Cross-sectional survey reveals variability in infection control practices among transplant recipients in Australasian healthcare facilities, indicating a need for standardized guidelines.
Background Infection is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality among solid‐organ transplant (SOT) recipients. Australasia currently has no standardized system for the surveillance of infection across organ‐transplant groups nor SOT‐specific infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines. This sub‐cohort analysis of the INTERACT study sought to understand existing IPC and infection monitoring practices in Australasian centers providing transplant care to guide consensus recommendations. Methods A cross‐sectional survey was administered to infectious disease (ID), microbiology, and IPC specialists involved in the care of the high‐risk immunocompromised host within Australasian healthcare facilities (HCFs). Results A total of 97 healthcare workers caring for SOT patients responded, predominantly employed by public HCFs. A total of 76.3% were practicing in transplant centers (primarily renal), with responses gained from all Australasian transplant jurisdictions. Although on‐site IPC programs were customary (present in 96.9%), few had dedicated transplant‐ID services (38.1%). Surveillance for healthcare‐associated infections was reported by the majority (75.3%), with monitoring for opportunistic infections less frequent (23.7%). While 50.5% reported a staff mask‐wearing mandate, and 22.7% a gown/glove policy on transplant wards, the timing of routine personal protective use post‐transplantation was heterogeneous. Screening practices for multidrug‐resistant organisms varied, with routine approaches more prevalent within facilities performing transplant surgery (38.1%–100.0% vs. 39.1%–46.4%). Just over half (58.8%) of respondents provided counselling to SOT recipients for safe‐living post‐discharge. Conclusion This is the first analysis of IPC/surveillance practice in the care of the Australasian SOT population, revealing practice variability and emphasizing the need for standardization to optimize transplant outcomes and reduce infection risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Garg et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: