Search

In total, 50 healthcare facilities completed a survey in 2021 to characterize changes in infection prevention and control and antibiotic stewardship practices. Notable findings include sustained surveillance for multidrug-resistant organisms but decreased use of human resource-intensive interventions compared to previous surveys in 2013 and 2018 conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background:Physical distancing among healthcare workers (HCWs) is an essential strategy in preventing HCW-to-HCWs transmission of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).Objective:To understand barriers to physical distancing among HCWs on an inpatient unit and identify strategies for improvement.Design:Qualitative study including observations and semistructured interviews conducted over 3 months.Setting:A non–COVID-19 adult general medical unit in an academic tertiary-care hospital.Participants:HCWs based on the unit.Methods:We performed a qualitative study in which we (1) observed HCW activities and proximity to each other on the unit during weekday shifts July–October 2020 and (2) conducted semi-structured interviews of HCWs to understand their experiences with and perspectives of physical distancing in the hospital. Qualitative data were coded based on a human-factors engineering model.Results:We completed 25 hours of observations and 20 HCW interviews. High-risk interactions often occurred during handoffs of care at shift changes and patient rounds, when HCWs gathered regularly in close proximity for at least 15 minutes. Identified barriers included spacing and availability of computers, the need to communicate confidential patient information, and the desire to maintain relationships at work.Conclusions:Physical distancing can be improved in hospitals by restructuring computer workstations, work rooms, and break rooms; applying visible cognitive aids; adapting shift times; and supporting rounds and meetings with virtual conferencing. Additional strategies to promote staff adherence to physical distancing include rewarding positive behaviors, having peer leaders model physical distancing, and encouraging additional safe avenues for social connection at a safe distance.

This SHEA white paper identifies knowledge gaps and challenges in healthcare epidemiology research related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with a focus on core principles of healthcare epidemiology. These gaps, revealed during the worst phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, are described in 10 sections: epidemiology, outbreak investigation, surveillance, isolation precaution practices, personal protective equipment (PPE), environmental contamination and disinfection, drug and supply shortages, antimicrobial stewardship, healthcare personnel (HCP) occupational safety, and return to work policies. Each section highlights three critical healthcare epidemiology research questions with detailed description provided in supplementary materials. This research agenda calls for translational studies from laboratory-based basic science research to well-designed, large-scale studies and health outcomes research. Research gaps and challenges related to nursing homes and social disparities are included. Collaborations across various disciplines, expertise and across diverse geographic locations will be critical.

In this systematic evaluation of fluorescent gel markers (FGM) applied to high-touch surfaces with a metered applicator (MA) made for the purpose versus a generic cotton swab (CS), removal rates were 60.5% (476 of 787) for the MA and 64.3% (506 of 787) for the CS. MA-FGM removal interpretation was more consistent, 83% versus 50% not removed, possibly due to less varied application and more adhesive gel.

BACKGROUNDPatients are frequently discharged with central venous catheters (CVCs) for home infusion therapy.OBJECTIVETo study a prospective cohort of patients receiving home infusion therapy to identify environmental and other risk factors for complications.DESIGNProspective cohort study between March and December 2015.SETTINGHome infusion therapy after discharge from academic medical centers.PARTICIPANTSOf 368 eligible patients discharged from 2 academic hospitals to home with peripherally inserted central catheters and tunneled CVCs, 222 consented. Patients remained in the study until 30 days after CVC removal.METHODSPatients underwent chart abstraction and monthly telephone surveys while the CVC was in place, focusing on complications and environmental exposures. Multivariable analyses estimated adjusted odds ratios and adjusted incident rate ratios between clinical, demographic, and environmental risk factors and 30-day readmissions or CVC complications.RESULTSOf 222 patients, total parenteral nutrition was associated with increased 30-day readmissions (adjusted odds ratio, 4.80 [95% CI, 1.51–15.21) and CVC complications (adjusted odds ratio, 2.41 [95% CI, 1.09–5.33]). Exposure to soil through gardening or yard work was associated with a decreased likelihood of readmissions (adjusted odds ratio, 0.09 [95% CI, 0.01–0.74]). Other environmental exposures were not associated with CVC complications.CONCLUSIONScomplications and readmissions were common and associated with the use of total parenteral nutrition. Common environmental exposures (well water, cooking with raw meat, or pets) did not increase the rate of CVC complications, whereas soil exposures were associated with decreased readmissions. Interventions to decrease home CVC complications should focus on total parenteral nutrition patients.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;1–8

Background: In 2018, the Maryland Department of Health, in collaboration with the University of Maryland and Johns Hopkins University, created the Statewide Prevention and Reduction of Clostridioides difficile (SPARC) collaborative to reduce C. difficile as specified in Healthy People 2020. Methods: The SPARC collaborative recruited hospitals contributing most cases to statewide C. difficile standardized infection ratio (SIR), according to data reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN). SPARC developed intervention bundles around 4 domains: infection prevention, environmental cleaning, and diagnostic and antimicrobial stewardship. Each facility completed a self-assessment followed by an on-site, day-long, peer-to-peer (P2P) evaluation with 8–12 SPARC subject matter experts (SMEs) representing each domain. The SMEs met with hospital executive leadership and then led 4 domain-based group discussions with relevant hospital team leaders. To identify policy and practice gaps, SMEs visited hospital inpatient units for informal interviews with frontline staff. In a closing session, SPARC SMEs, hospital executives, and team leaders reconvened to discuss preliminary findings. This included review of covert observation data (hand hygiene, personal protective equipment compliance, environmental cleaning) obtained by SPARC team 1–2 weeks prior. Final SPARC P2P written recommendations guided development of customized interventions at each hospital. SPARC provided continuous support (follow up phone calls, educational webinars, technical support, didactic training for antimicrobial stewardship pharmacists) to enhance facility-specific implementation. For every quarter, we categorized C. difficile NHSN data for each Maryland hospital into “SPARC” or “non-SPARC” based on participation status. Using negative binomial mixed models, we analyzed difference-in-difference of pre- and postincidence rate ratios (IRRs) for SPARC and non-SPARC hospitals, which allowed estimation of change attributable to SPARC participation independent of other time-varying factors. Results: Overall, 13 of 48 (27%) hospitals in Maryland participated in the intervention. The baseline SIR for all Maryland hospitals was 0.92, and the post-SPARC SIR was 0.67. The SPARC hospitals had a greater reduction in hospital-onset C. difficile incidence; 8.6 and 4.3 events per 10,000 patient days for baseline and most recent quarter, respectively. For non-SPARC hospitals, these hospital-onset C. difficile incidences were 5.1 preintervention and 4.3 postintervention. We found a statistically significant difference-in-difference between SPARC and non-SPARC hospital C. difficile reduction rates (ratio of IRR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44−0.89; P = .01). Conclusions: The Maryland SPARC collaborative, a public health-academic partnership, was associated with a 25% reduction in the Maryland C. difficile SIR. Hospitals participating in SPARC demonstrated significantly reduced C. difficile incidences to match that of high-performing hospitals in Maryland.Funding: NoneDisclosure: Aaron Milstone, BD – consulting.