteremia in a neonatal intensive care unit. J Hosp Infect. 2003;53:292–296.
59. Huang WL, Jou R, Yeh PF, Huang A, and the Outbreak Investigation Team. Laboratory inves-
tigation of a nosocomial transmission of tuberculosis at a district general hospital. J Formos
Med Assoc. 2007;106:520–527.
60. Sheretz RJ, Reagan DR, Hampton KD, et al. A cloud adult: the Staphylococcus aureus-virus
61. Milisavljevic V, Wu F, Larson E, et al. Molecular epidemiology of Serratia marcescens out-
breaks in two neonatal intensive care units. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004;9:719–721.
62. Roush S, Birkhead G, Koo D, Cobb A, Fleming D. Mandatory reporting of diseases and condi-
tions by health care professionals and laboratories. JAMA. 1999;282(2):164–170. http://jama
.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/282/2/164. Accessed May 16, 2008.
63. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Mandatory reporting of infectious diseases by
clinicians. MMWR. 1990;39(9):1–11,16–17. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/
00001665.htm. Accessed May 16, 2008.
References 375
64. Weinstein RA, Siegel JD, Brennan PJ. Infection-control report cards—securing patient safety.
N Engl J Med. 2005;353(3):225–227.
65. McKibben L, Horan TC, Tokars JI, et al. Guidance on public reporting of healthcare-associated
infections: recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee.
66. Lindenauer PK, Remus D, Roman S, et al. Public reporting and pay for performance in hos-
pital quality improvement. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:486–496.
67. Department of Health and Human Services. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 42
CFR Parts 411, 412, 413, and 489. Medicare program; proposed changes to the hospital inpa-
tient prospective payment systems and fiscal year 2008 rates. Proposed rule. http://www.cms
.hhs.gov/AcuteInpatientPPS/downloads/CMS-1533-P.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2008.
68. Beebe JL. Public health and clinical laboratories: partners in the age of emerging infections.
Clin Micro Newsletter. 2006;28(2):9–12.
69. Snyder JW. Role of the hospital-based microbiology laboratory in preparation for and response
to a bioterrorism event. J Clin Micro. 2003;41:1–4. http://jcm.asm.org/cgi/content/full/41/1/1.
70. Shapiro DS. Surge capacity for response to bioterrorism in hospital clinical microbiology lab-
oratories. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41(12):5372–5376. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/article
render.fcgi?artid=308964. Accessed May 31, 2008.
71. American Society for Microbiology. Sentinel laboratory guidelines for suspected agents of
bioterrorism. Clinical laboratory bioterrorism readiness plan. Revised August, 2006.
http://www.asm.org/ASM/files/LeftMarginHeaderList/DOWNLOADFILENAME/
000000001206/BTtemplateRevised8-10-6.doc. Accessed May 30, 2008.
72. Snyder JW, Check W. American Bioterrorism Threats to Our Future. The Role of the Clinical
Microbiology Laboratory in Detection, Identification, and Confirmation of Biological Agents.
A report from the American Academy of Microbiology and the American College of Microbiology.
2001. http://www.asm.org/ASM/files/CCLIBRARYFILES/FILENAME/0000000672/bioterrorism-
bw.pdf. Accessed May 31, 2008.
73. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Emergency Preparedness and Response—
Bioterrorism. http://www.bt.cdc.gov/bioterrorism/. Accessed May 31, 2008.
74. Saint Louis University School of Public Health. Institute for Biosecurity. http://bioterrorism
.slu.edu/bt/internet.htm. Accessed May 31, 2008.
75. Infectious Disease Society of America. Biodefense Information and Resources. http://www
.idsociety.org/BT/ToC.htm. Accessed May 31, 2008.
76. Behrman A, Schmidt S, Crivaro A, Watson B. A cluster of primary varicella cases among
healthcare workers with false-positive varicella virus titers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
2003;24:202–206. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr5415.pdr. Accessed May 30, 2008.
77. Bolyard EA, Tablan OC, Willams WW, et al. Guideline for Infection Control in Health Care
Personnel, 1998. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/gl_hcpersonnel.html. Accessed May 30, 2008.
78. Guidelines for using the QuantiFERON®-TB gold test for detecting Mycobacterium tubercu-
losis infection, United States. MMWR. 2005;54(15):49–55.
79. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health. Biosafety in
Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories. 5th ed. Washington, DC: United States
Government Printing Office. 2007. http://www.cdc.gov/od/ohs/biosfty/bmbl5/bmbl5toc.htm.
80. Sewell DL. Laboratory-associated infections and biosafety. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1995;8(3):389–
405. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=174631&blobtype=pdf. Accessed
May 30, 2008.
81. Herwaldt BL. Laboratory-acquired parasitic infections from accidental exposures. Clin
Microbiol Rev. 2001;14(4):659–688. http://cmr.highwire.org/cgi/content/full/14/4/659. Accessed
May 30, 2008.
82. Yagupsky P, Baron EJ. Laboratory exposures to Brucellae and implications for bioterrorism.
Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11(8):1180–1184.
83. Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute. Protection of Laboratory Workers from Occupationally
Acquired Infections, 2nd ed. Wayne, PA: Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute. 2005.
84. World Health Organization. Laboratory Biosafety Manual. 2nd ed. (revised). Interim guide-
lines. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. 2003. http://www.who.int/csr/
resources/publications/biosafety/who_cds_csr_lyo_20034/en/. Accessed May 30, 2008.
85. Apisarnthanarak A, Kiratisin P, Thongphubeth K, Yuakyen C, Mundy LM. Pseudo-outbreak
of Acinetobacter lwoffii infection in a tertiary care center in Thailand. Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol. 2007;28(5):637–639.
86. Diederen BM, Verhulst C, van’t Veen A, van Keulen PH, Kluytmans JA. Pseudo-outbreak of
hepatitis B virus infection associated with contamination of a semiautomatic cap remover.
87. Pearson ML, Pegues DA, Carson LA, et al. Cluster of Enterobacter cloacae pseudobacteremias
associated with use of an agar slant blood culturing system. J Clin Microbiol. 1993;31:
2599–2603.
88. Segal-Maurer S, Kreiswirth BN, Burns JM, et al. Mycobacterium tuberculosis specimen con-
tamination revisited: the role of laboratory environmental control in a pseudo-outbreak.
89. Gravowitz EV, Keenholtz SL. A pseudoepidemic of Alcaligenes xylosoxidans attributable to
contaminated saline. Am J Infect Control. 1998;26:146–148.
90. Forman W, Axelrod P, St John K, et al. Investigation of a pseudo-outbreak of orthopedic infec-
tions caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1994;15:652–657.
91. Sule O, Ludlam HA, Walker CW, Brown DFJ, Kauffman ME. A pseudo-outbreak of respira-
tory infection with Acinetobacter species. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1997;18:510–512.
92. Gravel-Topper D, Sample ML, Oxley C, Toye B, Woods DE, Garber GE. Three-year outbreak
of pseudobacteremia with Burkholderia cepacia traced to a contaminated blood gas analyzer.
93. Bradley SF, Wilson KH, Rosloniec MA, Kauffman CA. Recurrent pseudobacteremias traced to
a radiometric blood culture device. Infect Control. 1987;8:281–283.
94. Budnick LD, Moll ME, Hull HF, Mann JM, Kendal AP. A pseudo-outbreak of influenza A asso-
ciated with use of laboratory stock strain. Am J Public Health. 1984;76:607–609.
RESOURCES
Print
Garcia LS. 2007 Update: Clinical Microbiology Procedures Handbook. 2nd ed. Washington, DC:
ASM Press; 2007.
Murray PR, Baron EJ, Jorgensen JH, Landry ML, Pfaller MA, eds. Manual of Clinical Micro-
biology. 9th ed. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 2007.
National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS). Analysis and presentation of
cumulative antimicrobial susceptibility test data: approved standard. NCCLS document
M39-A. Wayne, PA: NCCLS; 2002.
van Belkum A, Tassios PT, Dojksoom L, et al., for the European Society of Clinical Microbiology
and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) Study Group on Epidemiological Markers (ESGEM).
Guidelines for the validation and application of typing methods for use in bacterial epidemi-
ology. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2007;13(Suppl 3):1–46. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/clm/
13/s3. Accessed May 6, 2008.
Online
CDC Biosafety in the Laboratory Training Module. http://www.cdc.gov/od/ohs/pdffiles/Module%
202%20-%20Biosafety.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2008.
CDC Biosecurity in the Laboratory Training Module. http://www.cdc.gov/od/ohs/biosfty/biosfty.htm.
CDC Seasonal Flu Web site: Clinical Description and Lab Diagnosis of Influenza. http://www
.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/index.htm. Accessed May 31, 2008.
Resources 377
CDC Manual for the Surveillance of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases. 3rd ed. 2002. Contains infor-
mation on available diagnostic test methods and specimen collection methods for a variety of
vaccine-preventable diseases. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv-manual/default.htm.
Photo Gallery of Bacterial Pathogens. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/3504/gallery.htm.
Procedure Manuals Online
Some commercial laboratories, public health agencies, and other organizations have clinical micro-
biology laboratory manuals online. An example is the Online Microbiology Lab Manual of the
Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, Canada. http://microbiology.mtsinai.on.ca/manual/default
.asp#general. Accessed May 31, 2008.
CHAPTER 12
Collecting, Organizing, and

Displaying Epidemiologic Data
Excellence in statistical graphics consists of complex ideas communi-

cated with clarity, precision, and efficiency.
—Edward R. Tufte1(p13)
INTRODUCTION
Surveillance is an integral part of any healthcare organization’s infection

prevention and control program. Because surveillance involves the ongoing
collection, analysis, interpretation, and dissemination of large amounts of
data, ICP personnel should be familiar with the tools and methods used to
process this data and communicate their findings to others. The purpose of
this chapter is to discuss practical tools that can be used to collect, organize,
and display epidemiologic data, including:
• Forms and databases to collect and organize data
• Tables, graphs, and charts to organize and display data
• Computers to manage data
COLLECTING AND ORGANIZING EPIDEMIOLOGIC DATA
Using Forms and Databases
To detect an outbreak or a cluster of events, data must be compared over

time; therefore, the data must be collected accurately and consistently and
then collated. This can be accomplished by creating data collection forms and
simple databases tailored to fit individual needs, as discussed in Chapter 2.
Forms and databases should be used for routine surveillance activities, special
studies, and outbreak investigations. These forms and databases should be
carefully designed to include only those data points that are likely to be used
in the final analysis so that the user does not waste valuable time and resources
collecting unnecessary information.
One of the most common methods used to store and collate epidemiologic
data is a rectangular database that consists of rows and columns. Each row
contains information on one individual, and each column contains information
on one characteristic or variable. The first two columns usually contain the
case’s name or initials and a medical record number or other unique identifier
since two cases may have the same name. The size of the database depends on
379
380 COLLECTING, ORGANIZING, AND DISPLAYING EPIDEMIOLOGIC DATA
the number of individuals (or cases) and variables being studied (e.g., age, sex,
location, surgery, procedures, symptoms, medications, food eaten, and other
exposures).
The Line List
One of the initial steps in investigating a possible outbreak or a cluster of

events is the creation of a rectangular database known as a line list. Whether
created by hand or on a computer, each row in a line list represents a case,
usually a person with a disease or an adverse outcome, and each column con-
tains information on variables relevant to the event being studied. A line list
allows data to be visually inspected to see if any one factor stands out. When
conducting an outbreak investigation, a data collection form should be created
and used for recording information on each case. This form may be paper or
electronic. Using a form allows information to be collected consistently and
efficiently. The information on the data collection form is then transferred to
the line list for inspection. Examples of a data collection form and its corre-
sponding line list are shown in Exhibits 12–1 and 12–2, respectively. Informa-
tion on creating line lists and data collection forms can be found in Chapter 2.
Using Computers
Hospitals and other healthcare facilities have various computer systems for
managing client information such as demographics, billing, diagnostic test
results, and treatment provided. These systems should be used whenever pos-
Exhibit 12–1 Data Collection Form
Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC) Surveillance

Name _____________________________ Unit # ______________________________
DOB______________________________ Weight ______________________________
Gestation __________________________ APGAR ____________________________
NEC Confirmatory test(s) Hemorrhagic Date Outcome

gastroenteritis onset
(if not NEC)
Yes No ___ Clinical Yes No Resolved
___ Histopathologic Fatal
___ Roentgenographic
C. difficile Rotavirus
Pos Neg Not done Pos Neg Not done
Collecting and Organizing Epidemiologic Data 381
Culture data for the week prior to NEC

Date Source Organism(s) isolated
Procedures, treatment, etc., prior to NEC Medications

Transfusions Yes No Indocin Yes No
PDA diagnosed Yes No Theophylline Yes No
Type feeding Breastmilk Formula Furosemide Yes No
Feeding (in the five days prior to NEC )

Date Feeding cc/kg/day
DOB = date of birth; PDA = patent ductus arteriosis
Source: Author.
sible to access data needed for surveillance (e.g., name, age, sex, unit/ward,
admission and discharge dates, diagnosis, diagnostic test results, and medica-
tions given). Some microbiology laboratories use programs that can provide
epidemiologic reports, such as the names or numbers of patients on a specific
nursing unit from whom a particular organism was isolated over a specified
period of time. Some programs can provide lists of names and locations of indi-
viduals for whom isolation precautions were ordered or lists of patients or res-
idents and their admission diagnoses. These pieces of information can be used
to identify clusters of infection or colonization; persons admitted with infections
that can be transmitted to others, such as tuberculosis; or patients readmitted
with infections that were acquired from a previous hospitalization, such as
surgical site infections.
Exhibit 12–2 Patients with Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC)
N Med D We A Ge C. Rota Other Transf PDA Type Indo The Furo

a ical O ight pg stat dif virus infec usion feed cin oph. semi
m Rec B ar ion ficile tious ing de
e ord (w agent
ks)
y n y n y n y n b f y n y n y n
NOTE: DOB = date of birth; PDA = patent ductus arteriosis; type feeding: b = breastmilk, f = formula;
theoph. = theophylline; y = yes; n = no.
The various computer programs and systems used in an institution are fre-
quently incompatible and may not share data over a network. This often hin-
ders the seamless flow of data and exchange of information between
departments. Infection prevention and control personnel should discuss their
data management needs with personnel who are familiar with the informa-
tion systems in their facility. This will help to identify the following:
• Reports generated for other departments that could also be useful for
infection surveillance, such as lists of admission diagnoses or surgical
procedures
• Reports that can be produced specifically for the infection control or qual-
ity management departments (such as positive microbiology culture
reports, positive and negative wound culture reports, viral hepatitis serol-
ogy results, and Clostridium difficile toxin results)
• Mainframe systems containing patient or resident data and how to obtain
access to that data or have it downloaded to a readily retrievable data-
base such as Microsoft Excel
• Programs that connect to medical literature databases and the Internet,
and how to obtain access
• Information on how to obtain access to a personal computer (PC) if one is
not readily available
Infection control and quality management personnel in many healthcare
settings in the United States use a PC. Some have found portable notebook or
palm computers to be a valuable tool for collecting and storing epidemiologic
data as these computers allow the user to enter data while making rounds
anywhere in a facility, thus decreasing the need for paper forms. Although a PC
allows large amounts of information to be processed quickly, it is important to
Displaying Epidemiologic Data 383
keep in mind that it is only a tool. The user, not the computer, should deter-
mine how to manage the data. In many cases, surveillance data can be man-
aged easily by using paper forms to collect data, and spreadsheets or simple
databases to store, sort, and report it. There are many word-processing,
spreadsheet, statistics, database, graphics, and commercial infection surveil-
lance software programs from which to choose. To avoid costly mistakes, it is
important to identify the needs of the healthcare organization and setting
before purchasing software.2
Refer to Chapter 9 for more information on the use of technology in infection
prevention and control programs and outbreak investigation.
DISPLAYING EPIDEMIOLOGIC DATA
Using Tables, Graphs, and Charts
Tables, graphs, and charts can be used to organize, summarize, and visually
display epidemiologic data. While computers have certainly made it easier to
prepare these visual displays, it is still necessary to understand their proper
design and function in order to use them appropriately and effectively. This
section defines and describes the features of tables, graphs, and charts; demon-
strates how to correctly construct a table, graph, or chart; and explains when to
use each of these tools.
Once data has been collected and checked for accuracy and completeness, it
should be collated and analyzed to identify the frequency of occurrence of dis-
ease and any patterns, trends, and relationships. The findings must then be
communicated to others. Although line lists and other databases are indis-
pensable tools for collating and examining raw data, they usually contain too
much information to be useful for presenting it to others. Therefore, tables,
graphs, and charts are usually used to illustrate data.
Tables
A table is a display of data that is arranged in rows and columns. In health-
care epidemiology, tables are frequently used to present quantitative data,
such as the rates of infection on patient care units. The information in a table
is often used to prepare a graph or chart. Figure 12–1 shows the features of a
properly constructed table used to present epidemiologic data. The first col-
umn shows the classes into which the data are grouped (here it is age group in
years) and the second column lists the frequencies of events in each class (here
it is the number of cases of TB).
Each table should be self-explanatory (i.e., it should contain all of the infor-
mation needed for the reader to understand what is being presented) and
should contain the following features2(p207):
• A clear title that describes the data presented: what, where, and when.
The title is generally placed at the top of the table. When showing more
than one table, each title should be preceded with a table number (e.g.,
Table 1, Table 2).
• A label for each row and column. The units of measurement should be
included (e.g., age in years; percent; rate per 1000 device-days; number of
cases; number of records reviewed; number of incidents).
Number of the table

