In January, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent an urgent public announcement of deadly bacteria that were resistant to virtually all known antibiotics that were afflicted by more than a dozen Americans who had an electoral operation at the Grand View Hospital in Tijuana, Mexico.
But when such outbreaks occur in hospitals on American soil, the CDC does not make such a public announcement. This is due to the fact that, in his agreement with the states, C.D.C. It is not allowed to publicly identify hospitals that are struggling to eliminate the spread of dangerous pathogens.
[ As a page of "Scientific time" in Facebook. | ]
Patient lawyers say that hospitals and health authorities often report slowly to the public about drug-resistant microbes that potentially endangers patients.
] "They may not get up and go to another hospital, but patients and their families have the right to know when they are in a hospital where an outbreak occurs," said Lisa McGifffert of The Network of Action on patient safety. "If you are going to have a surgery to replace the hip joint, you can choose a different place."
Kevin Cavan, chairman of Health Watch USA's Health Surveillance Group, compared the work of the CDC with Tichuan Infections with the outbreak in 2016 of a different drug-resistant pathogen known as Enterobacteriaceae resistant to Carbapenem, or CRE, in a village hospital in Kentucky. Only by the beginning of 2018, C.D.C. published a report on this outbreak – and even then the agency did not name the hospital where it happened.
CRE sometimes kills up to half of infected people. No deadly cases were reported during an outbreak in Kentucky, but at least two dozen patients in the hospital were colonized with a mistake, that is, they did not have ill, but could spread it to others.
for the spread of a pathogen that traveled between an emergency hospital and its surgical department. declined to comment, but in the past, officials said their approach to confidentiality was necessary to encourage the collaboration of hospitals and homes for the elderly who might otherwise hide infectious outbreaks. Those who strive for greater transparency argue that they are opposed to powerful healthcare institutions that seek to protect their reputation, as well as public health officials, who also protect the hospital from public scrutiny.
In California, Senator Jerry Hill, a Democrat and longtime supporter of tighter restrictions on the use of antibiotics, was unsuccessful in his efforts to improve the industry's reporting of drug-resistant infections. The bill, which he introduced to the state legislature, demands that hospitals regularly disclose persistent infections and death. In 2017, the Senate passed a bill of 40 to 0, but it had powerful opponents, including the California Hospital, the California Infectious Disease Association, and the State Healthcare Administration. The bill then went to the Assembly, where last year it was delayed due to lack of support. The federal legislation aimed at combating resistance to antibiotics through enhanced surveillance and better data collection has also stopped. The bill, introduced by senator Sherrod Brown, a Ohio Democrat, has not yet left the Senate Health Committee. "We ignored this impending crisis without doing anything," said Senator Brown.
Hospital administrators and health workers state that the emphasis on greater transparency is false. Dr. Tina Tang, a leading epidemiologist at the Health Department in New Jersey, said public warning about a Candida auris case would not be beneficial as most people were at low risk of exposure and disclosure.
"It can create a greater risk to health than the body itself," she said.
Nancy Foster, Vice President, Quality and Safety of Patients at the American Association of Hospitals, agreed, saying that the public identification of health facilities as a source of infectious disease was an inadequate science.
"This is a lot of information for people," she said, "and many hospitals are big places, so if a flash occurs in a small unit, a patient arriving at an outpatient surgical center may not be in danger."
Nevertheless, hospitals and local health officials sometimes hide outbreaks even when disclosure can save lives. Between 2012 and 2014, more than three dozen people at Seattle Hospital were infected with the drug resistant drug they received from the contaminated medical sector. Eighteen of them died, but the hospital, Virginia Medical Center Mason, did not disclose the outbreak, saying that at that time she sees no need to do so.
Art Kaplan, a bioethics specialist at the New York School of Medicine, said that the issue of full disclosure could be difficult, especially when large hospitals that see a huge number of seriously ill patients are compared with smaller institutions. "If you are the last resort, you will see regular clients with severe infections, many of which are drug resistant," he said.
However, he believed that increasing transparency was of greater value. Awareness of the public about the life lost from drug-resistant infections, he said, could affect the hospital to change the way to fight infection control.
"Who advocates for a child who has received a flu from a hospital worker or for a patient who received MRSA from the channel?", He asked, referring to a potentially fatal bacterial infection. "The idea is not to confuse or humiliate someone, but if we do not pay more attention to outbreaks of infectious diseases, nothing will change"