scholarly journals 426. COVID-19 Infection Prevention Practices That Exceed CDC Guidance: Balancing Extra Caution Against Impediments to Care

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S313-S314
Author(s):  
Shruti K Gohil ◽  
Edward Septimus ◽  
Kenneth Sands ◽  
Eunice J Blanchard ◽  
Julia Moody ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nursing Homes ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Infection Prevention ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Skin Irritation ◽  
Health Impacts ◽  
Respiratory Care ◽  
Material Support ◽  
Cleaning Products ◽  
Research Grant

Abstract Background At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare workers (HCWs) raised concerns about personal risks of acquiring infection during patient care. This led to more stringent infection prevention practices than CDC guidelines during a time of uncertainty about transmission and limited U.S. testing capacity. Hospitals were challenged to protect against true COVID-19 exposure risks, while avoiding use of unproven measures that could interfere with timely, high quality care. We evaluated hospital experiences with HCW COVID-19 exposure concerns impacting clinical workflow/management. Methods We conducted a 32-question structured survey of hospital infection prevention leaders (one per hospital) from CDC Prevention Epicenters, University of California (CA) Health system, HCA Healthcare, and the Southern CA Metrics Committee between May–Dec, 2020. We assessed facility characteristics and COVID-19 exposure concerns causing changes in respiratory care, procedure delays/modifications, requests to change infection prevention processes, disruptions in routine medical care, and health impacts of PPE overuse. Percentages were calculated among respondents for each question. Results Respondents represented 53 hospitals: 22 (42%) were small (< 200 beds), 14 (26%) medium (200-400 beds), and 17 (32%) large ( >400 beds) facilities. Of these, 11 (21%) provided Level 1 trauma care, and 22 (41%) provided highly immunocompromised patient care; 75% had cared for a substantial number of COVID-19 cases before survey completion. Majority reported changes in respiratory care delivery (71%-87%), procedural delays (75%-87%), requests to change infection prevention controls/protocols (58%-96%), and occupational health impacts of PPE overuse including skin irritation (98%) and carbon dioxide narcosis symptoms (55%) (Table). Conclusion HCW concerns over work-related COVID-19 exposure contributed to practice changes, many of which are unsupported by CDC guidance and resulted in healthcare delivery delays and alterations in clinical care. Pandemic planning and response must include the ability to rapidly develop evidence to guide infection prevention practice. Disclosures Shruti K. Gohil, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Investigator in studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Molnycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Investigator in studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Investigator in studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products) Edward Septimus, MD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products) Kenneth Sands, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Eunice J. Blanchard, MSN RN, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Julia Moody, MS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Deborah S. Yokoe, MD, MPH, Nothing to disclose Jonathan Grein, MD, Gilead (Other Financial or Material Support, Speakers fees) Stuart H. Cohen, MD, Seres (Research Grant or Support) Kimberly N. Smith, MBA, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Brandon Carver, BA, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Russell Poland, PhD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Jonathan B. Perlin, MD, PhD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Richard Platt, MD, MSc, Medline (Research Grant or Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Susan S. Huang, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)

scholarly journals 41. Assessing Past vs Present COVID-19 Infection: A Survey of Criteria for Discontinuing Precautions in Asymptomatic Patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S29-S31
Author(s):  
Shruti K Gohil ◽  
Annabelle De St Maurice ◽  
Deborah S Yokoe ◽  
Deborah S Yokoe ◽  
Stuart H Cohen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nursing Homes ◽  
Infection Prevention ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Material Support ◽  
Cleaning Products ◽  
Asymptomatic Patients ◽  
History Of ◽  
Research Grant

Abstract Background COVID-19 patients can remain positive by PCR-testing for several months. Pre-admission or pre-procedure testing can identify recovered asymptomatic patients who may no longer be contagious but would require precautions according to current CDC recommendations (10 days). This can result in unintended consequences, including procedure delays or transfer to appropriate care (e.g., psychiatric or post-trauma patients requiring admission to COVID-19 units instead of psychiatric or rehabilitation facilities, respectively). Methods We conducted a structured survey of healthcare epidemiologists and infection prevention experts from the SHEA Research Network between March-April, 2021. The 14-question survey, presented a series of COVID-19 PCR+ asymptomatic patient case scenarios and asked respondents if (1) they would consider the case recovered and not infectious, (2) if they have cleared precautions in such cases, and if so, (3) how many transmission events occurred after discontinuing precautions. The survey used one or a combination of 5 criteria: history of COVID-19 symptoms, history of exposure to a household member with COVID-19, COVID-19 PCR cycle threshold (CT), and IgG serology. Percentages were calculated among respondents for each question. Results Among 60 respondents, 56 (93%) were physicians, 51 (86%) were hospital epidemiologists, and 46 (77%) had >10y infection prevention experience. They represented facilities that cumulatively cared for >29,000 COVID-19 cases; 46 (77%) were academic, and 42 (69%) were large ( >400 beds). One-third to one-half would consider an incidentally found PCR+ case as recovered based on solo criteria, particularly those with two consecutive high CTs or COVID IgG positivity recovered (53-55%) (Table 1). When combining two criteria, half to four-fifths of respondents deemed PCR+ cases to be recovered (Table 2). Half of those had used those criteria to clear precautions (45-64%) and few to none experienced a subsequent transmission event resulting from clearance. Conclusion The majority of healthcare epidemiologists consider a combination of clinical and diagnostic criteria as recovered and many have used these to clear precautions without high numbers of transmission. Disclosures Shruti K. Gohil, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Investigator in studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Molnycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Investigator in studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Investigator in studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products) Deborah S. Yokoe, MD, MPH, Nothing to disclose Stuart H. Cohen, MD, Seres (Research Grant or Support) Jonathan Grein, MD, Gilead (Other Financial or Material Support, Speakers fees) Richard Platt, MD, MSc, Medline (Research Grant or Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Susan S. Huang, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)

scholarly journals 44. Impact of Nursing Home (NH) Universal Decolonization and COVID Prevention Training on COVID-19 Burden During the 2020-2021 Winter Surge in Orange County (OC), California (CA)

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S32-S32
Author(s):  
Gabrielle Gussin ◽  
Raveena Singh ◽  
Shruti K Gohil ◽  
Raheeb Saavedra ◽  
Thomas Tjoa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nursing Home ◽  
Nursing Homes ◽  
Training Program ◽  
Material Support ◽  
Linear Mixed Effects ◽  
Cleaning Products ◽  
Quasi Experimental ◽  
Work Shifts ◽  
Prevention Training ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background OC is the 6th largest U.S. county with 70 NHs. Universal decolonization (chlorhexidine for routine bathing, and twice daily nasal iodophor Mon-Fri every other week) was adopted in 24 NHs prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and 12 NHs (11 of those adopting decolonization) participated in a COVID prevention training program with a rolling launch from July-Sept 2020. We evaluated the impact of these initiatives on staff and resident COVID cases. Methods We conducted a quasi-experimental study of the impact of decolonization and COVID prevention training on staff and resident COVID cases during the CA winter surge (11/16/20-1/31/21), when compared to non-participating NHs. Decolonization NHs received weekly visits for encouraging adherence during the pandemic, and NHs in the COVID training program received 3 in-person training sessions for all work shifts plus weekly feedback about adherence to hand hygiene, masking, and breakroom safety using video monitoring. We calculated incident 1) staff COVID cases, 2) resident COVID cases, and 3) resident COVID deaths adjusting for NH average daily census. We assessed impact of initiatives on these outcomes using linear mixed effects models testing the interaction between any training participation and calendar date when clustering by NH. Because of the overlap of the two initiatives, we evaluated ‘any training’ vs ‘no training.’ Results 63 NHs had available data. 24 adopted universal decolonization, 12 received COVID training (11 of which participated in decolonization), and 38 were not enrolled in either. During the winter surge, the 63 NHs experienced 1867 staff COVID cases, 2186 resident COVID cases, and 251 resident deaths due to COVID, corresponding to 29.6, 34.7, and 4.0 events per NH, respectively. In NHs participating in either initiative, staff COVID cases were reduced by 31% (OR=0.69 (0.52, 0.92), P=0.01), resident COVID cases were reduced by 43% (OR=0.57 (0.39, 0.82), P=0.003), and resident deaths were reduced (non-significantly) by 26% (OR=0.74 (0.46, 1.21), P=0.23). The grey box represents the California COVID-19 winter surge (11/16/20-1/31/21). Incident and cumulative COVID-19 cases and deaths for each nursing home were divided by the nursing home’s average daily census and multiplied by 100, representing events per 100 beds, which were aggregated across groups. Conclusion NHs are vulnerable to COVID-19 outbreaks. A universal decolonization and COVID prevention training initiative in OC, CA significantly reduced staff and resident COVID cases in this high-risk care setting. Disclosures Gabrielle Gussin, MS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products) Raveena Singh, MA, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products) Shruti K. Gohil, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Investigator in studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Molnycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Investigator in studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Investigator in studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products) Raheeb Saavedra, AS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products) Robert Pedroza, BS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products) Chase Berman, BS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products) Susan S. Huang, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)

scholarly journals 892. Determination of the Unavailability of Alternative Antiretroviral Formulations

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S537-S538
Author(s):  
Milena M Murray ◽  
Devon Flynn ◽  
Leonard A Sowah ◽  
Aaron Austin ◽  
Eric Farmer
Keyword(s):  
Patient Care ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
Cost Of Care ◽  
People Living With Hiv ◽  
Material Support ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
First Choice ◽  
Chewable Tablets ◽  
Potential Impact

Abstract Background Many pediatric and some adult people living with HIV (PLWH) are unable to swallow tablets and require alternative antiretroviral formulations (ARVF) such as liquids, chewable tablets, or powders for suspension. A growing number of issues with the timely procurement of alternative ARVF have been reported; the full scope of this problem is unknown. Without access to appropriate treatment, PLWH are at increased risk of poor disease outcomes. This study’s objective was to determine the scope of availability issues of ARVF and its potential impact on patient care. Methods An online survey invitation was sent to members of AAHIVM and the ACCP HIV PRN. Data collection included provider demographics, number of issues related to ARVF availability, time spent procuring ARVFs, and identification of unavailable formulations. To determine potential impact on clinical care and cost of care the time required to resolve shortages was summarized. Results The analyzable sample was 154, a majority of whom were pharmacists or physicians (n=132, 85.7%; Figure 1), in a clinical role (n=134, 87.0%), and serve pregnant patients (n=121, 79.2%). 85 (55.2%) practice at sites that provide care to > 300 PLWH, 81 (52.6%) practice at sites that did not serve pediatric patients. 525 instances of gaps in care due to ARVF unavailability were reported. In 283 instances, a more complex regimen was prescribed due to first-choice ARVF unavailability. Providers also reported 186 situations in which a less optimal regimen was used and 140 cases of treatment delays. The average time spent to resolve such issues was 2.7 hrs (CI: 1.3 – 4.2). The longest time reported was 72 hrs; most providers spent 1 hr or less. The most common unavailable ARVF were branded ritonavir 80 mg/mL solution (n=12), zidovudine 50 mg/5 mL syrup (n=11), raltegravir 100 mg chewable tablets (n=11), and raltegravir 100 mg granules for suspension (n=10). Branded nevirapine 50 mg/5 mL suspension (n=7) and generic nevirapine 50mg/5ml powder for suspension (n=11) were also reported more frequently. Distribution of Respondents by Provider Type Conclusion Our report suggests the unavailability of alternative ARVF has the potential to significantly impact patient care. Further research is needed to identify the root causes of this problem to determine specific solutions. Disclosures Milena M. Murray, PharmD, MSc, BCIDP, AAHIVP, Merck (Speaker’s Bureau)Theratechnologies (Other Financial or Material Support, Medical Advisory Board) Eric Farmer, PharmD, BCPS, AAHIVP, TheraTechnologies, Inc (Other Financial or Material Support, Medical Advisory Board)

scholarly journals 390. Can Testing the Environment for SARS-CoV-2 Be a Signal for Staff Infections in Nursing Homes (NHs)?