Table 1
Number of Newly Diagnosed Cases of Tuberculosis
What?
by Age, United States, 1973
Column Labels
When?
Age Group (years) Number of Cases
Where?
0–4 1,242
5–14 1,081
15–24 2,482
Row Labels Body of data
25–44 8,153
45–64 10,916
65+ 7,124
Total TOTAL 30,998
Source: Hew, PHS, CDC, Reported Morbidity

and Mortality in the United States,
1974. Weekly Report for Year Ending
Source of Information December 28, 1974. Vol. 23, No. 53,
page 12.
Figure 12–1 Features of a Properly Constructed Table

Source: Reprinted from Homestudy Course 3030-G: Principles of Epidemiology, Manual 4, Methods for
Organizing Epidemiologic Data, pg 3, 1977. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
• Totals for rows and columns, as appropriate

• Footnotes to explain any abbreviations, codes, or explanations (e.g., SSI =
surgical site infection; percentages do not add up to 100% due to round-
ing) or any exclusions (e.g., three patients excluded because charts not
available).
The one-variable table. The most basic table shows data distributed by one
variable, as shown in Figure 12–1. In this type of table, known as a simple fre-
quency distribution, the first column shows the categories of the data being
displayed, and the second column lists the number, or frequency, of persons or
events in each category. Additional columns can be added to show the numbers
of the population at risk and the incidence rates in each category. Data such as
this can be used to identify potential problems and to target areas for
improvement.
For example, Table 12–1 displays a simple frequency distribution in which
the category (column 1) is the residential units in the Greentree Nursing
Home and the variable, or event, being studied (column 2) is the number of
residents who sustained a fall. Column 3 displays the resident-days for the
population at risk in each unit, and column 4 shows the incidence rate in each
unit. The data displayed in Table 12–1 suggests a possible problem on 1 East,
where the incidence rate of 17.5 falls per 1000 resident-days is considerably
higher than any other unit. An investigation of the resident population in each
unit shows that 1 East is a unit for residents with Alzheimer’s disease and
other dementias that may put this population at higher risk for falls than the
Table 12–1 Incidence of Resident Falls, by Unit, June 2008, Greentree Nursing Home
No. Residents Fall Rate (No.

Experiencing No. Resident- Falls per 1000
Unit a Fall Days Resident-Days)
1 East 6 342 17.5
1 West 1 465 2.2
1 North 2 644 3.1
2 East 3 450 6.7
2 West 2 330 6.1
2 North 3 620 4.8
Total 17 2851 6.0
Source: Author.
residents of the other units. This information could possibly be used to target 1
East for a falls risk-reduction program.
Two- and three-variable tables. Data can also be cross-tabulated to show
numbers distributed by a second or third variable. Table 12–2 shows the same
data as in Table 12–1 except that it is cross-tabulated by a second variable, age.
The data in Table 12–2 illustrates that the incidence of falls in those over 70
years of age is three times greater (7.5 versus 2.3) than the incidence of falls in
those equal to or less than 70 years of age. This information could be used to
focus efforts on reducing the risk of falls for those residents over 70 years of age.
The data in Table 12–2 could also be shown distributed by a third variable,
such as sex. The maximum number of variables that should be used in a table
Table 12–2 Incidence of Resident Falls, by Unit and Age, June 2008, Greentree Nursing
Home
< 70 years > 70 years

Unit No. residents No. Rate (No. No. residents No. Rate (No.
experiencing resident- falls per experiencing resident- falls per
a fall days 1000 a fall days 1000
resident- resident-
days) days
1 East 1 54 18.5 5 288 17.4
1 West 0 87 0 1 378 2.6
1 North 0 343 0 2 301 6.6
2 East 1 150 6.7 1 300 6.7
2 West 0 112 0 2 218 9.2
2 North 0 117 0 3 503 6.0
Total 2 863 2.3 15 1988 7.5
Source: Author.
is three, so that it does not appear too busy.2(p210) It is better to use several
small tables than to try to compress data into one large table.
The two-by-two table. This type of table is used to study the association
between two variables. In an outbreak investigation the two-by-two table is
used to study the association between an exposure to a risk factor and the pres-
ence or absence of a disease. It is called a “two-by-two” table because it con-
tains two variables that are cross-tabulated into two categories. Exhibit 12–3
is an illustration of the usual format of a two-by-two table. The use of these
tables is explained in Chapter 10.
Although tables are excellent tools for showing quantitative data, they are
generally not useful for identifying trends and showing comparisons. Graphs
and charts are better suited for this purpose. Graphs and charts are fre-
quently used to display the data that is organized in tables. Many computer
programs, especially spreadsheet programs, allow the user to generate graphs
and charts from the data in tables without having to reenter the data.
Graphs
A graph is a method used for visually displaying quantitative data. The types
of graphs explained here are arithmetic-scale line graphs and histograms. Both
of these graphs are rectangular coordinate graphs that consist of two lines, one
horizontal and one vertical, that intersect at a right angle. The horizontal line
is known as the x-axis and the vertical line is known as the y-axis.
Arithmetic-scale line graphs. In healthcare epidemiology, the arithmetic-
scale line graph is commonly used to show trends, patterns, or differences over
time, as shown in Figure 12–2. Time is shown on the x-axis, and the frequency
of the event monitored, such as rate, percent, or numbers of cases, is shown on
the y-axis. An arithmetic-scale line graph has equal intervals (tick marks)
along each axis. This type of graph can be used to show one series of data or to
compare several series, such as in Figure 12–2. Each series of data is plotted as
a line. An arithmetic-scale line graph should be used when illustrating trends
in numbers or rates over time.2(p227)
Histograms. A histogram is used to graph a frequency distribution of a set of
continuous data (i.e., the number of times an event occurs in each interval).2(p236)
A continuous data set consists of a series of measurements for which there are
an infinite number of possible values between the lowest value and the high-
Exhibit 12–3 General Format for a Two-by-Two Table
Disease No Disease Total

Exposed a b a+b
Unexposed c d c+d
Total a+c b+d a+b+c+d
Source: Author.
Figure 12–2 Number of Persons with Reported Cases of Tuberculosis, by Country of

Birth—United States, 1986–1997
Source: CDC. Tuberculosis morbidity—United States, 1997. MMWR. 1998;47(13):255. http://www.cdc.gov/
mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00051957.htm
est value in the set (such as time, weight, age, volume, or concentration). When
plotted on a histogram, the data should appear as adjoining columns with the
height of each column being proportional to the frequency of events in that
interval (Figure 12–3). A histogram should be used to display the number of
cases (not rates) over time.
When conducting an outbreak investigation, one of the initial steps is to cre-
ate an epidemic curve. The epidemic curve is actually a histogram that shows
the number of cases of disease in an outbreak on the y-axis and the time of onset
on the x-axis. The time interval on the x-axis should be appropriate for the dis-
ease or event being depicted. The interval may be hours for diseases with a short
incubation period, such as staphylococcal food poisoning, or weeks for those with
a long incubation period, such as hepatitis A. When drawing an epidemic curve,
the columns may be shown as stacks of squares, with each square representing
one case, as shown in Figure 12–3, although many computer programs will not
construct this type of graph. It is also perfectly acceptable to omit the horizontal
lines between each of the cases, as shown in Figure 12–4.
The following guidelines should be used when constructing a graph:
• The title should clearly describe the data being presented: what, where,
and when. The title can be placed at the top or bottom of the graph.
Figure 12–3 Reported Cases of Paralytic Poliomyelitis by Month of Occurrence

Source: CDC. Principles of Epidemiology: An Introduction to Applied Epidemiology and Biostatistics. 2nd ed.
Atlanta, GA: CDC; 1992:266.
• The graph should be kept simple—it will be easier to read and will present
the data more effectively.
• The independent variable (the method of classification), such as time,
should be plotted on the x-axis (horizontal).
• The dependent variable should be plotted on the y-axis (vertical). This
variable is usually a measure of frequency, such as the number of inci-
dents, rate of disease, or number of cases.
• When plotting more than one variable, each should be clearly differenti-
ated by using a legend or key. If black-and-white copies of the report are
likely to be made, the lines or the areas representing the different vari-
ables on a graph should be made sufficiently dissimilar so that the reader
can tell them apart. For example, lines should be solid, dotted, and so on,
as shown in Figure 12–2, and columns should be solid, shaded, hatched,
and so on, as shown in Figure 12–4.
• The x- and y-axes should be labeled with the appropriate units of mea-
surement.
• Each graph should be self-explanatory and should contain all of the infor-
mation needed for the reader to understand what is being presented.
• The y-axis should begin with 0. The largest value to appear on the y-axis
is selected by identifying the largest value in the set and rounding up to a
slightly higher number. For instance, in Figure 12–2, the cases are shown
in intervals of 5000, and the highest value in the set of numbers plotted
on the graph is slightly more than 25,000; therefore, 30,000 was chosen as
the highest value in the range shown on the y-axis.
• The date of preparation should be noted because the data may change over
time. For instance, when an arithmetic-scale line graph is used to display
surgical site infection rates, the data may change as new cases are reported,
and when drawing a histogram for an epidemic curve, the data may change
as new cases are identified during the course of an outbreak investigation.
• The source of the data should be placed in a footnote, especially if the
data are not original.
Charts
The three types of charts used in healthcare epidemiology are bar charts,
pie charts, and maps (geographic coordinate charts).
Bar charts. Figure 12–5 shows the components of a bar chart.
10
Non-medical staff
9
Medical staff
Index case
8
7 Index patient transferred

to Hong Kong hospital
6
SARS cases
N95 respirators, goggles, and

5 face shields made available
for Hospital A staff
4
3 Study initiated
Index patient admitted
2 to Hospital A, Hanoi
0
21
23
25
27
1-
3-
5-
7-
9-
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
M
M
-F
-F
-F
-F
-M
-M
-M
-M
-M
-M
-M
ar
ar
ar
ar
ar
eb
eb
eb
eb
ar
ar
ar
ar
ar
ar
ar
SARS illness onset date, 2003
Figure 12–4 Epidemic Curve (Histogram) of the SARS Outbreak Among Hospital A
Staff, Hanoi, 2003
Source: Reynolds et al. Factors associated with nosocomial SARS-CoV transmission among healthcare workers
in Hanoi, Vietnam, 2003. BMC Public Health. 2006;6:207. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/6/207.
Accessed September 28, 2008.
Men Women
Cell separated
40 by a space
The meaning of each
A cell
bar is shown in a legend
30
Percent
A cell may have

20 more than one bar
10
0
18–24 25–44 45–64 65–74 ≥ 75
Age Group (years)
Figure 12–5 Example of a Vertical Bar Chart with Annotation
Bar charts can be used to show frequency distributions of a set of discrete

data, as in Figure 12–6 (a simple bar chart), or to compare magnitudes of sev-
eral sets of data, as in Figure 12–7 (a grouped bar chart). In these charts, each
category of a variable (i.e., set of data) is represented by a bar, which may be
displayed either vertically, as in Figures 12–6 and 12–7, or horizontally, as in
Figure 12–8. The height or length of the bar is proportional to the values in
Incidence of falls per 1000 resident days, by unit,

Greentree Nursing Home, 2008
Fall rate per 1000 resident days
20
15
10
0
1 East 1 West 2 East 2 West 1 North 2 North
Unit
Figure 12–6 Frequency Distribution Shown as a Bar Chart: Incidence of Falls per
1000 Resident-Days, by Unit, Greentree Nursing Home, 2008
Source: Author.
Job categories of workers reporting blood/body fluid exposures,

Memorial Hospital, 2007 and 2008
n = 124 in 2007; n = 128 in 2008
45
2007
40
2008
35
30
% of cases
25
20
15
10
0
N
Pa sso
La
En sso
M ud
O
ur
th
D
ed en
b
A
St
tie cia
vi cia
-A
-R
s
er
te
te
ro t
ic t
e-
nt te
ch
al
ch
tte
nm e
es
R
C
N
nd
id
ar
en
en
e
in
ta
g
l
Job category
Figure 12–7 Grouped Bar Chart Showing Comparison of Two Sets of Data. Job
Categories of Workers Reporting Blood/Body Fluid Exposures, Memorial Hospital,
2007 and 2008
Source: Author.
Types of sharps associated with blood/body fluid

exposures, Memorial Hosital, 2007 n = 100
Prefilled cartridge
Scalpel blade
Needle, other
I.V. catheter
Type of sharp
Vacutainer needle
Lancet
Suture needle
Needle, unknown
Butterfly needle
Disposable syringe
0 10 20 30 40
% of cases
Figure 12–8 Frequency Distribution Shown as a Horizontal Bar Chart: Types of

Sharps Associated with Blood/Body Fluid Exposures, Memorial Hospital, 2007
Source: Author.
that category. A stacked bar chart can also be used to display several sets of
data, as in Figure 12–9, which displays the same data as that in Figure 12–7.
Note that the grouped bar chart is more effective for comparing the numbers
in the two years displayed in Figures 12–7 and 12–9.
Vertical bar charts (Figures 12–6 and 12–7) differ from histograms (Figures
12–3 and 12–4) in that each bar or cell in a vertical bar chart is separated by a
space, whereas in a histogram the bars are adjoining. A bar chart is used to dis-
play information that is discrete and noncontinuous, such as sex, race, job cate-
gory or location, or that is shown as being discrete and noncontinuous, such as
age groups, as shown in Figure 12–5. By contrast, a histogram is used to display
the frequency distribution of a set of continuous data (such as time or age).
The following guidelines should be used when constructing a bar chart:
• The title should clearly describe the data presented: what, where, and
when. In an epidemiological report, the title is placed at the top of the chart.
• When creating a chart that has more than one bar in a cell, each bar
should be clearly differentiated by using a legend or key as in Figure 12–7.
• The categories in a stacked bar chart should be clearly differentiated by
using a legend or key, as in Figure 12–9. If black-and-white copies of the
report are likely to be made, the areas representing each bar or each com-
ponent should have clearly discernible shades or patterns.
• When possible, the categories that define the bars should be positioned in
such a way that the length or height of the bars is in ascending or
descending order.
Job categories of workers reporting blood/body fluid exposures,

Memorial Hospital, 2007 and 2008
n = 124 in 2007; n = 128 in 2008
80
2007
70
2008
60
50
% of cases
40
30
20
10
0
N
Pa so
La
En sso
M ud
O
ur
th
D
ed en
b
As
St
tie cia
vi cia
-A
-R
se
er
te
te
ro t
ic t
nt te
ch
-R
al
ch
tte
nm e
es
C
N
nd
id
ar
en
en
e
in
ta
g
Job category
Figure 12–9 Stacked Bar Chart Displaying Two Sets of Data. Job Categories of
Workers Reporting Blood/Body Fluid Exposures, Memorial Hospital, 2007 and 2008
Source: Author.
• All of the bars should be the same width.

• The length or height of each bar should be proportional to the values in
each category.
• There should be a space between each bar or each cell (group of bars).
• The x- and y-axes should be labeled.
• As in a table or a graph, a bar chart should be self-explanatory and should
contain all of the information needed for the reader to understand what is
being presented.
Pie charts. Pie charts are used for showing the component parts of a set of
data, as in Figure 12–10. Each slice of the pie represents a proportion of the
whole. The following guidelines should be used when constructing a pie chart:
• The title should clearly describe the data presented: what, where and
when. The title may be placed at the top or the bottom of the chart.
LRI 5%
CVS 4% PNEU
24%
SSI 4%
GI 4%
SST 3%
EENT 2%
OTHER 1%
BSI
17%
UTI
35%
Figure 12–10 Site Distribution of 2321 Nosocomial Infections in Coronary Care

Units, NNIS System, 1992–1997. PNEU, pneumonia; UTI, urinary tract infection; BSI,
primary bloodstream infection; EENT, eye, ear, nose, and throat infection; SST, skin
and soft tissue infection; GI, gastrointestinal infection; SSI, surgical site infection;
CVS, cardiovascular system infection; LRI, lower respiratory tract infection other than
pneumonia; OTHER, other.
Source: National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System Report, Data Summary from October
1986–April 1998. CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/nnis_pubs.html.
• Each slice should be labeled with the percentage that it represents. The
label can be placed either inside the slice or outside and next to it.
• Each piece of the pie should be differentiated clearly by using a legend or
key. The chart is easier to read if the components are different colors or,
when using black and white, clearly discernible shades or patterns.
• The total number of cases or events (the number that represents 100 per-
cent) should be noted somewhere on the chart.
• The chart should be self-explanatory and should contain all of the infor-
mation needed for the reader to understand what is being presented.
Maps
Maps can be used to show where a disease or event occurred. Two types of
maps used to display epidemiological data are spot maps and area maps.
Spot maps. Spot maps are constructed by drawing a dot or some other symbol
at each location where an event occurred, as in Figure 12–11. When investi-
gating an outbreak or a cluster of infections, a spot map can be used to illus-
trate the geographic distribution of the cases and may be useful in forming a
hypothesis on how a disease may have spread.
Figure 12–11 Spot Map Illustrating the Occurrence of Mumps Cases in Trading Pits
of Exchange A, Chicago, Illinois, August 18–December 25, 1987
Using Computers to Create Graphs and Charts 395
WA
MT ND NH ME
202 369 VT
OR MN MI
26 101 MA 6
ID SD WI NY
132 208 22
13 MI RI 1
WY
181 17
IA PA CT 4
NE 30 10
NV 163 IL OH 1
12 IN NJ
UT 101 23
24 WV
70 CO DE 1
CA 576 KS VA
MO
380 40 77 KY 4
MD 10
NC
TN 11 8
AZ OK DC
97 NM 107 AR SC
60 20 5
MS AL GA
24 50
136
TX LA
260 40
FL
AK 3
Indicates human disease case(s)

HI Puerto Rico Avian, animal or mosquito infections
Figure 12–12 Area Map Illustrating 2007 West Nile Virus Activity in Humans,
Animals, and Mosquitoes in the United States, by State, Reported to the CDC as of
March 4, 2008
Source: Division of Vector-Borne Disease, CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/Mapsactivity/
surv&control07Maps.htm
Area maps. Area maps are used to show the geographic distribution of a dis-
ease or an event. The distribution can be shown as a rate, such as the inci-
dence of a disease, or as the number of events or cases. Figure 12–12 shows
both number of reported cases of human disease and avian, animal, and mos-
quito infections with West Nile Virus in 2007 in the United States. Area maps
are frequently used by health departments to show patterns of infectious dis-
eases and are useful for evaluating the occurrence of a specific disease, such as
tuberculosis or influenza, in a community.
USING COMPUTERS TO CREATE GRAPHS AND CHARTS
Histograms vs. Bar Charts
Computers are generally used to prepare reports of outbreak investigations.

When choosing a software program, it is important to select one that can cre-
ate the types of charts and graphs that are needed for preparing epidemiology
reports. When constructing an epidemic curve (the number of cases occurring
over time in an outbreak), one should use a histogram—a graph that has
adjoining columns, rather than a bar chart that has spaces between each col-
umn. Some commonly used spreadsheet and graphics programs easily can be
used to produce bar charts, but to create a histogram the gaps between the
bars must be set to zero.
Selecting the Best Method to Illustrate Data
It is important to choose the method of illustrating epidemiologic data that is

best suited for conveying that particular data easily and quickly. Table 12–3 pro-
vides a guideline for selecting a graph or chart to illustrate epidemiologic data.
Avoiding “Chartjunk”
Many computer programs produce three-dimensional bar charts and pie

charts. Which is better—a three-dimensional or a two-dimensional graphic?
The pie charts in Figure 12–13 display the same information; however, one
chart is two-dimensional and the other is three-dimensional. As a rule, a two-
dimensional chart should be used, especially when information must be com-
municated quickly in a short presentation, because it is easier to judge the
relative sizes of the component parts in the two-dimensional version of the pie
than in the three-dimensional version.
The bar charts in Figure 12–14 contain the same data, a comparison of rates
in two different years; however, one is two-dimensional and the other contains
gridlines and three-dimensional bars. Which chart gets the message across more
quickly? Graphs and charts are used to communicate information to others—
it is important to keep them simple and avoid the glitter.3 The “third dimen-
sion” in three-dimensional charts contains no additional information. Graphic
activity that is unrelated to data information, such as three-dimensional
Table 12–3 Guideline for Selecting a Graph or Chart to Illustrate Epidemiologic Data
Type of Graph or Chart When to Use

Arithmetic-scale line graph Display trends in numbers or rates over time
Histogram 1. Show frequency distribution of a continuous variable
2. Show number of cases over time during an epidemic
(epidemic curve)
Simple bar chart Compare size or frequency of different categories of a
single variable
Grouped bar chart Compare size or frequency of different categories of two
to four series of data
Stacked bar chart Compare totals and illustrate component parts of the total
among different groups
Pie chart Show components of a whole
Spot map Show location of cases or events
Area map Display events or rates geographically
Source: Adapted from Principles of Epidemiology: An Introduction to Applied Epidemiology and Bio-
statistics. 2nd ed. Atlanta, GA: CDC; 1992:263.
Other
16% B
RN
29% Other
MD 16% RN
MD 29%
7%
7%
EA
EA 5%
5%
OR tech
8% OR tech
PCA 8%
Resident 24% Resident PCA
11% 11% 24%
Figure 12–13 Job Category Distribution of 58 Personnel with Needlesticks, St.

Anne’s Hospital, 2007
Source: Author.
40
35
30 1997
% of injuries
1998
25
20
15
10
5
0
Scalpel
Butterfly needle
Needle unknown
Suture needle
Disposable
I.V. catheter
Needle, other
Lancet
Unknown
syringe
Type of sharp
40
35
30 1997
% of injuries
1998
25
20
15
10
5
0
Scalpel
Butterfly needle
Disposable
Needle unknown
Suture needle
Needle, other
I.V. catheter
Lancet
Unknown
syringe
Type of sharp
Figure 12–14 Types of Sharps Associated with Injuries, Community Hospital, 2006
and 2007
graphics, gridlines, and excessive cross-hatching, has been called “chartjunk”1

and should be avoided. As stated by Tufte, “Graphical excellence is that which
gives to the viewer the greatest number of ideas in the shortest time with the
least ink in the smallest space.”1(p51)
REFERENCES
1. Tufte ER. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press;
1983.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Principles of Epidemiology: An Introduction to
Applied Epidemiology and Biostatistics. 2nd ed. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, Epidemiology Program Office; 1992.
3. Jolley D. The glitter of the t table. Lancet. 1993;342:27–29.

An Introduction to Applied Epidemiology and Biostatistics. 3rd ed. Atlanta, GA: Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Workforce and Career Development; 2005. http://
www2a.cdc.gov/TCEOnline/registration/detailpage.asp?res_id=1394. Accessed March 11,
2008.
Tufte ER. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press; 1983.
Tufte ER. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. 2nd ed. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press;
2001.
57793_GLOS_ARIAS.qxd 1/19/09 2:35 PM Page 399
Glossary
The terms in this glossary have been adapted for use in the healthcare set-
ting. Many of the definitions are taken or adapted from the glossaries in (1) the
CDC Home Study Course 3030-G, Principles of Epidemiology, US Department
of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control. Atlanta, GA;
1985; and (2) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Principles of
Epidemiology: An Introduction to Applied Epidemiology and Biostatistics.
2nd ed. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Atlanta, GA; 1992.
Agent. A biological, physical, or chemical entity capable of causing disease.

Antiseptic. A chemical germicide formulated to inactivate microbial agents
on skin or tissue.
Attack rate. A measure of the frequency of new cases of a disease or condi-
tion in a specified population during a specified period of time; usually expressed
as a percent.
Bar chart. A visual display of quantitative data in which each category or
value of a variable is represented by a bar.
Bias. Deviation of results from the truth.
Baseline. A number or value used as a base for measurement or comparison.
Carrier. A person who has no apparent clinical disease but harbors a spe-
cific infectious agent and is capable of transmitting the agent to others; a car-
rier is a potential source of infection.
Case. A person who has a particular disease or condition under investigation.
Case-control study. A type of observational analytic study. Enrollment
into the study is based on presence (“case”) or absence (“control”) of a particu-
lar disease or condition. Characteristics such as previous exposure to particu-
lar agents are then compared between cases and controls.
Case definition. Standard criteria used for deciding whether a person has
a particular disease or condition, by specifying clinical, laboratory, and epi-
demiologic characteristics (such as time, place, and person).
399
400 GLOSSARY
Chain of infection. A process that begins when an agent leaves its reser-
voir or host through a portal of exit, and is conveyed by some mode of trans-
mission, then enters through an appropriate portal of entry to infect a
susceptible host.
Cleaning. The process of physically removing foreign material, such as dirt,
blood, microorganisms, and body fluids, from a surface.
Cluster. A group of cases of a disease or other health-related event that
occurs closely related in time and place. The number of cases may or may not
exceed the expected number; frequently the expected number is not known.
Cohort. A well-defined group of persons selected for a study. Persons in the
group have had a common exposure, and are then followed up for the occur-
rence of disease.
Cohort study. A type of observational analytic study. Also known as a
prospective study.
Colonization. Presence and growth of a micro-organism on a host that has no
symptoms or cellular injury. A colonized host may serve as a source of infection.
Common source outbreak. An outbreak that results from a group of per-
sons being exposed to a common noxious influence, such as an infectious agent
or toxin. If the group is exposed over a relatively brief period of time, so that
all cases occur within one incubation period, then the common source out-
break is further classified as a point source outbreak. In some common source
outbreaks, persons may be exposed over a period of days, weeks, or longer,
with the exposure being either intermittent or continuous.
Communicable. May be transmitted directly or indirectly from one person
to another.
Contact. (1) Exposure to a source of infection; (2) a person that has been
exposed to a source of infection.
Contagious. Able to easily transmit an infectious agent from one person to
another.
Contingency table. A two-variable table with cross-tabulated data.
Control. In a case-control study, the person or group of persons without the
disease or condition being studied; the group to which the cases (those with
the disease or condition) are compared.
Data, continuous. Data consisting of measurements of things for which
there are an infinite number of possible values between the minimum and the
maximum values in the data set (e.g., age, weight, height, and temperature).
Data, discrete. Data consisting of measurements of things that can be
counted or measured only in whole units (e.g., the number of persons with a
specific disease or condition).
Demographic information. Those characteristics of a person, such as age,
sex, and race, that are used in descriptive epidemiology to characterize the
population at risk.
GLOSSARY 401
Denominator. The lower portion of a fraction; contains the data used to

calculate a rate or ratio. In a rate, the denominator is usually the population
at risk.
Dependent variable. In a statistical analysis, the outcome variable(s), or
the variable(s), whose values are a function of other variable(s) called inde-
pendent variable(s) in the relationship under study.
Descriptive epidemiology. The aspect of epidemiology concerned with
organizing and summarizing health-related data according to time, place, and
person.
Direct transmission. The immediate transfer of an agent from a reservoir
to a susceptible host by direct contact or droplet spread.
Disease. A condition that represents a deviation from normal health and is
associated with characteristic signs and symptoms.
Disinfectant. A chemical germicide formulated to inactivate microbial
agents on inanimate surfaces.
Disinfection. A process that eliminates pathogenic microorganisms, except
bacterial spores, from a surface.
Droplets. Liquid particles expelled into the air when a person talks, sings,
coughs, or sneezes.
Droplet nuclei. The residue of dried droplets that may remain suspended
in the air for long periods, may be carried over great distances, and are easily
inhaled into the lungs.
Droplet spread. The direct transmission of an infectious agent from a
reservoir to a susceptible host by spray with relatively large, short-ranged
aerosols produced by sneezing, coughing, or talking.
Endemic. The usual presence of a disease or infectious agent within a
given geographic area or population group.
Endogenous. Originating or growing from within.
Exogenous. Originating from an external source.
Environmental factor. An extrinsic factor (geology, climate, insects, sanita-
tion, health services, etc.) that affects the agent and the opportunity for exposure.
Epidemic. The occurrence of more cases of a disease or event than expected
during a specified period of time in a given area or among a specific group of
people.
Epidemic curve. A histogram that shows the course of a disease outbreak
or epidemic by plotting the number of cases by time of onset.
Epidemic period. A time period when the number of cases of disease or
events reported is greater than expected.
Epidemiology. The study of the distribution and determinants of health-
related states or events in specified populations, and the application of this
study to the control of health problems.
402 GLOSSARY
Experimental study. A study in which the investigator specifies the expo-

sure category for each individual in the study and then follows the individual
to determined the effects of the exposure (e.g., a clinical trial)
Etiology. The cause of a specific disease.
Etiologic agent. An agent that causes a specific disease.
Fomite. An inanimate object that can become contaminated and transmit
infectious agents.
Frequency distribution. A tabulation of the number of times an event
occurs in each class interval or category; often displayed in a two-column table
in which the left column lists the individual values or categories and the right
column indicates the number of events in each category.
Graph. A visual display of quantitative data that uses a system of coordinates.
Histogram. A graph that displays the frequency distribution of a continu-
ous variable. Rectangles are drawn in such a way that their bases lie on a lin-
ear scale representing different intervals, and their heights are proportional
to the frequencies of the values within each of the intervals.
Host. A person or animal that can be infected by an infectious agent under
natural conditions.
Hypothesis. A supposition, arrived at from observation or reflection, that
leads to refutable predictions. Any conjecture cast in a form that will allow it
to be tested and refuted.
Hypothesis, null. The first step in testing for statistical significance in which
it is assumed that an exposure is not related to a disease or other health-related
event.
Iatrogenic. Related to a medical intervention.
Immunity, active. Resistance developed in response to stimulus by an
antigen (infecting agent or vaccine) and usually characterized by the presence
of antibody produced by the host.
Immunity, herd. The resistance of a group to invasion and spread of an
infectious agent, based on the resistance to infection of a high proportion of
individual members of the group. The resistance is a product of the number of
susceptible persons and the probability that those who are susceptible will
come into contact with an infected person.
Immunity, passive. Immunity conferred by an antibody produced in
another host and acquired either naturally by an infant from its mother or ar-
tificially by administration of an antibody-containing preparation (antiserum
or immune globulin).
Incidence rate. A measure of the frequency that an event, such as a new
case of illness, occurs in a population over a period of time. When calculating
an incidence rate, the numerator is the number of new cases occurring during
a given time period and the denominator is the population at risk during that
time period.
GLOSSARY 403
Incubation period. The interval between the effective exposure of a suscep-

tible host to an infectious agent and the onset of signs and symptoms of disease.
Independent variable. An exposure, risk factor, or other characteristic
being observed or measured that is hypothesized to influence an event or man-
ifestation (i.e., the dependent variable).
Index case. The first recognized case having a specific disease or attribute.
Indirect transmission. The transmission of an agent carried from a reser-
voir to a susceptible host either by suspended air particles or by an animate
(vector) or inanimate (vehicle) intermediary.
Infection. The entry and multiplication of an infectious agent into the body
of man resulting in a reaction.
Infectivity. The ability of an agent to infect a host.
Infestation. The lodgment, development, and reproduction of arthropods
on the body or in the clothes.
Isolation. The separation of infected persons from those who are not infected
for the purpose of preventing the spread of an infectious agent to others.
Line-listing. A rectangular database in which each row represents a case,
usually a person with a disease or health-related condition, and each column
contains information on variables relevant to the event being studied.
Mean, arithmetic. The measure of central location commonly called the
average; it is calculated by adding together all of the individual values in a
data set and dividing by the number of values in the set.
Measure of association. A quantified relationship between exposure and
disease; examples of measures of association include relative risk, rate ratio,
and odds ratio.
Measure of central location. A measure of central tendency; a central
value that represents a distribution of data. Measures of central location
include the mean, median, and mode.
Measure of dispersion. A measure of the spread of a distribution out from
its central value. Measures of dispersion used in epidemiology include the
variance and the standard deviation.
Median. The measure of central location that divides a set of data into two
equal parts.
Mode. A measure of central location; the value that occurs most frequently
in a set of observations.
Mode of transmission. The mechanism by which an agent is spread from
person to person.
Morbidity. Any departure, subjective or objective, from a state of physiolog-
ical or psychological well-being.
Natural history of disease. The temporal course of disease from onset
(inception) to resolution.
404 GLOSSARY
Necessary cause. A causal factor whose presence is required for the occur-
rence of a disease or health-related event.
Normal curve. A bell-shaped curve that results when a normal distribu-
tion is graphed.
Normal distribution. The symmetrical clustering of values around a cen-
tral location. The properties of a normal distribution include the following.
(1) It is a continuous, symmetrical distribution in which both tails extend to
infinity; (2) the arithmetic mean, median, and mode are identical; and (3) its
shape is determined by the mean and standard deviation.
Nosocomial infection. An infection resulting from exposure to a source
within a healthcare facility; may occur in patients, personnel, or visitors.
Numerator. The upper portion of a fraction. In epidemiology, it is usually
the number of cases of a disease or event being studied.
Observational study. An epidemiological study in which nature is allowed
to take its course. Changes or differences in one characteristic are studied in
relation to changes or differences in others, without the intervention of the
investigator.
Odds ratio. A measure of association that quantifies the relationship be-
tween an exposure and health outcome from a comparative study.
Outbreak. Synonymous with epidemic.
Pandemic. An epidemic that occurs over a very wide area, such as several
countries or continents, and which usually affects a large proportion of the
population.
Pathogenicity. The capacity of an agent to cause disease.
Pie chart. A circular chart in which the size of each slice of the pie is pro-
portional to the frequency of each category of a variable.
Population. The total number of persons in a specified place or area.
Prevalence. The number or proportion of cases or events in a given population.
Prevalence rate. The proportion of persons in a population who have a
particular disease or attribute at a given point in time (i.e., point prevalence)
or over a given time interval (i.e., period prevalence).
Propagated outbreak. An outbreak that spreads from person to person
rather than originating from a common source.
Proportion. A type of ratio in which the numerator is included in the
denominator.
Pseudoepidemic. A real cluster or increase in false infections or an artifi-
cial cluster or increase in true infections.
Pseudo-outbreak. See pseudoepidemic.
Random sample. A sample derived by selecting individuals such that each
individual has the same probability of being selected.
GLOSSARY 405
Range. In statistics, the difference between the largest and the smallest
values in a distribution. In common use, the span of values from smallest to
largest.
Rate. An expression of the frequency with which an illness or event occurs
in a defined population.
Ratio. The value obtained by dividing one quantity by another.
Relative risk. A comparison of the risk of some health-related event, such
as disease, in two groups.
Reservoir. The habitat in which an infectious agent normally lives, grows,
and multiplies; reservoirs may be human, animal, or environmental.
Risk. The probability that an event will occur (e.g., that a person will
develop a specific disease).
Risk factor. A characteristic that is associated with an increased occur-
rence of disease or other health-related event (e. g., exposure to a therapeutic
or diagnostic procedure).
Risk ratio. A comparison of the risk of some health-related event, such as
disease, in two groups.
Sample. A selected subset of a population.
Secondary attack rate. A measure of the frequency of new cases of a dis-
ease among the contacts of known cases.
Sensitivity. The ability of a system to detect epidemics and other changes
in disease occurrence. The proportion of persons with disease who are cor-
rectly identified by a screening test or case definition as having disease.
Skewed. A distribution that is asymmetrical.
Source of infection. A person, animal, or inanimate object from which an
infectious agent is transmitted to a host.
Specificity. The proportion of persons without disease who are correctly
identified by a screening test or case definition as not having disease.
Sporadic. A disease that occurs infrequently and irregularly.
Spot map. A map that indicates the location of each case of a disease or
event.
Standard deviation. The most widely used measure of dispersion of a fre-
quency distribution, equal to the positive square root of the variance.
Standard error of the mean. The standard deviation of a theoretical dis-
tribution of sample means about the true population mean.
Standard precautions. An infection prevention and control strategy
designed to reduce the risk of transmission of microorganisms from both rec-
ognized and unrecognized sources of infection in healthcare settings. These
precautions are applied to all patients regardless of their diagnosis or pre-
sumed infection status.
406 GLOSSARY
Sterilization. A process that eliminates or destroys all forms of microor-

ganisms.
Surveillance. The systematic collection, analysis, interpretation, and dis-
semination of data on an ongoing basis, to gain knowledge of the pattern of
disease or event occurrence in a population in order to control and prevent dis-
ease in that population.
Susceptible. A person who does not have sufficient resistance to an infec-
tious agent to prevent infection if exposure occurs.
Validity. The degree to which a measurement actually measures or detects
what it is supposed to measure.
Variable. Any characteristic or attribute that can be measured.
Variance. A measure of the dispersion shown by a set of observations,
defined by the sum of the squares of deviations from the mean, divided by the
number of degrees of freedom in the set of observations.
Vector. An animate intermediary, frequently an arthropod or insect, that is
involved in the indirect transmission of an agent by carrying the agent from a
reservoir to a susceptible host.
Vehicle. An inanimate intermediary that is involved in the indirect trans-
mission of an agent by carrying the agent from a reservoir to a susceptible
host.
Virulence. The degree of pathogenicity of an infectious agent.
Zoonoses. An infectious disease that is transmissible under normal condi-
tions from animals to humans.
57793_INDX_ARIAS.qxd 1/19/09 2:36 PM Page 407
Index
A overview, 71–72
AAMI (Association for the Advancement personnel and employee health,
of Medical Instrumentation), importance of, 115
138, 178 products, devices, and procedures,
Acinetobacter species outbreaks associated with,
drug resistance of, 18, 73 75–88
water reservoir outbreaks and, 105 Ralstonia pickettii, Pseudomonas
ACIP. See Advisory Committee on aeruginosa, and Burkholderia
Immunization Practices cepacia, outbreaks associated
Acquired immunity, 25–26 with, 88
Acremonium kiliense endophthalmitis, resources for, 137–138
183–184 sick building syndrome and building-
Acute care settings, 71–139 related illness outbreaks, 109,
agencies and organizations and, 111
138–139 surveillance programs in, 34–35,
airborne and droplet transmission 39–40, 44–45
outbreaks in, 94–100 vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus
endemic vs. epidemic infections in, 72 (VRE) in, 211, 219–222
environmental reservoirs, outbreaks water reservoirs, outbreaks and
from diseases with, 101–104 pseudo-outbreaks with,
gastroenteritis outbreaks, 100 105–107
human carriers or disseminators, Adenovirus
outbreaks associated with, conjunctivitis outbreaks and, 153,
88–94 181–182
intensive care units, nosocomial droplet transmission outbreaks, 98
pneumonias (NPs) outbreaks in, as emerging pathogen, 1
107–109 hospital outbreaks of, 73
laboratory’s role in infection respiratory disease outbreaks in long-
surveillance in, 364–365 term care settings, 145, 146
MRSA in, 211, 212–216 Adjusting rates, 332
Mycobacterium tuberculosis in, Adverse drug reactions and events
226–227 requiring investigation, 284
newly recognized agents and sources Advisory Committee on Immunization
for outbreaks in, 111–115 Practices. See CDC Advisory
organisms in hospital-associated Committee on Immunization
outbreaks, 72–75 Practices
407
408 INDEX
Aeromonas hydrophilia, 152 American College of Occupational and

Agency for Healthcare Research and Environmental Medicine
Quality (AHRQ), 306 (ACOEM)
Agency for Healthcare Research and contact information, 138
Quality (AHRQ) Public Health mold in interior environment,
Preparedness Update, statement on, 111
317–318 American Dental Association, 174
Agents of infectious diseases, 16–18. See American Journal of Infection Control
also specific agents and diseases (APIC), 34, 320
Ahlbrecht, H., 43 American Society for Gastrointestinal
AICE (Automated Infection Control Endoscopy (ASGE), 86, 138
Expert), 351 American Society for Microbiology (ASM),
AIDS. See HIV (human 367, 369, 370
immunodeficiency virus) American Society of Cataract and
Airborne transmission of infectious Refractive Surgery, 184
agents, 24, 94–98 American Society of Ophthalmic
guidelines on, 100 Registered Nurses, 184
measles, 24, 94–97, 170, 172 Analytic epidemiology, 10–14
in physicians’ offices and clinics, causal relations, establishing, 12–14
170–173 criteria for judging causality, 12
varicella (chickenpox), 8, 9, 15, 17, 19, Analytic studies, 340–346, 348
22, 24, 97–98 Animal reservoirs of infectious agents,
Alphaviruses, 353 20–22
Ambulatory care settings. See also Acute Anisakis, food-borne outbreaks and, 249
care settings Anopheles mosquito, 24
bronchoscopy, 41, 42, 183 Anthrax. See Bacillus anthracis
case definitions in, 46 Antibiograms (cumulative antimicrobial
dental settings, 173–174 susceptibility data), 359
evaluation of infection control Antigenic variation, 17
programs, 175 Antiserum, 26
examples of outbreaks in, 164–165 Antitoxins, 26
gastrointestinal endoscopy, 41, 42, 183 AORN (Association of PeriOperative
laboratory’s role in infection Registered Nurses), 138
surveillance in, 364–365 APIC. See Association for Professionals
as location for most medical care in in Infection Control and
21st century, 163 Epidemiology
Mycobacterium tuberculosis in, APIC-HICPAC Surveillance Definitions
226–227 for Home Health Care and
ophthalmology offices and clinics, Home Hospice Infections, 46
181–183 APICList (e-mail list), 318
outbreaks reported in, 163–193 Area maps, 395
physicians’ offices and outpatient Arithmetic-scale line graphs, 386
clinics, 166–173. See also ASGE (American Society for
Physicians’ offices and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy),
outpatient clinics 86, 138
surgery centers, 183–185 Asia
surveillance program development in, SARS in, 1, 32
35, 40–42, 44–45, 163 VRSA/VISA in, 224
American Academy of Opthalmology ASM. See American Society for
(AAO), 182 Microbiology
American Academy of Pediatrics, Aspergillosis
measles prevention, 95, 172 airborne transmission of, 24
INDEX 409
control measures, 104 Barrier use. See Contact precautions

environmental reservoir of, 22, 110 and barrier use
epidemiology and mode of Bartonella henselae, 362
transmission, 102–104 Benzalkonium chloride solution
hospital outbreaks of, 73, 77 associated outbreaks, 79, 167,
ICU outbreaks of, 107 169
Association for Professionals in Infection Berkelman, R.L., 204
Control and Epidemiology Bias, 344–345
(APIC) Bible on disease prevention, 2
APICList (email list), 318 Biofilm formation, 113, 198, 304
case definitions, 46 Biological agents of disease, 4, 5, 305–306,
contact information, 138 363
data collection and analysis and, 56 Biologically plausible findings, 352
guidelines for surveillance programs, BioMed Central, 321
38 Bioterrorism. See Terrorist attacks
journal of, 34, 320 Blastomyces, 22
long-term care surveillance guidelines, Blood-borne pathogens from injections.
42 See Injections
study of surveillance programs, 185 Bloodstream infection (BSI)
on surveillance methods, 36 in ambulatory care centers, 41
Association for the Advancement of case definitions and, 46
Medical Instrumentation central line-associated, 39, 369
(AAMI), 138, 178 Enterobacter species and, 33
Association in epidemiology, 11–14 hemodialysis, outbreaks associated
Association of PeriOperative Registered with, 177
Nurses (AORN), 138 incidence calculation of, 51–52
Attack rates, 293 new risk factors and, 114
Australia outbreaks of, 80, 115
MRSA in, 213 BMC Public Health (open access journal),
public health surveillance system in, 321
316 BMJ (British Medical Journal), 321
Victorian Hospital-Acquired Infection BMJ Publishing Group Ltd., 321
Surveillance System Body lice, 242
(VICNISS), 35 Bordetella pertussis. See Pertussis
Victoria state government web site, outbreaks
322 Borrelia burgdorferi. See Lyme disease
Australian bat lyssavirus, 362 Botulism, 152, 363
Avian influenza, 1, 26, 239, 362 Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, 1
Avian mites, 247 Brandt-Rauf, P.W., 109
Branhamella catarrhalis and
B conjunctivitis outbreaks, 153
Babesiosis, 1, 362 Brennen, C., 153
Bacillus anthracis British Journal of Infection Control, 320
information technology use in Bronchoscopy
surveillance of, 313 acute care setting outbreaks and, 83,
terrorist attacks and, 59, 305, 363–364, 86
369–370 airborne transmission of disease and,
viability in free state of, 18 24
Bacillus cereus, 152 ambulatory care setting outbreaks
Bannatyne, R.M., 205 and, 41, 42, 183
Bar charts, 389–393 biofilm formation on, 113, 198
Barr, B.A., 104 indirect transmission by, 23–24
410 INDEX
Bronchoscopy (Continued) Carriers defined, 19

Mycobacterium tuberculosis from, 84, Carter, C.D., 104
226 Case-control study, 12–13, 343–346
reservoir of contamination of, 19 Case definitions
Brucellosis, 363 CDAD outbreaks, 233
BSI. See Bloodstream infection development of, 287–288
Buehler, J.W., 182 frequency or occurrence of disease
Building-related illness and sick building analysis and, 51
syndrome outbreaks, 109, 111 group A beta-hemolytic streptococcus
Burkholderia cepacia outbreaks and, 155
in acute care setting outbreaks, 74, 77, influenza outbreaks, 238
78, 80, 81, 85, 88 long-term care setting outbreaks, 46,
case-control study example of, 12–13 144
investigation of outbreak, 297 meningococcal disease, 151
nosocomial pneumonias (NPs) Streptococcus pneumoniae outbreaks,
outbreaks, 107 150
in pseudo-outbreaks, 204 surveillance program development, 43,
surveillance programs for, 40 45–46
Burnett, I.A., 106 Cataract surgery, outbreaks associated
with, 87–88, 183
C Cat-scratch disease, 362
California Department of Public Health Cause in epidemiology, 11–14
web site, 322 CDAD (C. difficile-associated disease).
Campylobacter jejuni See Clostridium difficile
as emerging pathogen, 1, 361 CDC. See Centers for Disease Control
food-borne outbreaks, 249 and Prevention
gastrointestinal disease in long-term CDC Advisory Committee on
care settings, 152 Immunization Practices (ACIP)
portal of exit of, 23 Hepatitis A prophylaxis, 94
Canada immunization guidelines, 115
Clostridium difficile in, 233 measles prevention, 95
GAS in, 89 meningococcal disease prevention, 151
public health surveillance system in, 4, as resource, 137
316 CDC Clinician Updates (communication
regulations in, 56 network), 369
SARS in, 32 CDC Guidelines for Preventing Health
surveillance program regulation in, 56 Care-Associated Pneumonia,
Canada Communicable Disease Report, 107
321 CDC National Healthcare Safety
Canadian Ministry of National Health Network (NHSN), 315
and Welfare, 42 Centers for Disease Control and
Canadian Nosocomial Infection Prevention (CDC). See also
Surveillance Program (CNISP), Healthcare Infection Control
35 Practice Advisory Committee
Candida and Nocardia species (HICPAC)
control measures, 112 Aspergillosis control measures, 104
as emerging pathogen, 113 assistance from, 291–292
epidemiology of, 111–112 avian influenza, 239
human carriers or disseminators and bioterrorism information, 370
outbreaks of, 88, 90 BSI and, 115
Cardinal Health’s MedMined CDC Clinician Updates, 369
(automated surveillance and chickenpox prevention, 95
data mining program), 315 Clinician Communication Updates, 318
INDEX 411
contact information, 139 nationally notifiable infectious diseases

dental guidelines, 174 list of, 58–59, 369
Division of Healthcare Quality and National Notifiable Disease
Promotion (DHQP), 321 Surveillance System (NNDSS),
EKC (epidemic keratoconjunctivitis) 57, 369
prevention guidelines, 182 norovirus guidelines, 241, 278
emergency preparedness and, 60, 306, on pneumococcal disease prevention,
370 149
on emerging infectious diseases, 113, Public Health Information Network
114 (PHIN), 316
Emerging Infectious Diseases (open Rapid Notification System for
access online journal), 321 Healthcare Professionals, 318
Enterobacter species IV fluid SENIC project of, 34
contamination outbreak and, 33 specimen collection protocol, 367
Environmental Infection Control in on surgical site infections monitoring,
Health-care Facilities 39, 184
Guidelines, 178 surveillance program guidelines of, 38,
on “epidemiologically important” 55
organisms, 282, 284 tuberculosis guidelines, 279
Epi Info (software program), 315–316 VRSA/VISA guidelines, 225
on evaluation of surveillance programs, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
55 Services (CMS), 43, 56, 369
food-borne disease outbreaks Chain of infection, 16
prevention, 257 Charts, 389–394
food-borne pathogen monitoring by, 252 Chart surveillance. See Retrospective
FoodNet and, 249 chart surveillance
gastrointestinal disease outbreak Chemical agents of disease, 5
guidelines, 278 Chemoprophylaxis
guidelines from, 33, 137–138, 139 group A beta-hemolytic streptococcus,
HBV transmission prevention 155
guidelines, 91 influenza, 236–237, 238, 239
HCV transmission prevention Neisseria meningitidis, 151
guidelines, 92 pertussis outbreaks, 100, 152
health department contact Chickenpox (Varicella)
information, 316 airborne transmission of disease and, 24
Hospital Infections Program, 197 healthcare setting outbreaks of, 8,
hospital surveillance programs of, 97–98
34–35, 36, 72 immunization for, 25
ice and ice machine guidelines, incubatory stage of, 19
105–106 infectivity of, 17
infection control guidelines, 279 latent infections, 143
influenza prevention guidelines, 236 molecular test for, 359
investigation techniques of, 306 as rarely fatal clinical infectious
laboratory reporting requirements, 369 disease, 15
Laboratory Response Network, 369 reservoir and source of, 19
laboratory safety procedures, 370 respiratory tract portals of exit of, 22
measles and, 95, 172 seasonal occurrence of, 9
multi-drug resistant organisms, 213 varicella-zoster immune globulin, 26
Mycobacterium tuberculosis prevention Chikungunya virus, 1
guidelines, 228 China, SARS in, 1, 32, 313, 362
National Electronic Disease Chi-square test, 349–350
Surveillance System (NEDSS), Chlamydia pneumoniae in long-term
316 care settings, 145, 149, 152
412 INDEX
Chlamydia trachomatis human reservoirs, 20

immunogenicity of, 18 MRSA, 20, 212–213, 215–216, 217,
portal of exit of, 22 219
Cholera. See Vibrio cholerae personnel cultures in outbreaks and,
Chronological relationship, 352 366–367
Clinical and Laboratory Standards VRE and, 20, 222
Institute (formerly National Commission on Accreditation of
Committee for Clinical Rehabilitation Facilities
Laboratory Standards, NCCLS), (CARF), 56
359, 370 Common source outbreaks, 294, 296
Clinical trials, 14 Community acquired defined, 2
Clinician Communication Updates Community outbreaks, 8, 40, 304–306
(CDC), 318 Comprehensive surveillance, 36–37
Clinics, 166–173. See also Ambulatory Computers. See Technology use
care settings; Physicians’ offices Concurrent surveillance, 47–48
and outpatient clinics Confidence intervals, 338–340
Clostridium difficile, 232–235 Confounding variables, 346
acute acere setting outbreaks of, 73, 74 Conjunctivitis outbreaks
control measures, 234–235 in ambulatory care settings, 41, 42
as emerging pathogen, 1, 113, 362 in long-term care settings, 142, 143,
epidemiology of, 233–234 153–154
food-borne outbreaks and, 252 in ophthalmogy offices and clinics,
global surveillance of, 59 181–183
human reservoirs of, 20 Consistency of association, 352
in long-term care settings, 142, 152, Consumer Product Safety (CPS, Health
233, 247 Canada), 318–319
mode of transmission, 234 Contact investigation and management
outbreaks of, 72 Mycobacterium tuberculosis, 231–232
portal of exit of, 23 Contact precautions and barrier use
reporting requirements, 369 gloves, use of, 171, 182
surveillance programs for, 40, 235 MRSA and, 215, 218–219
Clostridium perfringens norovirus, 241
food-borne outbreaks and, 252 for vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus
gastrointestinal disease in long-term (VRE), 220–221, 222, 223
care settings, 152 De Contagione et Contagiosis Morbis
Clostridium tetani as usually fatal (Fracastoro), 3
clinical infectious disease, 15 Control and prevention measures,
“Cloud” phenomenon of S. aureus, 89 303–304. See also specific
Cluster of cases, 282, 365 infections and diseases
CMS. See Centers for Medicare and in ambulatory care settings, 42, 170,
Medicaid Services 171, 186
CNISP (Canadian Nosocomial Infection in ambulatory surgery centers,
Surveillance Program), 35 184–185
Coccidioides, environmental reservoir of, Aspergillosis, 104
22 Candida species, 112
Cohorting as control measure, 213, 217, Clostridium difficile, 234–235
218, 221, 222, 235, 237, 242 Cryptosporidium species, 246
Cohort studies, 13, 340–343 in dental settings, 174
Collection of data. See Data collection dialysis center outbreaks, 178–181
Colonization with infectious agents. See early control measures while
also Human carriers or investigating outbreak, 292
disseminators and outbreaks EKC (epidemic keratoconjunctivitis),
of Clostridium difficile, 233 182–183
INDEX 413
evaluation of infection control point source outbreak of, 294, 295

programs, 175 public health preparedness and, 363
food-borne disease outbreaks, 27, Cultures
257–258 false-positive cultures, 197, 200
gastrointestinal disease outbreaks, investigations of outbreaks, 297–299,
255–258 366–367
Giardia lamblia infections, 246 laboratory’s role, 366
group A beta-hemolytic streptococcus methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
(GAS), 155 aureus (MRSA), 214–215, 218
identification of effective measures to of personnel, 298–299
control or prevent spread of surveys, 367
infection, 26–27 vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus
implementation and evaluation of, (VRE), 221–222
299–300 Culver, D.A., 86
infectious diseases, 26–27 Cumulative antimicrobial susceptibility
influenza viruses, 236–238 data (antibiograms), 359
Legionnaires’ Disease (LD), 102, 103, Cyclospora
152, 279 as emerging pathogens, 361
meningococcal disease, 151–152 food-borne outbreaks and, 249
MRSA, 213–216, 217–219 FoodNet monitoring of, 252
Mycobacterium tuberculosis, 228–232 Cytomegalovirus
norovirus, 241–242, 278 as inapparent infection, 14
in physicians’ offices and outpatient portal of exit of, 23
clinics, 168–169, 170
pseudo-outbreaks, 206 D
reservoirs of infectious agents and, 26 Dark Ages, understanding of disease
in respiratory disease outbreaks in in, 2
long-term care settings, 152 Databases. See also Information
Sarcoptes scabiei, 243–245 technology
Streptococcus pneumoniae, 145, for HAI comparisons, 54
149–150 to organize epidemiologic data,
tuberculosis, 26, 27, 172–173 379–380
vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus Data collection, 379–383. See also
(VRE), 220–222, 224 Information technology; Line
VRSA/VISA, 225 listing
Control of Communicable Diseases forms, 49, 50, 292–293, 379–381
Manual (Heymann), 100 in investigation of outbreak, 292–294
Convalescent phase of infection, 19 software for, 31, 301, 380–383
Copepods and nonpathogenic freshwater in surveillance programs, 47–50, 54
microorganism pseudo- Data display, 383–395
outbreak, 105 area maps, 395
CPS (Consumer Product Safety, Health arithmetic-scale line graphs, 386
Canada), 318–319 avoiding “chartjunk,” 396–398
Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever, 1 bar charts, 389–393
Cryptococcus charts, 389–394
as emerging pathogen, 1 computers to create, 395–398
environmental reservoir of, 22 graphs, 386–389, 395–396
Cryptosporidium species histograms, 386–387, 395–396
as emerging pathogen, 1, 361 maps, 394–395
environmental reservoir of, 22 one-variable tables, 384–385
food-borne outbreaks and, 249 pie charts, 394–395
FoodNet monitoring of, 252 selecting best method for, 396
as parasitic infection, 242, 245–246 spot maps, 293, 394
414 INDEX
Data display (Continued) Dixon, D.M., 104

tables, 383–386 Dogs, infections from healthcare
two- and three-variable tables, workers colonized by, 20
385–386 Dose-response relationship, 352
two-by-two tables, 386 Droplet transmission outbreaks, 98–100
Day care centers airborne transmission of disease and,
Cryptosporidium species infection in, 24
246 direct transmission and, 23
Giardia lamblia infections in, 246 group A beta-hemolytic streptococcus,
Definitions used in healthcare 155
epidemiology, 1–2, 281 guidelines on, 100
Degrees of freedom, 350 Neisseria meningitidis, 151
Dengue fever, 1 pertussis, 99–100, 145, 152
Dental settings, outbreaks in, 173–174, respiratory syncytial virus infection
175 (RSV), 98–99
Dermatologist’s transmission of HBV to Dwyer, D.M., 300
patients, 169
Descriptive epidemiology, 7–10 E
person, 7, 284, 293 Ebola virus
place, 8, 284, 293 as emerging pathogen, 1, 114, 361
time, 9–10, 284, 293–294 hospital outbreaks of, 73, 114
Descriptive statistics, 328–340. See also public health preparedness and, 363
Statistical methods in ECDC. See European Centre for Disease
investigations Prevention and Control
Deviation, 334 Ectoparasites, 242–245, 247
Devices Education of personnel
acute care setting outbreaks associated on MRSA, 215, 219
with, 75, 84–85 on Mycobacterium tuberculosis, 232
biofilm formation on, 113, 198 on VRE, 222
calculation of device-associated Eggs, disease associated with raw or
infection rate, 52 undercooked, 18, 19, 20
disinfection and sterilization of, 168, Ehrlichia chafeensis, 1, 362
171, 179, 181, 182 Electronic patient records, 314
examples of outbreaks and associated E-mail lists, electronic notification, and
infection control or technical reporting systems, 317–319
errors, 84–85 Emergency preparedness, 58–60, 306,
indirect transmission by, 23–24 363, 369–370. See also
in physicians’ offices and clinics, as Surveillance programs
transmitting agents, 166–169 Emerging infectious diseases. See also
surveillance programs for, 39 Newly recognized agents and
DHQP (Division of Healthcare Quality sources for outbreaks
and Promotion, CDC), 321 laboratory’s role in determining,
Dialysis centers, outbreaks in, 176–181. 361–364
See also Hemodialysis outbreak investigations, 305–306
Dialysis Surveillance Network (CDC), 34 pathogens recognized since 1973,
Diphtheria, portal of exit of, 22 361–362
Direct transmission of infectious agents, public health and laboratory
23 collaboration and, 369
Disease. See also specific types public health preparedness, 363
defined, 2 Emerging Infectious Diseases (CDC,
multifactorial nature of, 4–6 open access online journal), 321
Display of data. See Data display Emmerson, A.M., 105
INDEX 415
Endemic Escherichia coli

defined, 2 antimicrobial resistance detection in,
rates, 282, 289 359
Entamoeba histolytica, gastrointestinal food-borne outbreaks and, 252
disease in long-term care portal of exit of, 23
settings, 152 public health preparedness and, 363
Enter-Net (ECDC), 316 Escherichia coli O157:H7
Enterobacter species as emerging pathogen, 1, 113, 361
ability to develop resistance to food-borne outbreaks, 249
antimicrobials of, 18 FoodNet monitoring of, 252
antimicrobial resistance detection in, gastrointestinal disease in long-term
360 care settings, 152
bloodstream infections by, 33 Etiologic agents of disease, 4–6
contamination of IV fluid therapy, 19, biological agents, 4, 5
33 chemical agents, 5
drug resistance of, 73 historical perspective on cause of
hospital outbreaks of, 73, 77–78 disease, 3–4
from prefilled saline syringes, 166 physical agents, 5–6
surveillance programs for, 88 European Centre for Disease Prevention
Enterococcus faecali, pathogenicity of, and Control (ECDC), 35, 316,
17 321
Entrococcus species, acute care setting Europe/European Union
outbreaks of, 74 device contamination in, 86
Environmental factors affecting disease, HELICS (Hospitals in Europe Link for
6 Infection Control through
Environmental Infection Control in Surveillance), 35
Health-care Facilities Hepatitis B virus prevention in, 91
Guidelines (CDC), 178 public health surveillance system in,
Environmental reservoirs of infectious 316
agents SARS in, 32, 313
in acute care settings, 101–104 VRE in, 219, 220
Aspergillosis, 102–104 VRSA/VISA in, 224
Legionnaires’ Disease, 101–102, 103 Evaluation
overview, 22 infection control programs, 175
Environmental transmission of surveillance programs, guidelines for,
pathogens in outbreaks, 113 55–56
EpiData (software program), 315, 316 Experimental studies, 13–14
Epidemic curve, construction of, 294, 295 Eyes, outbreaks of infections in, 87–88,
Epidemic, defined, 2 181–183
Epidemic period, 9
“Epidemiologically important” F
organisms, 282, 284, 364 Facility-wide outbreaks, investigation of,
Epidemiologic typing methods, 367–368 284, 300
Epidemiology, defined, 1–2 False-positive cultures, 197, 200
Epi Info (software program), 301, Farr, William, 3
315–316, 351 FDA MedWatch (FDA Safety
EpiQuest Healthcare Epidemiology and Information and Adverse Event
Statistics programs (software Reporting System), 76, 138,
program), 315 284, 318
EPR (Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Fecal-oral route of transmission, 24
Response, WHO), 322 Field epidemiology, 3
Errors in lab procedures, 197, 200, 202 Fisher’s exact test, 350
416 INDEX
Flavobacterium species G
hospital outbreaks of, 73 Gaddis, G.M., 349
water reservoir outbreaks and, 105 Gaddis, M.L., 349
Focused surveillance, 37 Garibaldi, R.A., 247
Fomites GAS. See Group A beta-hemolytic
indirect transmission and, 23 streptococcus
norovirus transmission and, 240 Gastmeier, P., 109
rotavirus transmission, 249 Gastrointestinal disease outbreaks,
scabies outbreaks, 243 247–258. See also Food-borne
viability of organisms in free state and, disease outbreaks; specific
17–18 diseases and organisms
VRE transmission and, 220 in acute care settings, 100
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) case definition, development of,
Adverse Event Reporting System, 76, 287–288
138 control measures, 255–258
FoodNet and, 249 epidemiology of, 247–249
Foodborne Disease Active Surveillance etiologic agents in healthcare setting
Network (FoodNet), 249, 252 outbreaks, 248
Food-borne disease outbreaks. See also in long-term care settings, 100, 142,
specific diseases and organisms 143, 152–153
characteristics of agents causing, mode of transmission, 248–249
253–255 person-to-person transmission of
control measures, 27, 255–256, enteric agents, prevention of,
257–258 256–257, 278
effect of, 305 retrospective cohort study of, 13
examples of, 250–252 Gastrointestinal endoscopy, outbreaks
gastrointestinal illness, 249–256 associated with
host specificity and, 18 acute care setting outbreaks and, 83,
infectious dose and, 17 84, 86
norovirus, 240, 241 in ambulatory care settings, 41, 42, 183
outbreaks of, 72 biofilm formation on, 113, 198
prevention of, 257–258 Salmonella infection via, 25
public health preparedness and, 363 Gastrointestinal tract portal of exit of
reservoirs of, 19, 20 infectious agents, 23
Salmonella species, 93, 252, 339 Genitourinary tract portal of exit of
Staphylococcus aureus and, 89 infectious agents, 22–23
state health departments and, 153 Genotypic techniques for cultures, 298,
surveillance of, 278 367, 368
FoodNet (Foodborne Disease Active Germ theory of disease, 4
Surveillance Network), 249, Giardia lamblia
252 food-borne outbreaks and, 249
Forms for data collection, 49, 50, gastrointestinal disease in long-term
292–293, 379–381 care settings, 152, 153
Forum on Microbial Threats (WHO), 60 as parasitic disease, 242, 246
Fracastoro, Girolamo, 3 portal of exit of, 23
Framingham Heart Study, 13 Glanders, 363
Frequency measures, 51, 328–332 Global Outbreak Alert and Response
Frequently inapparent infections, Network (GOARN, WHO),
14–15 316–317
agents, 14–15 Global surveillance and emergency
infection control/public health preparedness, 58–60,
significance of, 15 Emergency preparedness. See
Fungi, environmental reservoir of, 22 also Surveillance programs
INDEX 417
Gloves, use of, 171, 182. See also Contact toxic shock syndrome and invasive
precautions and barrier use disease, 155
Gold, D.R., 109, 111 Group B streptococcus, rapid tests for,
Gomolin, I.H., 236 359
Gonorrhea. See Neisseria gonorrhoeae Guanarito virus, 362
Goodman, R.A., 166, 173, 181, 303 Guidelines from CDC. See Centers for
Google, 322 Disease Control and
Google Scholar, 319, 320 Prevention
Gottsch, J.D., 182 Guidelines from Maryland Department
Gram-negative organisms. See also of Health Mental Hygiene. See
specific organisms Maryland Department of
ability to develop resistance to Health and Mental Hygiene
antimicrobials of, 18
acute care setting outbreaks and, 84 H
hospital outbreaks of, 73 Haemophilus influenza antimicrobial
human carriers or disseminators and resistance detection in, 360
outbreaks of, 88, 90–91 Haiduven, D.J., 100
investigation of outbreak, 297 Haley, Robert, 37
nosocomial pneumonias (NPs) Hand hygiene
outbreaks, 107 Clostridium difficile, 235
portal of exit of, 23 injection safety, 171
reservoirs of, 19 MRSA and, 213, 217
water reservoirs outbreaks of, 106 ophthalmology practices, 182
Gram-positive organisms. See also puerperal (childbed) fever and, 3
specific organisms vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus
antimicrobial resistance detection in, 360 (VRE), 221
portal of exit of, 22–23 Hantaviruses
reservoirs of, 18 airborne transmission of, 24
Graphs, 386–389, 395–396 control and prevention of, 26
Gravenstein, S., 236 as emerging pathogen, 1, 361, 363
Group A beta-hemolytic streptococcus HAV. See Hepatitis A virus
(GAS) HBV. See Hepatitis B virus
acute care setting outbreaks of, 87 HCV. See Hepatitis C virus
conjunctivitis outbreaks in long-term Head lice, 242
care settings, 153–154 Health and Human Services
control measures, 155 Department, U.S., 239
as emerging pathogen, 1 Health Canada’s Consumer Product
epidemiology and mode of Safety (CPS), 318–319
transmission, 154–155 Health Care Financing Administration
food-borne outbreaks and, 249, 295 (now CMS), 43
hospital outbreaks of, 73, 74 Healthcare Infection Control Practice
human carriers or disseminators and Advisory Committee
outbreaks in acute care (HICPAC)
settings, 88, 89–90 APIC-HICPAC Surveillance
in long-term care settings, 145, 147, Definitions for Home Health
148, 153–155 Care and Home Hospice
mode of transmission of, 23 Infections, 46
noninvasive, 148 Clostridium difficile prevention
portal of entry of, 24 measures, 234
postoperative outbreaks, 296 guideline for infection control in
sensitivity to antimicrobials of, 155 healthcare personnel, 115
thresholds of occurrence for Guideline for Isolation Precautions,
investigation, 282, 283 2007, 215
418 INDEX
Healthcare Infection Control Practice human carriers or disseminators and

