Hospital Policies Related to Transmission of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)
Authors: Erickson Lindsey Lesher , Nelson Toben , Oakes J. Michael 
Published: November 2020

Background:
MRSA continues to spread in hospitals, despite modest recent success. Gaps exist regarding how hospital policies impact MRSA transmission in hospitals. Characterization of the policy environment has been useful in approaching other public health issues including control of alcohol, firearms, tobacco, and traffic safety. Objective: Our goal was to describe measurable and modifiable policy components designed to prevent MRSA in hospital settings. Methods: We examined 4 types of hospital policies from 5 metropolitan hospitals in Minnesota: hand hygiene, multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) and isolation, healthcare personnel influenza vaccination, and whistleblower (corporate compliance). We developed a tool to systematically evaluate policies for each topic that included 19–23 instructional and implementation elements guided by regulatory and clinical practice guidelines: purpose, expectations, education and training, monitoring, enforcement, corrective actions, responsibilities, and corrective actions. Each policy element was evaluated for its presence (yes or no) and thoroughness (nonexistent = 0, cursory = 1, thorough = 2). Results: All hospitals had hand hygiene and MDRO and isolation policies; 3 of 5 had influenza and whistleblower policies. The policies varied in comprehensiveness and thoroughness across hospitals and topics. Most policies included purpose and policy statements with a statement of organizational rules (14 of 16 and 16 of 16, respectively) with mean thoroughness scores of 1.04 and 1.20, respectively. Most policies lacked consequences for noncompliance (6 of 16), accountability (6 of 16), and monitoring and enforcement of policy expectations (5 of 16). When included, the policy components scored low for thoroughness, and 50% of policies (8 of 16; range, 20% for hand hygiene and 100% for influenza vaccination) specified expectations for educating staff about the policy topic, with a mean thoroughness score of 0.75. Responsibilities for policy expectations were lacking: responsibilities for product needs and availability (3 of 13), training and education (1 of 16); and monitoring compliance with skills and techniques (4 of 16). Of the 4 policy types, influenza vaccination was the most complete. All influenza policies had 50% of categories completed versus hand hygiene (26%), MDRO (17%), and whistleblower (26%). The hand hygiene policies scored highest for thoroughness; 48% of policy elements scored >1.0 versus MDRO (22%), influenza (25%), and whistleblower (11%). Conclusions: We developed a systematic method to quantitatively evaluate hospital policies. Our review of hospital policies most commonly contained thorough instructional elements such as organizational requirements and protocols and procedures. Policies often lacked implementation elements such as expectations for monitoring, enforcement, responsibilities, accountabilities, and staff training and education. As we begin to characterize policy, endogenous in nature, as a potential exposure, it is important that we develop rigorous measurement. We have provided a first step in developing such an approach.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None