scholarly journals 421. Effect of SARs-Cov-2 mRNA Vaccination in Healthcare Workers with Household COVID Exposure

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S311-S311
Author(s):  
Laura Selby ◽  
Richard Starlin
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Severe Disease ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Limited Data ◽  
Viral Shedding ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Significant Burden

Abstract Background Healthcare workers have experienced a significant burden of COVID-19 disease. COVID mRNA vaccines have shown great efficacy in prevention of severe disease and hospitalization due to COVID infection, but limited data is available about acquisition of infection and asymptomatic viral shedding. Methods Fully vaccinated healthcare workers at a tertiary-care academic medical center in Omaha Nebraska who reported a household exposure to COVID-19 infection are eligible for a screening program in which they are serially screened with PCR but allowed to work if negative on initial test and asymptomatic. Serial screening by NP swab was completed every 5-7 days, and workers became excluded from work if testing was positive or became symptomatic. Results Of the 94 employees who were fully vaccinated at the time of the household exposure to COVID-19 infection, 78 completed serial testing and were negative. Sixteen were positive on initial or subsequent screening. Vaccine failure rate of 17.0% (16/94). Healthcare workers exposed to household COVID positive contact Conclusion High risk household exposures to COVID-19 infection remains a significant potential source of infections in healthcare workers even after workers are fully vaccinated with COVID mRNA vaccines especially those with contact to positive domestic partners. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

scholarly journals 565. Risk of COVID-19 Among Healthcare Workers After Launch of Vaccination Campaign at an Academic Medical Center

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S384-S385
Author(s):  
Bhagyashri D Navalkele ◽  
Jose Lucar ◽  
James B Brock ◽  
Jason Parham
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Severe Disease ◽  
Vaccination Campaign ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Complete Recovery ◽  
Healthcare Facility ◽  
Asymptomatic Infection ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus affected healthcare workers (HCWs) adding additional burden on staffing shortages. COVID-19 vaccination (mRNA 1273 and BNT162b2) has been shown to protect against severe disease, death and reduced risk of asymptomatic infection and transmission from fully vaccinated individuals. Here, we present the impact of COVID-19 vaccination (CoVac) on risk of developing COVID-19 based on test results among unvaccinated and vaccinated HCWs. Methods Our academic medical center with 11,785 HCWs on its Jackson campus initiated non-mandatory CoVac among HCWs with BNT162b2 on December 16, 2020. Individuals ≥ 2 weeks after 1st dose of vaccine were defined as partially vaccinated and those ≥2 weeks from 2nd dose of vaccine were defined as fully vaccinated. Per facility policy, all symptomatic HCWs (irrespective of vaccination status) were recommended to undergo SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing. Asymptomatic HCWs were also tested upon household exposure, however, this policy was changed on March 9th 2021 to allow fully vaccinated asymptomatic HCWs to work without need for quarantine or testing. Universal masking policy among HCWs remained effective at our center during study period. Results Between the launch of COVID-19 vaccination on December 16, 2020 and April 30, 2021, 5,855 HCWs received one dose of vaccine, and 5,687 received both doses. A total of 1,329 unique HCWs underwent COVID-19 testing between January 4, 2021 and April 30, 2021. Of those, 217 (16.3%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection; 204 were unvaccinated, 7 were partially vaccinated, and 6 were fully vaccinated (figure 1). Of the 6 fully vaccinated employees, 1 was asymptomatic (testing for travel purposes), 4 had mild symptoms, and one elderly employee required hospitalization with oxygen supplementation and had a complete recovery. No facility outbreaks were reported related to asymptomatic, work exposed, fully vaccinated HCWs. Unvaccinated healthcare workers were more likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to partially and fully vaccinated healthcare workers. Conclusion COVID-19 vaccination protected HCWs by reducing risk for developing COVID-19. Vaccinating healthcare workers is a crucial infection prevention measure to reduce disease burden, avoid staffing shortages and create a safe environment in the healthcare facility to prevent transmission to other staff and at-risk patients. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

scholarly journals Screening of Clostridioides difficile carriers in an urban academic medical center: Understanding implications of disease

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Sarah W. Baron ◽  
Belinda E. Ostrowsky ◽  
Priya Nori ◽  
David Y. Drory ◽  
Michael H. Levi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Proportional Hazards Model ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazards Model ◽  
Nursing Facility ◽  
Clostridioides Difficile ◽  
Academic Medical

Abstract Objective: Efforts to reduce Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) have targeted transmission from patients with symptomatic C. difficile. However, many patients with the C. difficile organism are carriers without symptoms who may serve as reservoirs for spread of infection and may be at risk for progression to symptomatic C. difficile. To estimate the prevalence of C. difficile carriage and determine the risk and speed of progression to symptomatic C. difficile among carriers, we established a pilot screening program in a large urban hospital. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: An 800-bed, tertiary-care, academic medical center in the Bronx, New York. Participants: A sample of admitted adults without diarrhea, with oversampling of nursing facility patients. Methods: Perirectal swabs were tested by polymerase chain reaction for C. difficile within 24 hours of admission, and patients were followed for progression to symptomatic C. difficile. Development of symptomatic C. difficile was compared among C. difficile carriers and noncarriers using a Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Of the 220 subjects, 21 (9.6%) were C. difficile carriers, including 10.2% of the nursing facility residents and 7.7% of the community residents (P = .60). Among the 21 C. difficile carriers, 8 (38.1%) progressed to symptomatic C. difficile, but only 4 (2.0%) of the 199 noncarriers progressed to symptomatic C. difficile (hazard ratio, 23.9; 95% CI, 7.2–79.6; P < .0001). Conclusions: Asymptomatic carriage of C. difficile is prevalent among admitted patients and confers a significant risk of progression to symptomatic CDI. Screening for asymptomatic carriers may represent an opportunity to reduce CDI.

scholarly journals Clinical Team Distribution and Antibiotic Use Patterns at a Tertiary-Care Academic Medical Center

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s168-s169
Author(s):  
Rebecca Choudhury ◽  
Ronald Beaulieu ◽  
Thomas Talbot ◽  
George Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Hospital Units ◽  
Antibiotic Utilization ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Level Data ◽  
Utilization Data

Background: As more US hospitals report antibiotic utilization to the CDC, standardized antimicrobial administration ratios (SAARs) derived from patient care unit-based antibiotic utilization data will increasingly be used to guide local antibiotic stewardship interventions. Location-based antibiotic utilization surveillance data are often utilized given the relative ease of ascertainment. However, aggregating antibiotic use data on a unit basis may have variable effects depending on the number of clinical teams providing care. In this study, we examined antibiotic utilization from units at a tertiary-care hospital to illustrate the potential challenges of using unit-based antibiotic utilization to change individual prescribing. Methods: We used inpatient pharmacy antibiotic use administration records at an adult tertiary-care academic medical center over a 6-month period from January 2019 through June 2019 to describe the geographic footprints and AU of medical, surgical, and critical care teams. All teams accounting for at least 1 patient day present on each unit during the study period were included in the analysis, as were all teams prescribing at least 1 antibiotic day of therapy (DOT). Results: The study population consisted of 24 units: 6 ICUs (25%) and 18 non-ICUs (75%). Over the study period, the average numbers of teams caring for patients in ICU and non-ICU wards were 10.2 (range, 3.2–16.9) and 13.7 (range, 10.4–18.9), respectively. Units were divided into 3 categories by the number of teams, accounting for ≥70% of total patient days present (Fig. 1): “homogenous” (≤3), “pauciteam” (4–7 teams), and “heterogeneous” (>7 teams). In total, 12 (50%) units were “pauciteam”; 7 (29%) were “homogeneous”; and 5 (21%) were “heterogeneous.” Units could also be classified as “homogenous,” “pauciteam,” or “heterogeneous” based on team-level antibiotic utilization or DOT for specific antibiotics. Different patterns emerged based on antibiotic restriction status. Classifying units based on vancomycin DOT (unrestricted) exhibited fewer “heterogeneous” units, whereas using meropenem DOT (restricted) revealed no “heterogeneous” units. Furthermore, the average number of units where individual clinical teams prescribed an antibiotic varied widely (range, 1.4–12.3 units per team). Conclusions: Unit-based antibiotic utilization data may encounter limitations in affecting prescriber behavior, particularly on units where a large number of clinical teams contribute to antibiotic utilization. Additionally, some services prescribing antibiotics across many hospital units may be minimally influenced by unit-level data. Team-based antibiotic utilization may allow for a more targeted metric to drive individual team prescribing.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

scholarly journals Financial Impact of Tertiary Care in an Academic Medical Center

2000 ◽  
Vol 231 (6) ◽  
pp. 860-868 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas S. Huber ◽  
Lori M. Carlton ◽  
Donna G. O’Hern ◽  
Nancy S. Hardt ◽  
C. Keith Ozaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Financial Impact ◽  
Academic Medical

scholarly journals In depth characterization of vaccine breakthrough infections with SARS-CoV-2 among healthcare workers of a Dutch academic medical center

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lidewij W Rümke ◽  
Femke C Groenveld ◽  
Yvonne M G van Os ◽  
Patrique Praest ◽  
Anniek A N Tanja ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Immune Responses ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Risk Exposure ◽  
Live Virus ◽  
Viral Loads ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
T Cell Immune Responses

Abstract SARS-CoV-2 infection after COVID-19 vaccination raises concerns about the emergence of vaccine escape variants. Here we characterize 14 breakthrough infections among 5860 fully vaccinated Dutch healthcare workers ≥14 days post final dose of vaccination with either BNT162b2, mRNA-1273 or Ad26.COV2.S. These breakthrough infections presented with regular B.1.1.7 (Alpha) and B.1.617.2 (Delta) variants and high viral loads, despite normal vaccine induced B- and T-cell immune responses detected by live virus neutralization assays and ELISpot. High-risk exposure settings, such as in households, indicate a potential risk of viral transmission despite full vaccination.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Perioperative Medication Errors and Adverse Drug Events

2016 ◽  
Vol 124 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen C. Nanji ◽  
Amit Patel ◽  
Sofia Shaikh ◽  
Diane L. Seger ◽  
David W. Bates
Keyword(s):  
Medication Errors ◽  
Adverse Drug Events ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Study Staff ◽  
Chart Abstraction ◽  
Life Threatening ◽  
Perioperative Medication

Abstract Background The purpose of this study is to assess the rates of perioperative medication errors (MEs) and adverse drug events (ADEs) as percentages of medication administrations, to evaluate their root causes, and to formulate targeted solutions to prevent them. Methods In this prospective observational study, anesthesia-trained study staff (anesthesiologists/nurse anesthetists) observed randomly selected operations at a 1,046-bed tertiary care academic medical center to identify MEs and ADEs over 8 months. Retrospective chart abstraction was performed to flag events that were missed by observation. All events subsequently underwent review by two independent reviewers. Primary outcomes were the incidence of MEs and ADEs. Results A total of 277 operations were observed with 3,671 medication administrations of which 193 (5.3%; 95% CI, 4.5 to 6.0) involved a ME and/or ADE. Of these, 153 (79.3%) were preventable and 40 (20.7%) were nonpreventable. The events included 153 (79.3%) errors and 91 (47.2%) ADEs. Although 32 (20.9%) of the errors had little potential for harm, 51 (33.3%) led to an observed ADE and an additional 70 (45.8%) had the potential for patient harm. Of the 153 errors, 99 (64.7%) were serious, 51 (33.3%) were significant, and 3 (2.0%) were life-threatening. Conclusions One in 20 perioperative medication administrations included an ME and/or ADE. More than one third of the MEs led to observed ADEs, and the remaining two thirds had the potential for harm. These rates are markedly higher than those reported by retrospective surveys. Specific solutions exist that have the potential to decrease the incidence of perioperative MEs.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD) Comes to America: Preliminary Experience with Colorectal ESD At An American Tertiary Care Academic Medical Center

2008 ◽  
Vol 67 (5) ◽  
pp. AB147
Author(s):  
Mainor R. Antillon ◽  
Wilson P. Pais ◽  
Christopher R. Bartalos ◽  
Alberto a. Diaz-Arias ◽  
Ghassan M. Hammoud ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Submucosal Dissection ◽  
Academic Medical

scholarly journals The Epidemiology of Methicillin-ResistantStaphylococcus aureuson a Burn Trauma Unit

2012 ◽  
Vol 33 (11) ◽  
pp. 1118-1125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marin Schweizer ◽  
Melissa Ward ◽  
Sandra Cobb ◽  
Jennifer McDanel ◽  
Laurie Leder ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Nasal Carriage ◽  
Burn Trauma ◽  
Trauma Unit ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
A Site ◽  
Mrsa Colonization

Objective.We assessed the frequency and relatedness of methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus(MRSA) isolates to determine whether healthcare workers, the environment, or admitted patients could be a reservoir for MRSA on a burn trauma unit (BTU). We also assessed risk factors for MRSA colonization among BTU patients.Design.Prospective cohort study and surveillance for MRSA carriage.Setting.BTU of a Midwestern academic medical center.Patients and Participants.Patients admitted to a BTU from February 2009 through January 2010 and healthcare workers on this unit during the same time period.Methods.Samples for MRSA culture were collected on admission from the nares and wounds of all BTU patients. We also had collected culture samples from the throat, axilla, antecubital fossa, groin, and perianal area of 12 patients per month. Samples collected from healthcare workers' nares and from environmental sites were cultured quarterly. MRSA isolates were typed by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis.Results.Of 144 patients, 24 (17%) carried MRSA in their nares on admission. Male sex (odds ratio [OR], 5.51; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.25–24.30), admission for necrotizing fasciitis (OR, 7.66; 95% CI, 1.64–35.81), and MRSA colonization of a site other than the nares (OR, 23.40; 95% CI, 6.93–79.01) were independent predictors of MRSA nasal carriage. Cultures of samples collected from 4 healthcare workers and 4 environmental cultures had positive results. Two patients were colonized with strains that were indistinguishable from strains collected from a healthcare worker or the environment.Conclusions.Patients were a major reservoir for MRSA. Infection control efforts should focus on preventing transmission of MRSA from patients who are MRSA carriers to other patients on the unit.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document