Advisory Committee (HICPAC) outbreaks of, 88, 91–92
(Continued) immune globulin for, 27
Management of Multidrug-Resistant immunization for, 27, 179
Organisms in Healthcare patient-to-patient transmission, 169
Settings, 2006, 215 portal of exit of, 22
VRE prevention guidelines, 220, 222 routine testing for, 180
Healthcare providers. See also Personnel viability in the free state of, 17
and employee health Hepatitis C virus (HCV)
community outbreaks, recognition by, contaminated injections transmitting,
40 169–170
emergency preparedness and, 59 as emerging pathogen, 1, 114, 362
role in surveillance programs, 58 as frequently inapparent infection, 14
Helicobacter pylori as emerging hemodialysis, outbreaks associated
pathogen, 1, 113, 249, 361 with, 177, 178
HELICS (Hospitals in Europe Link for hospital outbreaks of, 73, 77, 84
Infection Control through human carriers or disseminators and
Surveillance), 35 outbreaks of, 88, 92
Hemodialysis routine testing for, 180
case definitions and, 46 Hepatitis E virus, 1, 361
control practices for, 178–181 Herd immunity, 3
laboratory’s role in infection Herpes viruses
surveillance in, 364–365 antimicrobial resistance detection in,
noninfectious adverse events in, 82 23, 361
outbreaks associated with, 83, 87, as biologic agent of disease, 5
176–181 in dental settings, 173
surveillance programs for, 35, 41 as emerging pathogen, 361
Hemolytic uremic syndrome, 252 Heymann, D.L., 100
Hemophilus influenzae conjunctivitis H5N1. See Avian influenza
outbreaks in long-term care HHV-8 virus, 362
settings, 153 HICPAC. See Healthcare Infection
Hendra virus, 362 Control Practice Advisory
Hepatitis A virus (HAV) Committee
acute care settings outbreaks of, 74 Hippocrates, 2
carriers of, 19 HIS (Hospital Infection Society), 321
food-borne illness outbreaks and, 255 Histograms, 386–387, 395–396
as frequently inapparent infection, 14 Histoplasma, environmental reservoir
human carriers or disseminators and of, 22
outbreaks of, 88, 93–94 Historical perspective on epidemiology,
indirect transmission of, 23–24 1–2
portal of entry of, 24 HIV (human immunodeficiency virus)
portal of exit of, 23 antimicrobial resistance detection in,
Hepatitis B virus (HBV) 360
in ambulatory care centers, 41, 167 contaminated injections transmitting,
antiserum, 26 169
contaminated injections transmitting, dentist as transmitter of, 174
169 as emergent pathogen, 1
in dental settings, 173–174 as frequently inapparent infection, 14,
as emerging pathogen, 1, 362 16
as frequently inapparent infection, 14 hemodialysis, outbreaks associated
hemodialysis, outbreaks associated with, 177
with, 87, 177, 178 human carriers or disseminators and
hospital outbreaks of, 73 outbreaks of, 92–94
INDEX 419
patient-to-patient transmission, 169 respiratory disease outbreaks in long-

risk factors for, 114 term care settings, 144–145, 149
TB and, 9 Human parvovirus B19
as usually fatal clinical infectious droplet transmission outbreaks of, 98
disease, 15–16 as emerging pathogen, 1, 113, 361
Hlady, W.G., 169 Human reservoirs of infectious agents,
Home health care. See also Acute care 19–20
settings Human T-lymphotropic virus I (HTLV-1),
bloodstream infection (BSI), 115 361
case definitions, 46 Hypotension during hemodialysis, 176,
surveillance program development in, 177
35 Hypothesis
Hong Kong, SARS in, 32 formulation and evaluation in
Hookworm, 24 investigation of outbreak, 299,
“Hospital fever,” 71 300–301
Hospital Infection Society (HIS), 321 testing (inferential statistics), 346–349
Hospitals. See also Acute care settings
sanitation, improvement in, 3, 71 I
surveillance programs in, 34–35 Ice and ice machines, outbreaks and
Hosts pseudo-outbreaks with,
acquired immunity, 25–26 105–106
chain of infection and, 16 ICNet software, 315
Clostridium difficile risk factors, 233, ICPA AICE! programs (software
235 program), 315
factors affecting disease, 6 ICUs. See Intensive care units
inherent factors, 25 IHR (International Health Regulations,
long-term care settings, risk factors of 2005), 60
residents of, 143 Ijaz, K., 227
MRSA risk factors of, 212, 216 Immune globulin, 26, 27
secondary resistance factors, 26 Immunization
specificity of, 18 acquired immunity of host and, 25
susceptiblity to infectious agents of, contaminated vaccines, 167
25–26, 27 as control measures to prevent spread
VRE risk factors of, 220, 223 of disease, 27
Housewide (comprehensive) for healthcare workers, 115
surveillance, 36–37 Hepatitis A virus prevention, 94
Hsu, C.C.S., 216 Hepatitis B virus prevention, 27, 179
Human carriers or disseminators, 88–94 historical development of, 3
Candida and Nocardia species, 88, 90 influenza, 17, 237, 239
gram-negative organisms, 90–91 measles, 95
group A beta-hemolytic streptococcus Neisseria meningitidis prevention, 151
(GAS), 88, 89–90 Streptococcus pneumoniae prevention,
hepatitis A virus (HAV), 88, 93–94 145, 149
hepatitis B virus (HBV), 88, 91–92 varicella (chickenpox), 97
hepatitis C virus (HCV), 88, 92 Immunization Action Coalition, 139
HIV (human immunodeficiency virus), Immunogenicity, 18
92–94 Incidence
Salmonella species, 88, 93 attack rates, calculation of, 293
Staphylococcus aureus, 73, 88–89 calculation of, 51–52
Human immunodeficiency virus. See definition of, 2
HIV determination of, 289
Human metapneumovirus prevalence rates vs., 53
as emerging pathogen, 362 rates, 329–331
420 INDEX
Incubatory stage of infection, 19, 294 as emerging human pathogen, 1, 362

Indirect transmission of infectious epidemiology of, 235–236
agents, 23–24 in long-term care settings, 43, 142, 144,
Infection Control and Hospital 146, 236
Epidemiology (SHEA journal), mode of transmission of, 23, 236
320 molecular test for, 359
Infection Control Nurses Association outbreaks of, 72, 74
(now Infection Prevention pandemic influenza, 239
Society), 320 respiratory tract portals of exit of, 22
Infection prevention and control seasonal occurrence of, 9, 236, 238
professionals (ICPs) Information technology, 313–325. See
in ambulatory care settings, 41, 185 also Technology use
classification disease issues and, 46 data collection, management, and
data sources and, 48 storage, 314
emergency preparedness and, 60 data review, analysis, and reporting,
infection surveillance and, 364–365 315
information technology and, 314, 317 electronic notification, reporting
Infection Prevention Society (formerly systems and e-mail lists,
Infection Control Nurses 317–319
Association), 320 healthcare surveillance and, 314–315
Infection surveillance, prevention, and infection surveillance and, 364
control (ISPC), 357, 358, Internet sources of public health and
364–365, 369 infection prevention on,
Infectious diseases. See also specific 321–323
diseases and organisms journals and periodicals on world wide
agents of, 16–18 web, 320–321
chain of infection, 16 literature and information searches,
control and prevention measures, 319–320
26–27 medical literature search services,
epidemiology of, 14–27 319–320
frequently inapparent infections, public domain software for outbreak
14–15 investigations, 315–316
infectious agents, 16–18 public health surveillance systems,
modes of transmission, 16, 23–24 316–317
nationally notifiable, 58–59, 369 Inherent factors of susceptible hosts,
portals of entry, 24–25 25
portals of exit, 22–23 Injections
process of, 16–26 with contaminated devices and
rarely fatal clinical diseases, 15 products, 167
reservoirs of, 18–22, 26 safety precautions, 171
spectrum of, 14–16 transmission patient-to-patient,
susceptible hosts, 16, 25–26, 27 169–170
transmission, interrupting, 27 Intensive care units (ICUs)
usually fatal severe diseases, 15–16 bloodstream infection (BSI) in, 115
Infectious dose, 17 Candida species outbreaks, 111
Infectivity, 17 data collection in, 49
Inferential statistics, 346–349 nosocomial pneumonias (NPs)
Influenza viruses, 235–239 outbreaks in, 107–109, 110
antigenic variation of, 17 surveillance programs in, 39
avian influenza, 1, 26, 239 International Health Regulations (IHR
community outbreaks of, 8 2005), 60
control measures for, 236–238 International Society for Peritoneal
droplet transmission outbreaks, 98 Dialysis, 178
INDEX 421
Internet line listing, use of, 287, 288, 293

data collection and organization, 382 literature search, 289–290, 302
electronic notification, reporting notification of essential personnel,
systems and e-mail lists, 291
317–319 objectives of, 285
journals and periodicals on, 320–321 outline for, 285–286
medical literature search services, outside assistance, need for, 291–292
319–320 public domain software for outbreak
open access online journals, 321 investigations, 315–316
outbreak investigations, 306 public health issues, 304–306
public health and infection prevention publishing article about, 302–303
on, 321–323 recognizing outbreaks, 281–284, 304
SARS reporting, 313 reports, 301–302
search engines, 322 review of clinical and laboratory
Interpretive reports, 54–55 findings, 288–289
Introduction to epidemiology risk management issues, 291, 303
definitions used in healthcare skills needed for, 303
epidemiology, 1–2 statistical methods in. See Statistical
historical perspective on epidemiology, methods in investigations
1–2 steps in, 285–301
infectious diseases, 14–27 team, assembly of, 291
multifactorial nature of disease, 4–6 technology to aid in, 306, 313–325. See
study methods used in epidemiology, also Technology use
6–14 triggering thresholds, 282–284
Invasiveness of infectious agents, 17 verification of diagnosis of reported
Investigations of outbreaks, 284–302 cases, 286–287
additional cases, search for, 292 Iodine solutions, contaminated, 166, 197,
additional cultures or tests, need for, 204
297–299 ISI Web of Knowledge (subscription-
case definition, development of, 287–288 based search services), 320
confirmation of existence of outbreak, Isolation precautions. See also Contact
289 precautions and barrier use
continued surveillance and analysis, for Mycobacterium tuberculosis, 229
301 for Pneumocystis carinii infections,
control measures, implementation and 247
evaluation of, 299–300 ISPC. See Infection surveillance,
data collection form, creation of, prevention, and control
292–293 IV fluid therapy, contamination of, 19, 33
description of epidemic by person,
place, and time, 293–294 J
early control measures, 292 Japan
epidemic curve, construction of, 294, public health surveillance system in,
295 316
evaluation of problem, 294–297 VISA in, 224
hypothesis formulation and evaluation, Jarvis, W.R., 107
299, 300–301 Jenner, Edward, 3
identification and verification of newly Joint Commission surveillance program
reported cases, 287 requirements, 56
initial evaluation, 286–287 Journal of Hospital Infections, 321
initiation of, 284–285 Journal of Occupational and
laboratory’s role in, 290, 365–367. See Environmental Medicine, 111
also Laboratory’s role in Journals and periodicals on world wide
outbreak investigation web, 320–321
422 INDEX
K Legionnaires’ Disease (LD), 101–102

Keratoconjunctivitis (EKC), 41, 181–183. in ambulatory care centers, 42
See also Conjunctivitis outbreaks community outbreaks of, 40
Kingston, B. J., 236 control measures, 102, 103, 152, 279
Klebsiella species environmental reservoir of, 22, 105,
ability to develop resistance to 347
antimicrobials of, 18 epidemiology of, 101
antimicrobial resistance detection in, hospital outbreaks of, 73, 74
359 ICU outbreaks of, 107
drug resistance of, 73 in long-term care settings, 145, 149,
hospital outbreaks of, 73 152, 304
surveillance programs for, 40 mode of transmission, 101, 102
Koch, Robert, 4 as new pathogen, 1, 113, 362
Koch’s postulates, 4 point source outbreak of, 294
thresholds of occurrence for
L investigation, 282, 283
Laboratory errors. See Errors in lab water reservoirs outbreaks of, 106, 110,
procedures 347
Laboratory findings, review of, 288–289 Leprosy, 2
Laboratory Response Network (LRN, Lettau, L.A., 242
CDC), 369 Lice, 242
Laboratory’s role in outbreak Line listing
investigation, 290, 357–377 data collection, 49–50, 293–294, 380
anthrax detection by, 363–364 influenza outbreaks, 238
antimicrobial resistance detection, investigation of outbreak, 287, 288, 293
359–360 Legionnaire’s disease outbreaks and,
clusters and outbreaks identification, 49–50
365 long-term care setting outbreaks, 144,
culturing of personnel, 366 150, 155
emerging and reemerging diseases and Listeria monocytogenes, 249, 252
bioterrorism, 361–364 Listeriosis. See Listeria monocytogenes
employee health, 370 Literature and information searches,
epidemiologic typing methods, 289–290, 302, 319–320. See also
367–368 Information technology
identification of microorganisms, Literature search as part of
358–359 investigation of outbreak, 302
infection surveillance, 358, 364–365 Local health departments. See State and
microbiologic cultures, 366 local health departments
outbreak investigation and response, Long-term care facilities (LTCFs). See
358, 365–367 Long-term care settings
prevention and control programs, 358 Long-term care settings, 141–161
public health activities, 369 case definitions in, 46, 144
quality assurance and pseudo- Clostridium difficile in, 142, 152, 233,
outbreaks, 370–371 234
reporting requirements, 368–369 conjunctivitis outbreaks in, 142, 143,
safety procedures, 370 153–154
special studies, 366 defined, 141
specimen collection, 367 endemic infections, 142–143
Lassa fever, 1, 363 epidemic infections, 143
Lauritsen, Jens M., 316 gastrointestinal disease outbreaks in,
Legionella pneumophila. See 100, 142, 143, 152–153,
Legionnaires’ Disease (LD) 247–249, 252, 257, 278
INDEX 423
Giardia lamblia infections in, 246 Acute Respiratory Illnesses

group A beta-hemolytic streptococcus (including Influenza and
(GAS) in, 145, 147, 148, Pneumonia) in Long-Term Care
153–155 Facilities, 238
influenza viruses in, 43, 142, 143, 146, web site, 322
236, 238 McFarland, L.V., 234
laboratory’s role in infection McGeer case definitions, 46
surveillance in, 364–365 MDR-TB (Multidrug-resistant
MRSA in, 211, 216–219 Mycobacterium tuberculosis).
Mycobacterium tuberculosis in, 43, 142, See Mycobacterium tuberculosis
145, 152, 227, 229, 231 Mean, 332–333
norovirus in, 239, 241 Measles
overview, 141–142 airborne transmission of, 24, 170, 172
recognition and confirmation of control and prevention of, 27
outbreaks in, 144 as emerging human pathogen, 1
respiratory disease outbreaks in, 43, healthcare setting outbreaks of,
142, 143, 145–152 94–97
risk factors for infections, 143 historical perspective on, 3
surveillance program development in, immunization for, 25, 27
35, 42–45, 47–48, 54, 142, 150, pathogenicity of, 17
151, 155 propagated outbreak of, 294, 296
VRE in, 142, 223–224 as rarely fatal clinical infectious
Long-term trends, 9–10 disease, 15
LTCFs (long-term care facilities). See thresholds of occurrence for
Long-term care settings investigation, 282, 283
Lyme disease, 1, 8, 20, 361 Measures of association, 336–338
Measures of central tendency, 332–334
M Measures of dispersion, 334–336
Mad-cow disease, 1 Mechanical ventilation risks, 299
Malaria Median, 333
control and prevention of, 26 Medical devices. See Devices
origin of term, 3 Medical literature searches, 289–290,
vector transmission of, 24 302, 319–320
Malassezia pachydermatis infection and Medical products. See Products
healthcare worker pet dog, 20 MEDLINE, 141, 183, 320
Maloney, S.A., 107 MedWatch (FDA Safety Information and
Management of Multidrug-Resistant Adverse Event Reporting
Organisms in Healthcare System), 76, 138, 284, 318
Settings, 2006 (CDC), 213 Meningococcus. See Neisseria
Maps, 293, 394–395 meningitidis
Margin of error, 338 Menzies, D., 231
Maryland Department of Health and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
Mental Hygiene aureus (MRSA)
Guidelines for Control of Scabies in ability to develop resistance to
Long-Term Care Facilities, 245, antimicrobials of, 18
282 active surveillance testing of patients
Guidelines for the Epidemiological and residents, 214, 218
Investigation of Gastroenteritis in acute care settings, 71, 72, 87, 211,
Outbreaks in Long-Term Care 212–216
Facilities, 153, 257, 282 antimicrobial resistance detection in,
Guidelines for the Prevention and 359, 360
Control of Upper and Lower cohorting, 218
424 INDEX
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Monkeypox, 1

