Here is one by Marr & Tang
Their comment on the <5 >5 IPC paradigm is it defies physics.
Its from 2021 pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34415335/
A simple one illustrating a critical error (also 2021)
Recognising its airborne has always been No 1 - unfortunately not for @WHO nor IPC
What cleaning air does / does not do - excellent mental model.
The one illustrates close space transmission. The use of the term 'close contact' is a misnomer - its a SPACE wherein transmission happens yet the actual mode of transmission is unknown - and crucially may not involve contact - close contact does not evidence droplets (@WHO)
And another one... explaining transmission
Here is one I did to illustrate what factors people were using to assess mask use (blue circle) and all the factors outside the circle that should have been considered.
Also my latest suggestion to omit using 1 word descriptors (airborne or droplet ) but to use a source - to - infection pathway model for evidenced transmission routes
[NB When you use this model contact is not the No 1 way to get an HAI]
So its the absence of mental models that is the problem. Its the @WHO and all IPC organisations who have failed to state its airborne when the evidence for droplets does not exist.
Its @WHO videos and tweets (still up) telling people its not airborne - sans evidence.
And another mental model illustrating how IPC has not stepped up to its responsibilities...
The @WHO and CDC, Dept of Health and noted guidance all have different places where droplets land - ridiculous.
This brilliant work is also from 2015,
IPC have no excuses - those who reviewed evidenced and determined 'its droplets' got it wrong.
Mental models will not solve this until IPC esp @WHO and UK stand up and say we were wrong.
@JOHNJOHNSTONED pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25816216/
Also, the @WHO must stop producing guidance until it ceases to mis-reference. An example from a 2022 doc.
2 references in support of HH being 'most effective' don't mention hand hygiene.
IPC must correct their physics defying statements
Mental models - yes - if evidenced
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
No exaggeration here - this is a major article. Forget your CERN collider, here is a method for obtaining mechanistic evidence of far-afield airborne transmission. It was undertaken in a facility designed to study TB.
1/10
The authors state that there should be evidence of the transmission route to inform guidance.
Could not agree more. If only...
"Unambiguous demonstration of transmission routes is important."
Yes, Yes, Yes
By the way this wont come from RCTs!
2/10
For all the implausibility of other routes, and the evidence during outbreak settings there were laggards...
3/10
After yesterday's 17:1 (one case of community acquired CVD leading to 17 others a driver diagram to reduce nosocomial transmission.
Let's start by agreeing that nosocomial transmission is unsafe. 1/8
Action 1 is to prevent transmission to patients, staff and visitors, i.e., everyone in the care environment.
2/8
Next the only 3 actions that can prevent inhalation of virus. Segregation of people who are infectious, IAQ, and respiratory protection.
Also there must be ongoing analysis of where and why transmission is happening in the care setting to identify further safer options 3/8
I have a patient with SARS and I want to keep my other patients and staff safe.
I look up the NIPCM Scotland and find that the Main (singular) mode of transmission is both Droplet / Airborne
@P_H_S_Official this thread merits "immediate action"
The Transmission Based Precautions Section tells me there are 3 modes of transmission.
It tells me what the different precautions are aiming to achieve
Of note the definitions of respiratory infections are erroneous
In the respiratory section
It tells me you only need RPE if the pathogen is "wholly" transmitted by the airborne route, i.e., not droplet / airborne, or AGP
Off for the literature review to find the evidence for this statement
I honestly believe IPC as a profession will NOT survive intact if it fails to accept airborne transmission as a significant ubiquitous risk and erroneously considers hand hygiene the single most important measure to prevent infection - it is not.
See below
Most important measures to prevent 🫁 non VAP pneumonia - patient positioning, mobility, oral hygiene
Most important measures to prevent surgical site infection 🩹: sterile instruments & theatre air quality
They have withdrawn masks in Scotland's Healthcare system and referred 'concerned staff' to complete a risk assessment. healthyworkinglives.scot/resources/form…
Lets fill out their risk assessment...
I am (for the form) a ward manager
Describe the task:
Any patient-to-HCW, HCW-to-HCW, patient-to-patient, or visitor-to-patient or HCW interaction in any close space, e.g. conversation or stethoscope range
or when ventilation poor just being on the ward.
Where is the task to be carried out?
Every minute of every day on this ward we are continuously interacting and at risk of inhaling someone else's exhaled air + virus.
Inhalation at distance is also a risk because we have no idea of the indoor air quality - no indicators.
Considering how the 'collective we' made Mode of Transmission Errors - some possibilities
a) we turned doubt in to certainty, the use of qualifiers in original work were turned into fact, eg.
'droplets have traditionally been defined as ...'
became
'droplets are defined as '
a) More doubt to certainty
Dr X et al showed that viruses can get in to the eyes, nose and mouth
was translated to
Dr X et al showed that all droplets get in via the eyes nose and mouth
b) We interpreted transmission in a 'close space' as evidence of droplets; actually it was evidence of close space respiratory transmission - not evidence for droplets