TY - JOUR
T1 - Capabilities of global high-level isolation units
T2 - A pre-workshop survey
AU - Herstein, Jocelyn J.
AU - Wolf, Timo
AU - Nicastri, Emanuele
AU - Leo, Yee Sin
AU - Lim, Poh Lian
AU - Jacobs, Michael
AU - Vanairsdale, Sharon
AU - Toner, Eric
AU - Shearer, Matthew P.
AU - Vasa, Angela
AU - Mukherjee, Vikram
AU - Echeverri, Andrea
AU - Shenoy, Erica S.
AU - Lowe, John J.
N1 - Funding Information:
NETEC is funded by US Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CFDA no. 93.825).
Funding Information:
E. Toner and M. Shearer report their institution was contracted by NETEC to facilitate the international workshop on high-level isolation units for which the survey was conducted. E. Toner, M. Shearer, and E. Nicastri report travel expenses were provided by NETEC to them to attend the high-level isolation unit workshop. J. Herstein, S. Vanairsdale, A. Vasa, A. Echeverri, E. Shenoy, and J. Lowe report that their institutions received funding from the NETEC grant to support their involvement in the survey distribution, design, and/or analysis. T. Wolf reports consultancy with Gilead, Merck Sharp Dome, and Janssen. All other authors report no conflicts of interest.
Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.
PY - 2022/11/1
Y1 - 2022/11/1
N2 - Objective: To assess experience, physical infrastructure, and capabilities of high-level isolation units (HLIUs) planning to participate in a 2018 global HLIU workshop hosted by the US National Emerging Special Pathogens Training and Education Center (NETEC). Design: An electronic survey elicited information on general HLIU organization, operating costs, staffing models, and infection control protocols of select global units. Setting and participants: The survey was distributed to site representatives of 22 HLIUs located in the United States, Europe, and Asia; 19 (86%) responded. Methods: Data were coded and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: The mean annual reported budget for the 19 responding units was US$484,615. Most (89%) had treated a suspected or confirmed case of a high-consequence infectious disease. Reported composition of trained teams included a broad range of clinical and nonclinical roles. The mean number of HLIU beds was 6.37 (median, 4; range, 2-20) for adults and 4.23 (median, 2; range, 1-10) for children; however, capacity was dependent on pathogen. Conclusions: Responding HLIUs represent some of the most experienced HLIUs in the world. Variation in reported unit infrastructure, capabilities, and procedures demonstrate the variety of HLIU approaches. A number of technical questions unique to HLIUs remain unanswered related to physical design, infection prevention and control procedures, and staffing and training. These key areas represent potential focal points for future evidence and practice guidelines. These data are important considerations for hospitals considering the design and development of HLIUs, and there is a need for continued global HLIU collaboration to define best practices.
AB - Objective: To assess experience, physical infrastructure, and capabilities of high-level isolation units (HLIUs) planning to participate in a 2018 global HLIU workshop hosted by the US National Emerging Special Pathogens Training and Education Center (NETEC). Design: An electronic survey elicited information on general HLIU organization, operating costs, staffing models, and infection control protocols of select global units. Setting and participants: The survey was distributed to site representatives of 22 HLIUs located in the United States, Europe, and Asia; 19 (86%) responded. Methods: Data were coded and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: The mean annual reported budget for the 19 responding units was US$484,615. Most (89%) had treated a suspected or confirmed case of a high-consequence infectious disease. Reported composition of trained teams included a broad range of clinical and nonclinical roles. The mean number of HLIU beds was 6.37 (median, 4; range, 2-20) for adults and 4.23 (median, 2; range, 1-10) for children; however, capacity was dependent on pathogen. Conclusions: Responding HLIUs represent some of the most experienced HLIUs in the world. Variation in reported unit infrastructure, capabilities, and procedures demonstrate the variety of HLIU approaches. A number of technical questions unique to HLIUs remain unanswered related to physical design, infection prevention and control procedures, and staffing and training. These key areas represent potential focal points for future evidence and practice guidelines. These data are important considerations for hospitals considering the design and development of HLIUs, and there is a need for continued global HLIU collaboration to define best practices.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85120625839&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85120625839&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1017/ice.2021.477
DO - 10.1017/ice.2021.477
M3 - Article
C2 - 34847983
AN - SCOPUS:85120625839
SN - 0899-823X
VL - 43
SP - 1679
EP - 1685
JO - Infection control and hospital epidemiology
JF - Infection control and hospital epidemiology
IS - 11
ER -