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S297-S297
Author(s):  
Gabrielle Gussin ◽  
Raveena Singh ◽  
Izabela Coimbra Ibraim ◽  
Raheeb Saavedra ◽  
Thomas Tjoa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nursing Homes ◽  
Limit Of Detection ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Environmental Sampling ◽  
Cohen’S Kappa ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Material Support ◽  
Cohen's Kappa ◽  
Cleaning Products ◽  
Using Data

Abstract Background Federal mandate requires NHs to perform weekly COVID-19 testing of staff. Testing is effective due to barriers to disclosing mild illness, but it is unclear how long the mandate will last. We explored if environmental samples can be used to signal staff COVID-19 cases as an alternative screening tool in NHs. Methods We conducted a cross sectional study to assess the value of environmental sampling as a trigger for COVID-19 testing of NH staff using data from currently performed weekly staff sweeps. We performed 35 sampling sweeps across 21 NHs from 6/2020-2/2021. For each sweep, we sampled up to 24 high touch objects in NH breakrooms (N=226), entryways (N=216), and nursing stations (N=194) assuming that positive samples were due to contamination from infected staff. Total staff and positive staff counts were tallied for the staff testing sweeps performed the week of and week prior to environmental sampling. Object samples were processed for SARS-CoV-2 using PCR (StepOnePlus) with a 1 copy/mL limit of detection. We evaluated concordance between object and staff positivity using Cohen’s kappa and calculated the positive and negative predictive value (PPV, NPV) of environmental sweeps for staff positivity, including the attributable capture of positive staff. We tested the association between the proportion of staff positivity and object contamination by room type in a linear regression model when clustering by NH. Results Among 35 environmental sweeps, 49% had SARS-CoV-2 positive objects and 69% had positive staff in the same or prior week. Mean positivity was 16% (range 0-83%) among objects and 4% (range 0-22%) among staff. Overall, NPV was 61% and Cohen’s kappa was 0.60. PPV of object sampling as an indicator of positive staff was 100% for every room type, with an attributable capture of positive staff of 76%, with values varying by room type (Table). Breakroom samples were the strongest indicator of any staff cases. Each percent increase in object positivity was associated with an increase in staff positivity in entryways (7.2% increased staff positivity, P=0.01) and nursing stations (5.7% increased staff positivity, P=0.05). Conclusion If mandatory weekly staff testing ends in NHs, environmental sampling may serve as an effective tool to trigger targeted COVID-19 testing sweeps of NH staff. Disclosures Gabrielle Gussin, MS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products) Raveena Singh, MA, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products) Raheeb Saavedra, AS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products) Susan S. Huang, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)

scholarly journals 93. Early Recognition and Response to Increases in Surgical Site Infections (SSI) using Optimized Statistical Process Control (SPC) Charts – the Early 2RIS Trial: A Multicenter Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S59-S60
Author(s):  
Arthur W Baker ◽  
Iulian Ilieş ◽  
James C Benneyan ◽  
Yuliya Lokhnygina ◽  
Katherine R Foy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nursing Homes ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Process Control ◽  
Statistical Process Control ◽  
Stepped Wedge ◽  
Statistical Process ◽  
Material Support ◽  
Cleaning Products ◽  
Traditional Surveillance ◽  
Observation Period