aureus (MRSA) (Continued) Montessori, V., 182
colonization with, 20, 212–213, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
215–216, 219 (MMWR, CDC), 115, 139, 252,
community-acquired strains of, 212 278, 279, 321
conjunctivitis outbreaks in long-term Mosaic code, 2
care settings, 153 MRSA. See Methicillin-resistant
contact precautions and barrier use for, Staphylococcus aureus
215, 218–219 Multidrug-resistant and extensively
control measures, 213–216, 217–219 drug-resistant Mycobacterium
education of healthcare workers, 215, tuberculosis (MDR-TB, XDR-
219 TB). See Mycobacterium
as emerging pathogen, 1, 113, 362 tuberculosis
epidemics of, 4, 205 Multidrug-resistant organisms
epidemiology of, 212, 216 (MDROs). See also specific
hand hygiene and, 213, 217 organisms
hospital outbreaks of, 73 global surveillance of, 60
human carriers or disseminators and surveillance programs for, 40
outbreaks of, 88–89 Multifactorial nature of disease, 4–6
laboratory-based surveillance for, 214, environmental factors affecting
218 disease, 6
in long-term care settings, 43, 142, 211, etiologic agents of disease, 4–6
216–219 historical perspective on cause of
mode of transmission, 212–213, 217 disease, 3–4
molecular test for, 359 host factors affecting disease, 6
nosocomial pneumonias (NPs) Mumps
outbreaks in intensive care droplet transmission outbreaks, 98
units of, 108 identification of new risk factors and
personnel, surveillance cultures of, sources for infection, 113
214–215, 218 immunization for, 27
reporting requirements, 369 respiratory tract portals of exit of, 22
risk factors in, 342–343 Municipal water system
surveillance programs for, 40, 214–215, cryptosporidium outbreak, 246
289 Murder, R.R., 153
treatment of infected or colonized Mycobacterium species
patients or personnel, 215–216, antimicrobial resistance detection in,
219 359, 360
Microbiologic cultures. See Cultures avium-intracellulare, 202
Microorganism identification, 358–359 chelonae, 80, 167, 181, 202
Microsoft Access, 314, 316 environmental reservoir of, 22
Microsoft Excel, 314 gordonae, 73, 202
Milwaukee municipal water system molecular tests for, 359, 360
cryptosporidium outbreak, 246 outbreaks of, 74
MMWR. See Morbidity and Mortality pseudo-outbreaks involving, 200–203
Weekly Report (CDC) water reservoirs outbreaks of, 106
MMWR Surveillance Summaries (CDC), xenopi pseudo-infections, 105
252 Mycobacterium tuberculosis
Mode, 334 in acute care settings, 226–227
Modes of transmission of infectious airborne transmission of, 24, 172–173
agents, 16, 23–24. See also in ambulatory care settings, 41, 42,
specific diseases and organisms 172–173, 226–227
Mody, L., 224 antimicrobial resistance detection in,
Molecular typing, 359, 367 359
INDEX 425
bronchoscopy, infections from, 84, 226 case definitions and, 46

community outbreaks of, 8 data collection and analysis and, 56
contact investigation and management dialysis surveillance program of, 41
for exposed persons, 231–232 hospital surveillance programs and,
control and prevention of, 26, 27, 34–35
172–173, 228–232 MRSA guidelines, 214
education for personnel, 232 surveillance on HAIs, 185
as emerging pathogen, 1 wound risk index of, 53
epidemiology of, 226–227 National Heart, Lung, and Blood
as frequently inapparent infection, 14, Institute, 13
15 National Institutes of Health (NIH),
hemodialysis, outbreaks associated 319, 370
with, 176 National Library of Medicine, 319
hospital outbreaks of, 73, 74 Nationally notifiable infectious diseases,
indirect transmission of, 24 58–59, 369
isolation precautions, 229 National Nosocomial Infections
Koch’s study of, 4 Surveillance (NNIS) system
in long-term care settings, 43, 142, 145, in ambulatory care settings, 39
152, 227–230, 231, 232 case definitions, 46
multidrug-resistant and extensively data collection and analysis and, 56
drug-resistant (MDR-TB, XDR- hospital-associated infections, 72
TB), 4, 73, 84, 113, 226–228, 229 hospital surveillance, 34–35, 36
outbreaks of, 72, 362 MRSA guidelines, 214
personnel screening program, 231 wound risk index of, 53
portal of entry of, 25 National Notifiable Disease Surveillance
pseudo-outbreaks of, 200–202 System (NNDSS), 57, 369
respiratory tract portals of exit of, 22 National Surveillance System for Health
screening programs for, 229, 231, 232 Care Workers (CDC), 34
secular (long-term) trends in, 8–9 National Survey of Ambulatory Surgery,
surveillance programs for, 40 183
three-level hierarchy controls to Natural history of disease, 14
prevent transmission of, 230 Natural passive immunity, 25–26
thresholds of occurrence for NEDSS. See National Electronic Disease
investigation, 282, 283 Surveillance System
treatment of, 231 Needle reuse. See Injections
Mycobacterium xenopi pseudo-infections, Neisseria gonorrhoeae
202 antimicrobial resistance detection in,
Mycoplasma pneumoniae, droplet 360
transmission outbreaks, 98 as frequently inapparent infection,
Mylotte, J.M., 235 14
host specificity of, 18
N immunogenicity of, 18
Nasopharyngeal carriers of GAS, 89 laboratory reporting of, 364
National Committee for Clinical portal of exit of, 22
Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) viability in the free state of, 17–18
(now Clinical and Laboratory Neisseria meningitidis, 150–152
Standards Institute), 359, 370 control measures, 151–152
National Electronic Disease epidemiology and mode of
Surveillance System (NEDSS, transmission, 148, 150–151
CDC), 316 mode of transmission of, 23
National Healthcare Safety Network portal of exit of, 22
(NHSN) rapid test for, 358
acute care settings and, 39 viability in the free state of, 17–18
426 INDEX
Newly recognized agents and sources for Nosocomial outbreaks in variety of

outbreaks, 111–115 healthcare settings, 212–242.
Candida species, 111–112 See also specific organisms
examples of, 114 Nosocomial pneumonias (NPs)
hospital outbreaks of, 73 outbreaks, 107–109, 110
identification of new risk factors and Notifications of outbreak
sources for infection, 113–115 to essential personnel, 291
investigation needed for, 284 to local health departments, 291, 304
laboratory’s role with, 361–364 via e-mail and Internet, 306, 317–319
new human pathogens, 1 NPs. See Nosocomial pneumonias (NPs)
pathogens recognized since 1973, outbreaks
361–362 Null hypothesis, 347–349
public health and laboratory Nurses’ Health Study, 340
collaboration and, 369 Nursing homes (NHs). See Long-term
public health preparedness, 363 care settings
NHSN. See National Healthcare Safety
Network O
Nicolle, L.E., 247 Odds ratio, 338, 343–346
Nightingale, Florence, 3–4, 71 On Airs, Waters, and Places
NIH. See National Institutes of Health (Hippocrates), 2
Nipah virus, 362, 363 One-variable tables, 384–385
NNDSS. See National Notifiable Disease Open access online journals, 321
Surveillance System Ophthalmology offices and clinics,
NNIS. See National Nosocomial outbreaks in, 181–183
Infections Surveillance system Organisms in hospital-associated
Nocardia. See Candida and Nocardia outbreaks, 72–75. See also
species specific diseases and organisms
Nomenclature, changes for selected Organization for Safety and Asepsis
organisms, 290 Procedures, 174
Noninfectious adverse events with Outpatient settings. See Ambulatory
products, 79, 82 care settings
Noninfectious etiology, pseudo-outbreaks Overcrowding, gram negative outbreaks
of, 203 and, 91
Normal distribution, 336 Over-the-counter medication
Norovirus, 239–242 monitoring, 317
control measures, 241–242, 278
as emerging pathogen, 1, 113, 362 P
epidemiology of, 239–240, 256 Pacio, G.A., 223
food-borne outbreaks, 249, 252 Pandemic, defined, 2
in long-term care settings, 142, 152, Pandemic influenza, 239
153, 247 Pantoea agglomerans
mode of transmission, 240 as emerging infectious disease, 113
molecular test for, 359 identification of new risk factors and
outbreaks of, 72 sources for infection, 113
portal of exit of, 23 Panum, measles study of, 3–4
North America Parainfluenza virus, 144, 146, 152
RSV in, 98 Parasitic diseases, 242–247. See also
SARS in, 32, 313 specific disease and organisms
North Vietnam, SARS in, 32 Parvovirus B19 infection, 1, 98, 113, 361
Norway, public health surveillance Passive immunity, 25–26
system in, 316 Pasteurella multocida, animal reservoirs
Nosocomial defined, 2 of, 20
INDEX 427
Pasteur, Louis, 4 patient-to-patient transmission,

Pathogenicity, 17 169–173
Patient-to-patient transmission, airborne route, 170–173
169–173, 294 direct contact, 169
PDA (personal digital assistance) use in injection practices, 169–170
data collection, 314 products and devices as transmitting
Pediatric care units agents, 166–169
animal reservoirs and infections in, 20 contaminated devices, 167
Candida species outbreaks, 111 control and prevention measures,
gram-negative organism outbreaks, 91 168–169
Hepatitis A virus outbreaks, 93 extrinsically contaminated products,
long-term care settings, 141–142 167
noninfectious adverse events, 82 intrinsically contaminated products,
surveillance programs for, 40 166–167
Peritoneal dialysis, outbreaks associated Pie charts, 394–395
with, 77, 87, 107, 176–181 Piednoir, E., 154
Personnel and employee health. See also Place of outbreak cases showing
Human carriers or distribution, 293
disseminators Plague, 26, 363
in acute care settings, 115 Plasmodium species, 24
animal reservoirs of disease and, 20 Pneumococcus. See Streptococcus
Candida and Nocardia species and, 90 pneumoniae
culturing of, 298–299 Pneumocystis carinii
GAS and, 89–90 as emerging pathogen, 1, 113
gram-negative organisms and, 91 as parasitic disease, 242, 246–247
Hepatitis A virus outbreaks and, 93–94 Pneumonia outbreaks. See also specific
laboratory personnel, 370 organisms
laboratory’s role, 370 case definitions and, 46
MRSA and, 214–216, 217 in intensive care units, 107–109, 110
Mycobacterium tuberculosis and, 227, ventilator-associated pneumonia
231 (VAP), 115
outbreak investigation and response, Point estimates, 338
366 Point-prevalence culture surveys for
preemployment screening, 370 vancomycin-resistant
S. aureus and, 89 Enterococcus (VRE), 221
surveillance programs, 115, 297 Point source outbreaks, 294, 295
Pertussis outbreaks Polio virus, 14, 23
in acute care settings, 99–100 Pork consumption, prohibition on, 2
community outbreaks of, 8 Portals of entry of infectious agents,
laboratory reporting of, 364 24–25
laboratory tests for, 359 Portals of exit of infectious agents,
in long-term care settings, 145, 148, 152 22–23
molecular test for, 359 Postoperative infections, investigation of
portal of exit of, 22 outbreak, 296, 297
Phares, C.R., 304 Potable water, outbreaks and pseudo-
Phenotypic techniques for cultures, 298, outbreaks with, 105
367 Povidone-iodine solutions, 166, 204
Physical agents of disease, 5–6 Premier SafetySurveillor (automated
Physicians’ offices and outpatient clinics. surveillance and data mining
See also Ambulatory care program), 315
settings Prevalence, defined, 2
outbreaks reported in, 166–173 Prevalence rates, 53, 331–332
428 INDEX
Preventing Emerging Infectious surveillance programs for, 40, 88

Diseases: A Strategy for the 21st water reservoir outbreaks of, 105, 106,
Century (CDC), 113, 114 296
Prevention measures. See Control and Pseudo-outbreaks, 197–209
prevention measures common causes of, 200
Prions, 1 defined, 197
Probiotic use (biotherapeutic agents), examples of, 198–199
113 laboratory’s role in, 370–371
Procedures. See also specific procedures Mycobacterium species involved,
acute care setting breaks associated 200–203
with, 75, 83, 86–88 of noninfectious etiology, 203
lab processing errors, 197 of nontuberculous mycobacteria,
Mycobacterium tuberculosis from, 226 202–203
Products prevention of, 206
acute care setting outbreaks associated recognition of, 203–204
with, 75–82 of tuberculosis, 200–202
Enterobacter species contamination of verification of diagnosis and existence
IV fluid therapy, 19, 33 of outbreak, 204–205
extrinsic contamination of, 76, 79, water reservoirs, 105–107
80–82 Psittacosis, 363
indirect transmission by, 23–24 Public domain software for outbreak
intrinsic contamination of, 76, 77–78 investigations, 315–316
noninfectious adverse events, 79, 82 Public Health Information Network
in physicians’ offices and clinics, as (PHIN, CDC), 316
transmitting agents, 166–169 Public health surveillance. See
Program for Monitoring Emerging Surveillance programs
Diseases (ProMED), 313, 319, Public relations department, notification
369 of outbreak, 291
Progressive outbreaks, 294 Published thresholds for occurrence of
ProMED. See Program for Monitoring diseases, 282
Emerging Diseases PubMed databases, 72, 319–320
Propagated outbreaks, 294 Puerperal (childbed) fever, 3, 71
Prospective cohort study, 13, 340
Proteus mirabilis surgical site Q
infections, 184 Q fever, 363
Pseudoepidemics. See Pseudo-outbreaks Quality assurance programs, 168,
Pseudomonas species. See also 370–371
Burkholderia cepacia Quarantine, origin of, 2–3
ability to develop resistance to
antimicrobials of, 18 R
acute care setting outbreaks, 88 Rabies, 15, 17, 26
cepacia, 84, 108, 166 Ralstonia pickettii, 74, 88
device contamination with, 84–85 Range, 334
environmental reservoir of, 22 Rapid test methods and molecular
hospital outbreaks of, 73, 74 procedures for microorganism
human carriers or disseminators and detection, 358–359
outbreaks of, 90–91 Rarely fatal clinical infectious diseases,
indirect transmission of, 23 15
mechanical ventilation risks and, 299 Rates, 329–332
product contamination with, 77, 80–81 adjusting rates, 332
pseudo-outbreaks of, 199–200 incidence rates, 53, 329–331
reservoir of, 19 prevalence rates, 53, 331–332
INDEX 429
Ratios and proportions, 328–329 Rhinovirus

Recognizing potential outbreaks, mode of transmission of, 23
281–284, 304 as rarely fatal clinical infectious
Red Cross, 317 disease, 15
Redd, J.T., 173 respiratory disease outbreaks in long-
Reports. See also Data collection term care settings, 144, 148
electronic notification, reporting Rhodococcus bronchialis infection and
systems and e-mail lists, healthcare worker pet dog, 20
317–319 Ricin, 363
information technology, 315 Risk management personnel,
investigations of outbreaks, 301–302 notification of outbreak, 291,
laboratory reporting requirements, 303
368–369 Risk of additional cases, investigation
outbreak reports to local health due to seriousness of, 282,
departments, 304 287
surveillance programs, 53–54 Risk ratio (relative risk), 336–337,
Reservoirs of infectious agents, 18–22 340–343
animal reservoirs, 20–22 Risk stratification, 53–54
chain of infection and, 16 Rosenbaum, P., 42
control and prevention of infectious Rotavirus
diseases and, 26 community outbreaks of, 8, 248
environmental reservoirs, 22, as emerging pathogen, 1, 113, 361
101–104 mode of transmission of, 249
water reservoirs, outbreaks and in multiple health care settings, 152,
pseudo-outbreaks with, 247–248
105–107 pediatric surveillance and, 40
Resistance to antimicrobials portal of exit of, 23
agent’s ability to develop, 18 surveillance programs for, 40
investigation due to, 284 RSS feed systems, notification via, 317
laboratory detection of, 359–360 RSV. See Respiratory syncytial virus
Respiratory disease outbreaks. See also infection
specific diseases and organisms Rubella
in long-term care settings, 43, 142, 143, droplet transmission outbreaks, 98
145–152 immunization for, 27
nosocomial pneumonias (NPs) portal of exit of, 22
outbreaks in intensive care Rutala, W.A., 86, 113
units, 107–109, 110
respiratory tract portals of exit of S
infectious agents, 22 Sabia virus, 362
ventilator-associated pneumonia Saccharomyces cerevisiae and probiotic
(VAP), 115 therapy, 113
Respiratory syncytial virus infection A Safer Future: Global Public Health
(RSV) Security in the 21st Century
in acute care settings, 98–99, 108 (WHO), 58
in long-term care settings, 144, 152 Salmonella species
pediatric surveillance and, 40 in ambulatory care centers, 42
surveillance programs for, 40 animal reservoirs of, 20
Respiratory tract portal of exit of enteritidis, 18
infectious agents, 22 food-borne outbreaks and, 249, 252,
Retrospective chart surveillance, 47–48, 339
54, 287 FoodNet monitoring of, 252
Retrospective cohort study, 13, 340 as frequently inapparent infection, 14
430 INDEX
Salmonella species (Continued) in ambulatory surgery centers, 184

gastrointestinal disease in long-term hospital outbreaks of, 73, 80, 81
care settings, 152, 153, 247 human carriers or disseminators and
healthcare provider’s role in outbreaks of, 88, 90–91
surveillance programs and, 58 injections and, 167
host specificity of, 18 reservoir of, 19
human carriers or disseminators and Severe acute respiratory syndrome
outbreaks of, 88, 93 (SARS), 1, 32, 60, 313, 362–363,
investigation of outbreak of, 300 369
outbreak identification, 365 Severe acute respiratory syndrome
outbreaks of, 75 coronavirus, 73
portal of entry of, 25 SHEA. See Society for Healthcare
portal of exit of, 23 Epidemiology of America
public health preparedness and, 363 Shigella species
reservoir of, 19 gastrointestinal disease in long-term
surveillance programs for, 40 care settings, 152
terrorist attacks and, 305 portal of entry of, 25
viability in the free state of, 17 portal of exit of, 23
Salmonella typhi, 18, 19 viability in the free state of, 17
Same-day care. See Ambulatory care Sick building syndrome and building-
settings related illness outbreaks, 109,
Sample size, 346 111
Sanitary practices and disease Sick leave policy and healthcare setting
reduction, 3, 71 outbreaks, 249
Sarcoptes scabiei Singapore, SARS in, 32
Guidelines for Control of Scabies in Singh, A., 368
Long-Term Care Facilities, 245, Sin Nombre virus, 24, 362
282 Skewness, 334
in long-term care settings, 43, 142, 243, Skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). See
245 Long-term care settings
as parasitic infection, 242–245 Skin and mucous membrane portal of
SARS. See Severe acute respiratory exit of infectious diseases, 23
syndrome Skin infections in LTCFs, 142, 143
SARS CoV, 362, 363 Small, P.M., 201
SAS (software), 351 Smallpox and vaccine development, 3,
Scabies. See Sarcoptes scabiei 363
Schistosomes (blood flukes), 24 Smith, P.W., 42
Scopus (subscription-based search SNFs (skilled nursing facilities). See
services), 320 Long-term care settings
Search engines, 322 Snow, John, 3–4
Seasonal occurrence, 10. See also specific Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of
diseases America (SHEA)
Secondary resistance factors of hosts, Clostridium difficile prevention
26 measures, 234
Secular (long-term) trends, 9–10 gastrointestinal endoscopes
Semmelweis, Ignaz Phillipp, 3–4, 71 reprocessing guidelines, 86
SENIC project (Study on the Efficacy of HBV prevention guidelines, 91
Nosocomial Infection Control), HCV prevention guidelines, 92
34 HIV prevention guidelines, 93
Senile hemangioma, 203 influenza prevention guidelines, 236
Serratia species journal of, 320
ability to develop resistance to long-term care setting surveillance
antimicrobials of, 18 programs, 42, 54
INDEX 431
Mycobacterium tuberculosis prevention portal of exit of, 23

guidelines, 228–229 rapid tests for, 358
VRE prevention guidelines, 220, 222, reservoirs of, 18, 73
224 specimen collection, 367
Software. See also Technology use surveillance programs for, 40
for data collection, 301 toxin-producing stains of, 361
for statistical computations, 350–351 VISA (intermediate susceptibility to
Software for outbreak investigations, vancomycin) or VRSA (resistant
315–316 to vancomycin), 40, 73, 220,
Solomon, S.L., 166, 173, 181 224–225
Source defined, 19 State and local health departments
South Africa, public health surveillance assistance with outbreak, 291–292
system in, 316 emergency preparedness and
South America, SARS in, 32, 313 bioterrorism information, 370
Specimens food-borne illness and, 249, 252, 258
collection of, 367 gastrointestinal disease prevention
contamination of, 199, 289 and, 153
The Spider’s Apprentice: A Helpful Guide group A beta-hemolytic streptococcus
to Search Engines (online outbreaks and, 155
source), 322 human carriers or disseminators of
Spot maps, 293, 394 disease and, 93, 95–96
SPSS (software), 351 influenza and, 236, 238
SSIs. See Surgical site infections laboratory reporting requirements in,
Staff shortages 368–369
foreign workers and, 227 long-term care settings and, 144, 151,
gram negative outbreaks and, 91 153, 155
outbreaks as causing, 240 MRSA and, 213, 217
Standard deviation, 335–336 Mycobacterium tuberculosis and, 228,
Staphylococcal infections, thresholds of 229, 230, 232
occurrence for investigation, new risk factors and sources of
282, 283 infection for, 114
Staphylococcus aureus. See also notification of outbreak, 291, 304
Methicillin-resistant product contamination and, 76
Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) public health surveillance systems
ability to develop resistance to and, 316
antimicrobials of, 18 specimen collection protocol, 367
airborne dispersal of, 89 surveillance programs and reporting
colonization with, 20 to, 40, 42, 57, 58
conjunctivitis outbreaks in long-term VRE and, 220, 224
care settings, 153 VRSA/VISA and, 225
food-borne outbreaks and, 252 web sites for, 322
gastrointestinal disease in long-term StatePublicHealth.org (health
care settings, 152 department contact
hospital outbreaks of, 73, 75 information), 316
human carriers or disseminators and Statistical methods in investigations,
outbreaks of, 73, 88–89 327–355
indirect transmission of, 23 analytic studies, 340–346, 348
nosocomial pneumonias (NPs) bias, 344–345
outbreaks and, 107 case-control study, 343–346
pandemic of 1950s and 1960s of, 72–73 chi-square test, 349–350
person-to-person contact transmitting, cohort studies, 340–343
294–295 confidence intervals, 338–340
portal of entry of, 24–25 confounding variables, 346
432 INDEX
Statistical methods in investigations portal of exit of, 22

(Continued) rapid test for, 359
description of epidemic by person, Streptococcus pyogenes. See Group A
place, and time, 293–294 beta-hemolytic streptococcus
descriptive statistics, 328–340 (GAS)
deviation, 334 Study methods used in epidemiology,
Fisher’s exact test, 350 6–14
frequency measures, 328–332 analytic epidemiology, 10–14
hypothesis testing (inferential descriptive epidemiology, 7–10
statistics), 346–349 Study on the Efficacy of Nosocomial
interpreting results, 351–352 Infection Control (SENIC
mean, 332–333 project), 34
measures of association, 336–338 Subclinical infection, 19
measures of central tendency, 332–334 Surgery
measures of dispersion, 334–336 ambulatory surgery centers, 183–185
median, 333 outbreaks associated with, 87–88
mode, 334 Surgical site infections (SSIs)
normal distribution, 336 in acute care settings, 39, 80
null hypothesis, 347–349 in ambulatory care settings, 41, 46, 167
odds ratio, 338, 343–346 in ambulatory surgery centers, 184
range, 334 animal reservoirs and, 20
rates, 329–332 calculation of infection rate, 53
ratios and proportions, 328–329 GAS and, 89
risk ratio (relative risk), 336–337, risk index for, 53
340–343 surveillance of, 45, 46
sample size, 346 Surveillance artifact, 205, 289
skewness, 334 Surveillance networks, 35
standard deviation, 335–336 Surveillance programs, 32–68
statistical cutoff level, 348 in acute care settings, 39–40
statistical significance tests, 348, in ambulatory care settings, 163
349–350 for Clostridium difficile, 233–234, 235
type I and type II errors, 348–349, comparison of development rates,
351 53–54
variance, 335 criteria and case definitions, 43, 45–46
Stenotrophomonas species data gathering process, 47–50
acute care setting outbreaks of, 78 definition of surveillance, 33–34
nosocomial pneumonias (NPs) description of, 33–35
outbreaks, 107 development, 37–56
surveillance programs for, 88 evaluation of program, 55–56
Sterilization of devices, 168 for food-borne disease outbreaks, 278
Stevenson, K.B., 35, 56 FoodNet, 249, 252
Strength of association, 351 global surveillance and emergency
Streptococcus, food-borne outbreaks and, preparedness, 58–60
249 guidelines for development and
Streptococcus pneumoniae evaluation of, 37–56
ability to develop resistance to healthcare provider’s role in, 58
antimicrobials of, 18 in healthcare settings, 33
control measures, 145, 149–150 in healthcare settings other than acute
epidemiology and mode of care hospitals, 35
transmission, 145, 147 in hospitals, 34–35
mode of transmission of, 23 housewide (comprehensive)
mulitdrugresistant (MDR), 147 surveillance, 36–37
INDEX 433
indicators selection, 43, 44–45, 54 as usually fatal clinical infectious

information technology in, 314–315 disease, 15
interpretive report development, 54–55 Thera-Doc Infection Control Assistant
investigations of outbreaks, 301 (automated surveillance
laboratory’s role in, 358, 364–365 and data mining program),
in long-term care settings, 35, 42–45, 315
54, 142, 150, 151, 155 Time of onset of outbreak cases, 293–294
methods, 36–37, 38 Tokars, J.I., 201
for MRSA, 214–215, 218 Tonometers, 182
for Mycobacterium tuberculosis, 229 Tools for data collection, 49
for norovirus, 241 Toxic anterior segment syndrome
overview, 32–33 (TASS), 183
population and event selection, 38–43 Toxic-shock syndrome, 155, 361
products use in acute care settings, 76 Toxic syndromes, 363
public health surveillance systems, Toxoplasma gondii, food-borne
information technology for, outbreaks and, 249
316–317 Treponema pallidum, 17, 18, 22, 23
rate calculation and data analysis, Tuberculosis (TB). See Mycobacterium
50–54 tuberculosis
regulations and requirements Tufte, E.R., 398
affecting, 56–58 Tularemia, 363
targeted (focused) surveillance, 37 Two- and three-variable tables, 385–386
time period for data collection, 43 Two-by-two tables, 386
Susceptible hosts for infectious agents. Type I and type II errors, 348–349, 351
See Hosts Typhoid fever. See Salmonella typhi
Switzerland, public health surveillance Typhus fever, 71, 363
system in, 316
Syndrome surveillance systems, 317 U
Syphilis. See Treponema pallidum UK Department of Health, HIV
prevention guidelines, 93
T United Nations (UN), 317
Tables, 383–386 United States
Targeted (focused) surveillance, 37 anthrax bioterrorist event in, 363–364
TB (tuberculosis). See Mycobacterium bacterial meningitis in, 150
tuberculosis case definitions in, 45–46
Technology use. See also Information comparison data in, 54
technology Cryptosporidium species in, 246
for data collection, 301, 380–383 Enterobacter contaminated IV fluid in,
for data display, 395–398 33
in outbreak detection and food-borne outbreaks in, 89
investigation, 306 Hepatitis B virus prevention in, 91
for statistical computations, 350–351 Hepatitis C virus prevention in, 92
for surveillance data, 50 HIV prevention in, 93
Terrorist attacks, 60, 305–306, 361–364, influenza in, 236
369–370 laboratory reporting requirements in,
Testing for infection, 292, 297, 299. See 368–369
also Cultures; specific diseases long-term care settings in, 35, 141,
or organisms 142
Tests of statistical significance, 348, measles in, 15, 94, 95, 170, 172
349–350 MRSA in, 212
Tetnus mumps in, 113
immunization for, 25 Mycobacterium tuberculosis in, 226–227
434 INDEX
United States (Continued) Varicella-zozter virus (VZV) infections.

pertussis in, 99 See Chickenpox (Varicella)
product and device contamination Vecna Technologies QC Pathfinder
reporting in, 76, 79, 86 (automated surveillance and
regulations in, 56, 57 data mining program), 315
seasonal pattern of illness in, 10 Vector transmission of disease, 20, 24
TB in, 9, 11 Venezuelan hemorrhagic fever, 362
VRE in, 219–220 Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP),
VRSA/VISA in, 224 115
University of California, San Francisco, Verification of diagnosis of reported
322 cases, 286–287
Usually fatal clinical infectious diseases, Verweij, P.E., 199
15–16 Viability in the free state, 17–18
Vibrio cholerae
V as emerging pathogen, 1, 249
Vaccination. See Immunization FoodNet monitoring of, 252
Van Belkum, A., 367, 368 portal of exit of, 23
Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus Snow, John and, 3
(VRE) Vibrio vulnificus as emerging pathogen,
ability to develop resistance to 1
antimicrobials of, 18 Victorian Hospital-Acquired Infection
in acute care settings, 211, 219–222 Surveillance System (VICNISS,
antimicrobial resistance detection in, Australia), 35
359, 360 Virulence, 17
cleaning and disinfection of equipment VRE. See Vancomycin-resistant
and environment, 222 Enterococcus
colonization with, 20, 222 VRSA/VISA (resistant to or
community-acquired, 220–221 intermediate susceptibility to
contact precautions for, 220–221, 222, vancomycin staphylococcus
223 aureus), 40, 73, 220, 224–225
control measures, 220–222, 224 VZV (Varicella-zozter virus) infections.
education of personnel and, 222 See Chickenpox (Varicella)
as emerging pathogen, 113
epidemiology of, 219–220, 223 W
false-positives of, 197 Walsh, T.J., 104
hand hygiene, 221 Water reservoirs, outbreaks and
hospital outbreaks of, 73 pseudo-outbreaks with,
laboratory-based surveillance for, 105–107, 202
221 ice, 105–106
in long-term care settings, 142, investigation of outbreak, 296
223–224 potable water, 105
mode of transmission, 220, 224 water baths, 106–107
outbreaks of, 4, 71, 72, 114 Weapons, biological, 305–306, 363–364
patients, surveillance cultures of, Web. See Internet
221–222 Weber, D.J., 86, 113
reporting requirements, 369 Weight reduction clinics, 167
surveillance programs for, 40, WHO. See World Health Organization
221–222 Whooping cough outbreaks. See
VAP (Ventilator-associated pneumonia), Pertussis outbreaks
115 World Health Organization (WHO)
Variance, 335 emergency preparedness and, 306
Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, 1 Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and
Varicella-zoster immune globulin, 26 Response (EPR), 322
INDEX 435
Global Outbreak Alert and Response X

Network (GOARN), 316–317 XDR-TB (extensively resistant
global surveillance and, 58–60 Mycobacterium tuberculosis).
laboratory safety procedures, 370 See Mycobacterium tuberculosis
Mycobacterium tuberculosis prevention
guidelines, 228
Y
pandemic influenza, 239
Yahoo!, 322
TB guidelines, 278
Yersinia enterocolitica, portal of exit of,
Wright, C.W., 236
23
WWW Virtual Library: Medicine and
Health—Epidemiology
(University of California, San Z
Francisco), 322 Zoonoses, 20–22

Untitled

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Untitled

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Untitled

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

57793_CH00_FM_ARIAS.

qxd 1/21/09 5:16 AM Page i

Critical Issues for Patient Safety

Kathleen Meehan Arias

JONES AND BARTLETT PUBLISHERS

Copyright © 2010 by Jones and Bartlett Publishers LLC

For my wonderful husband, Bob.

I am indebted to the contributing authors (colleagues and friends who

Kathleen Meehan Arias

Preface to the Second Edition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix

CHAPTER 1. AN INTRODUCTION TO EPIDEMIOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Infectious Disease Process: The Chain of Infection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

CHAPTER 2. SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS, PUBLIC HEALTH,

Regulations and Requirements Affecting Surveillance

CHAPTER 3. OUTBREAKS REPORTED IN ACUTE

Outbreaks Spread from Person to Person by Airborne

CHAPTER 4. OUTBREAKS REPORTED IN

CHAPTER 5. OUTBREAKS REPORTED IN

Outbreaks Associated with Patient-to-Patient

CHAPTER 6. PSEUDO-OUTBREAKS REPORTED IN

Preventing Pseudo-Outbreaks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

CHAPTER 7. ORGANISMS AND DISEASES

Inﬂuenza Virus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

CHAPTER 8. INVESTIGATION, PREVENTION, AND CONTROL

Steps in Conducting an Outbreak Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287

CHAPTER 9. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND OUTBREAK

CHAPTER 10. STATISTICAL METHODS USED IN

Normal Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336

CHAPTER 11. THE ROLE OF THE LABORATORY IN

Identification of Microorganisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358

CHAPTER 12. COLLECTING, ORGANIZING, AND

Using Computers to Create Graphs and Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395

Preface to the Second Edition

Although optimists once imagined that serious infectious disease threats

xx PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION xxi

Chapter 11 has been renamed “The Role of the Laboratory in Outbreak

An Overview of the Content

Chapter 1 deﬁnes terms used in healthcare epidemiology, describes the differ-

Lorraine Messinger Harkavy, RN, MS

Deborah Y. Phillips, RN, BSN, MPH

Microbial threats continue to emerge, reemerge, and persist. Some

DEFINITIONS USED IN HEALTHCARE EPIDEMIOLOGY

the following is appropriate for use in the healthcare setting: “Epidemiology is

A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: SOME EPIDEMIOLOGIC

A Historical Perspective: Some Epidemiologic Tidbits 3

maritime regulations where a vessel, upon arrival from a foreign port, is

THE MULTIFACTORIAL NATURE OF DISEASE

Etiologic Agents of Disease

The Multifactorial Nature of Disease 5

Exhibit 1–1 Examples of Etiologic Agents of Disease

Biological Agents Examples

Chemical Agents Examples

Physical Agents Examples

Host Factors Affecting Disease

Environmental Factors Affecting Disease

STUDY METHODS USED IN EPIDEMIOLOGY: THE FIVE Ws—

Epidemiology is used to understand the causes of a disease (what) by study-

Study Methods Used in Epidemiology 7

the former focuses on an individual person, such as a patient with a respira-