Abstract Background Traditional approaches for SSI surveillance have deficiencies that can delay detection of SSI outbreaks and other clinically important increases in SSI rates. Optimized SPC methods for SSI surveillance have not been prospectively evaluated. Methods We conducted a prospective multicenter stepped wedge cluster RCT to evaluate the performance of SSI surveillance and feedback performed with optimized SPC plus traditional surveillance methods compared to traditional surveillance alone. We divided 13 common surgical procedures into 6 clusters (Table 1). A cluster of procedures at a single hospital was the unit of randomization and analysis, and 105 total clusters across 29 community hospitals were randomized to 12 groups of 8-10 clusters (Figure 1). After a 12-month baseline observation period (3/2016-2/2017), the SPC surveillance intervention was serially implemented according to stepped wedge assignment over a 36-month intervention period (3/2017-2/2020) until all 12 groups of clusters had received the intervention. The primary outcome was the overall SSI prevalence rate (PR=SSIs/100 procedures), evaluated with a GEE model with Poisson distribution. Table 1 Figure 1 Schematic for stepped wedge design. The 12-month baseline observation period was followed by the 36-month intervention period, comprised of 12 3-month steps. Results Our trial involved prospective surveillance of 237,704 procedures that resulted in 1,952 SSIs (PR=0.82). The overall SSI PR did not differ significantly between clusters of procedures assigned to SPC surveillance (781 SSIs/89,339 procedures; PR=0.87) and those assigned to traditional surveillance (1,171 SSIs/148,365 procedures; PR=0.79; PR ratio=1.10 [95% CI, 0.94–1.30]; P=.25) (Table 2). SPC surveillance identified 104 SSI rate increases that required formal investigations, compared to only 25 investigations generated by traditional surveillance. Among 10 best practices for SSI prevention, 453 of 502 (90%) SSIs analyzed due to SPC detection of SSI rate increases had at least 2 deficiencies (Table 3). Table 2 Poisson regression models comparing surgical site infection (SSI) prevalence rates for procedure clusters receiving statistical process control surveillance to SSI rates for clusters receiving traditional control surveillance. Table 3 Compliance with 10 best practices for surgical site infection (SSI) prevention among 502 SSIs analyzed during SSI investigations generated by statistical process control surveillance. Conclusion SPC methods more frequently detected important SSI rate increases associated with deficiencies in SSI prevention best practices than traditional surveillance; however, feedback of this information did not lead to SSI rate reductions. Further study is indicated to determine the best application of SPC methods to improve adherence to SSI quality measures and prevent SSIs. Disclosures Arthur W. Baker, MD, MPH, Medincell (Advisor or Review Panel member) Susan S. Huang, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)

scholarly journals 171. The Impact of COVID-19 on Healthcare-Associated Infections

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S102-S103
Author(s):  
Meghan A Baker ◽  
Kenneth Sands ◽  
Susan S Huang ◽  
Ken Kleinman ◽  
Edward Septimus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nursing Homes ◽  
Negative Binomial ◽  
Bloodstream Infections ◽  
Local Variation ◽  
Healthcare Associated Infections ◽  
Material Support ◽  
Cleaning Products ◽  
Tract Infections ◽  
Healthcare Associated ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background The profound changes wrought by COVID-19 on routine hospital operations may have influenced performance on hospital measures, including healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Objective Evaluate the association between COVID-19 surges and HAI or cluster rates Methods Design: Prospective cohort study Setting 148 HCA Healthcare-affiliated hospitals, 3/1/2020-9/30/2020, and a subset of hospitals with microbiology and cluster data through 12/31/2020 Patients All inpatients Measurements We evaluated the association between COVID-19 surges and HAIs, hospital-onset pathogens, and cluster rates using negative binomial mixed models. To account for local variation in COVID-19 pandemic surge timing, we included the number of discharges with a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis per staffed bed per month at each hospital. Results Central line-associated blood stream infections (CLABSI), catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI), and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia increased as COVID-19 burden increased (P ≤ 0.001 for all), with 60% (95% CI, 23 to 108%) more CLABSI, 43% (95% CI, 8 to 90%) more CAUTI, and 44% (95% CI, 10 to 88%) more cases of MRSA bacteremia than expected over 7 months based on predicted HAIs had there not been COVID-19 cases. Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) was not significantly associated with COVID-19 burden. Microbiology data from 81 of the hospitals corroborated the findings. Notably, rates of hospital-onset bloodstream infections and multidrug resistant organisms, including MRSA, vancomycin-resistant enterococcus and Gram-negative organisms were each significantly associated with COVID-19 surges (P < 0.05 for all). Finally, clusters of hospital-onset pathogens increased as the COVID-19 burden increased (P = 0.02). Limitations Variations in surveillance and reporting may affect HAI data. Table 1. Effect of an increase in number of COVID-19 discharges on HAIs and hospital-onset pathogens Figure 1. Predicted mean HAI rates as COVID-19 discharges increase Predicted mean HAI rate by increasing monthly COVID-19 discharges. Panel a. CLABSI, Panel b, CAUTI Panel c. MRSA Bacteremia, Panel d. CDI. Data are stratified by small, medium and large hospitals. Figure 2. Monthly comparison of COVID discharges to clusters COVID-19 discharges and the number of clusters of hospital-onset pathogens are correlated throughout the pandemic. Conclusion COVID-19 surges adversely impact HAI rates and clusters of infections within hospitals, emphasizing the need for balancing COVID-related demands with routine hospital infection prevention. Disclosures Kenneth Sands, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Susan S. Huang, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products) Ken Kleinman, PhD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products) Edward Septimus, MD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products) Eunice J. Blanchard, MSN RN, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Russell Poland, PhD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Micaela H. Coady, MS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Deborah S. Yokoe, MD, MPH, Nothing to disclose Julia Moody, MS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Richard Platt, MD, MSc, Medline (Research Grant or Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Jonathan B. Perlin, MD, PhD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)

scholarly journals 306. Association of Antibiotic Use and Development Secondary Infection from Clostridium difficile, Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria, and Candida in Hospitalized Patients with History of COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S259-S260
Author(s):  
Jessica K Costales ◽  
Helen Lee ◽  
Kathleen A Quan ◽  
Keith M Madey ◽  
Kurt McArthur ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nursing Homes ◽  
Multidrug Resistant ◽  
Resistant Bacteria ◽  
Material Support ◽  
Positive Group ◽  
Cleaning Products ◽  
Secondary Infections ◽  
Days Of Therapy ◽  
History Of ◽  
Candida Infections

Abstract Background There is increasing evidence that patients hospitalized with COVID-19 receive unnecessary antibiotics. The consequences of antibiotic overuse as it relates to antimicrobial resistance and development of secondary infections remains uncertain. The objective of this study is to compare antibiotic prescription patterns in patients with a history of COVID-19 to those without a history of COVID-19 and determine if there are differences in the frequency of secondary infections from Clostridioides difficile (C. difficile), multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria, and candida infections. Methods This study is a single-center, retrospective cohort study of 18,757 adults hospitalized during the COVID-19 pandemic from March 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021. Patients were stratified as COVID-19 positive, throughout all hospitalizations subsequent to the date of initial positivity, or COVID-19 negative. Differences in antibiotic practice patterns between the two groups were quantified using days of therapy per 1000 patient days (DOT/1000 PD). The frequency of C. difficile infection, MDR-bacteria, and candida infections were assessed among the two groups. Results During the 12-month study period, on average, the COVID-19 positive group received 21.81% more antibiotics than COVID-19 negative patients, with up to 56.15% increase seen in the first month of the pandemic (Table 1, Figure 1) The COVID-19 positive group had an increased frequency of Candidemia (0.73% versus 0.18%, p< .00001) and decreased isolation of ESBL organisms (1.17% versus 1.87%, p< 0.01416) compared to the COVID-19 negative group. There were no significant differences in frequency of C. difficile infection, isolation of other MDR-organisms, or Candida auris between the two groups. (Table 2) Table 1. Antibiotic days of therapy in COVID-19 positive and COVID-19 negative patients. Figure 1. Antibiotic days of therapy in total cohort, COVID-19 positive, and COVID-19 negative patients. Table 2. Frequency of secondary infections in COVID-19 positive and COVID-19 negative patients Conclusion Patients with a history of COVID-19 infection received an average of 21.81% more antibiotics, have higher rates of candidemia, but lower rates of ESBL infection than those without a history of COVID-19 infection. The potential increase in antibiotic exposure could account for the increase in candidemia in patients with a history of COVID-19. Future studies include investigating the decrease in ESBL infections seen, perhaps due to receipt of broad antibiotics in COVID-19 patients that target ESBL bacteria. Disclosures Shruti K. Gohil, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Investigator in studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Molnycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Investigator in studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Investigator in studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products) Susan S. Huang, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)

scholarly journals 1104. Risk Factors and Outcomes of Refractory and/or Resistant Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Infection after Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S582-S583
Author(s):  
Eleni Karantoni ◽  
Yiqi Su ◽  
Anat Stern ◽  
Phaedon D Zavras ◽  
Sergio Giralt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
T Cell ◽  
Panel Member ◽  
Multivariable Model ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Review Panel ◽  
Material Support ◽  
Advisory Boards ◽  
Research Grant

Abstract Background The epidemiology of CMV end-organ disease (EOD) after Hematopoietic Cell Transplant (HCT) in the era of preemptive therapy (PET) is defined. In contrast, less data exists on refractory and/or resistant (R/R) CMV. We report on 1) the incidence; 2) risk factors and outcomes of R/R CMV by 1-year post HCT. Methods Retrospective review of 167 CMV seropositive (R+) recipients of first marrow or peripheral blood HCT from 1/2014 - 12/2017 managed by PET. Refractory CMV was defined as failure to achieve >1 log10 decrease in CMV viral load (VL) and having VL >1,000 IU/mL after ≥14 day of PET. Resistant CMV required genotypic confirmation of resistance mutation(s) in UL54 and/or UL97 genes. End organ disease (EOD) was defined by standard criteria. Patients (pts) were followed through 1-year post HCT and were categorized in two mutually exclusive groups as R/R and no R/R. Demographics, clinical characteristics and outcomes were extracted from medical records and hospital databases. Univariable and multivariable logistic models were used to identify risk factors for R/R CMV. Results Of 167 PET recipients, 91 (54.5%) received ex vivo T cell depleted (TCD) HCT; 40 (24.0%) had mismatched donor; and 26 (15.6%) had multiple myeloma. 66/167 (39.5%) pts developed refractory CMV (6 pts also had resistant CMV). Time from HCT to CMV viremia was shorter in R/R group: median (IQR) 21.5 (17.2-27.8) days compared to no R/R group: 26 (19-32) days (p=0.031). Maximum VL was higher for R/R compared to no R/R: median (IQR) 9,118 (2,849-18,456) and 868 (474-1,908), respectively (p< 0.001). In multivariable model, risk factors for R/R included TCD HCT (p< 0.0001) and higher VL at PET initiation (p=0.0002). In contrast, CMV seropositive donor (p=0.035) was protective (Figure 1). CMV EOD developed in 28.2% of R/R and 16.2% of no R/R groups (p=0.085) (Figure 2). Overall survival at 1 year was 59.1% for R/R compared to 83.1% for no R/R group (p=0.00027) (Figure 3). Figure 1. Adjusted odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) from multivariable model evaluating risk factors of refractory/resistant (R/R) CMV. Figure 2. Cumulative incidence curves of CMV end-organ disease (EOD) at 1-year post HCT Figure 3. Kaplan-Meier survival curves of overall survival (OS) at 1-year post HCT Conclusion 1) Refractory and/or resistant CMV occurred in 39,5% of PET recipients. 2) T-cell depletion and higher CMV VL at PET initiation were risk factors for R/R CMV in multivariable models. 3) R/R CMV was associated with more EOD and worse overall survival. Disclosures Sergio Giralt, MD, Amgen (Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Served an advisory board for Amgen, Actinuum, Celgene, Johnson & Johnson, JAZZ pharmaceutical, Takeda, Novartis, KITE, and Spectrum pharma and has received research support from Amgen, Actinuum, Celgene, Johnson & Johnson, and Miltenyi, Takeda.) Miguel-Angel Perales, MD, Abbvie (Other Financial or Material Support, Honoraria from Abbvie, Bellicum, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Merck, Novartis, Nektar Therapeutics, Omeros, and Takeda.)ASTCT (Other Financial or Material Support, Volunteer member of the Board of Directors of American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT), Be The Match (National Marrow Donor Program, NMDP), and the CIBMTR Cellular Immunotherapy Data Resource (CIDR) Committee)Cidara Therapeutics (Advisor or Review Panel member, Other Financial or Material Support, Serve on DSMBs for Cidara Therapeutics, Servier and Medigene, and the scientific advisory boards of MolMed and NexImmune.)Kite/Gilead (Research Grant or Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Received research support for clinical trials from Incyte, Kite/Gilead and Miltenyi Biotec.) Genovefa Papanicolaou, MD, Chimerix (Research Grant or Support)Merck&Co (Research Grant or Support, Investigator and received funding and consulting fees from Merck, Chimerix, Shire and Astellas)

It’s Time to Talk to Prehospital Providers: Feedback Disparities among Ground-Based Emergency Medical Services Providers and its Impact on Job Satisfaction

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Sarayna S. McGuire ◽  
Anuradha Luke ◽  
Aaron B. Klassen ◽  
Lucas A. Myers ◽  
Aidan F. Mullan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Job Satisfaction ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Emergency Medical Services ◽  
Performance Feedback ◽  
Life Support ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Medical Services ◽  
The Past ◽  
Emergency Medical ◽  
Overall Job Satisfaction

Abstract Objective: Performance feedback on clinical care and patient outcomes is a cornerstone of medical education, yet it remains lacking in the prehospital environment. Research seeking to establish the quantity of feedback provided to Emergency Medical Services (EMS) has been limited and studies focused on complimentary feedback or how feedback relates to EMS job satisfaction are lacking. The objectives of this study were to measure the frequency and nature of feedback received by EMS agencies and to identify the importance of receiving feedback as it relates to EMS job satisfaction. Methods: This was an anonymous, survey-based study of twenty-nine Basic Life Support (BLS) and fifteen Advanced Life Support (ALS) agencies located in Southeastern Minnesota (USA). Descriptive statistics and Fisher exact tests were used. The study was deemed exempt by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board. Results: Ninety-four responses were included from nineteen different EMS agencies, including sixty-one (64.9%) paramedics and thirty-three (35.1%) emergency medical technicians (EMTs). One-half of all respondents reported that they had not received any type of feedback in the past 30 days, while another 43.6% of respondents indicated that they had only received feedback one to three times in the same time period. Twenty (60.6%) EMTs reported receiving no feedback in the past 30 days, compared with twenty-seven (44.3%) paramedics (P = .123). Of respondents receiving feedback, 65.9% reported never or rarely receiving positive reinforcing feedback and 60.6% reported never or rarely receiving constructive criticism or feedback regarding something that did not go well with patient care or transport. The majority of respondents were dissatisfied with the quantity (86.1%) and quality (73.4%) of feedback received. An overwhelming majority (93.6%) indicated that feedback on patient care or outcomes was important in influencing their overall job satisfaction. This high importance was maintained across all demographic groups. Conclusion: Within the cohort of survey respondents, a paucity of feedback received by EMS personnel is a source of dissatisfaction for EMS providers. Feedback on patient care strongly relates to overall job satisfaction. These findings suggest system-wide opportunities for structured feedback processes, focusing upon both quality and quantity of delivered feedback, to improve both patient care and staff satisfaction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document