Search

Background Little is currently known about vaccine effectiveness (VE) for either 2 doses of Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) viral vector vaccine or CoronaVac (Instituto Butantan) inactivated viral vaccine followed by a third dose of mRNA vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech) among healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) working in a private healthcare system in Brazil from January to December 2021. VE was defined as 1 – incidence rate ratio (IRR), with IRR determined using Poisson models with the occurrence of laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection as the outcome, adjusting for age, sex, and job type. We compared those receiving viral vector or inactivated viral primary series (2 doses) with those who received an mRNA booster. Results A total of 11 427 HCWs met the inclusion criteria. COVID-19 was confirmed in 31.5% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine versus 0.9% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001) and 9.8% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine versus 1% among HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001). In the adjusted analyses, the estimated VE was 92.0% for 2 CoronaVac vaccines plus mRNA booster and 60.2% for 2 ChAdOx1 vaccines plus mRNA booster, when compared with those with no mRNA booster. Of 246 samples screened for mutations, 191 (77.6%) were Delta variants. Conclusions While 2 doses of ChAdOx1 or CoronaVac vaccines prevent COVID-19, the addition of a Pfizer/BioNTech booster provided significantly more protection.

ObjectivesWe aimed to determine risk factors for the development of long coronavirus disease (COVID) in healthcare workers (HCWs).MethodsWe conducted a case-control study among HCWs who had confirmed COVID-19 infection working in a Brazilian healthcare system between March 1, 2020 and July 15, 2022. Cases were defined as those having long COVID per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition. Controls were defined as HCWs who had documented COVID-19 infection but did not develop long COVID. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the association between exposure variables and long COVID during 180 days of follow-up.ResultsOf 7,051 HCWs diagnosed with COVID-19 infection, 1,933 (27.4%) who developed long COVID were compared to 5,118 (72.6%) who did not. The majority of those with long COVID (51.8%) had 3 or more symptoms. Factors associated with development of long COVID were female sex (OR 1.21 [CI95 1.05-1.39]), age (OR 1.01 [CI95 1.00-1.02]), and two or more COVID-19 infections (1.27 [CI95 1.07-1.50]). Those infected with the Delta variant (OR 0.30 [CI95 0.17-0.50]) or the Omicron variant (OR 0.49 [CI95 0.30-0.78]), and those receiving four COVID-19 vaccine doses prior to infection (OR 0.05 [CI95 0.01-0.19]) were significantly less likely to develop long COVID.ConclusionsLong COVID can be prevalent among HCWs. We found that acquiring more than one COVID-19 infection was a major risk factor for long COVID, while maintenance of immunity via vaccination was highly protective.

Objective:We investigated real-world vaccine effectiveness for Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) and CoronaVac against laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among healthcare workers (HCWs).Methods:We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) working in a private healthcare system in Brazil between January 1, 2021 and August 3, 2021, to assess vaccine effectiveness. We calculated vaccine effectiveness as 1 − rate ratio (RR), with RR determined by adjusting Poisson models with the occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 infection as the outcome and the vaccination status as the main variable. We used the logarithmic link function and simple models adjusting for sex, age, and job types.Results:In total, 13,813 HCWs met the inclusion criteria for this analysis. Among them, 6,385 (46.2%) received the CoronaVac vaccine, 5,916 (42.8%) received the ChAdOx1 vaccine, and 1,512 (11.0%) were not vaccinated. Overall, COVID-19 occurred in 6% of unvaccinated HCWs, 3% of HCWs who received 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine, and 0.7% of HCWs who received 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine (P < .001). In the adjusted analyses, the estimated vaccine effectiveness rates were 51.3% for CoronaVac, and 88.1% for ChAdOx1 vaccine. Both vaccines reduced the number of hospitalizations, the length of hospital stay, and the need for mechanical ventilation. In addition, 19 SARS-CoV-2 samples from 19 HCWs were screened for mutations of interest. Of 19 samples, 18 were the γ (gamma) variant.Conclusions:Although both COVID-19 vaccines (viral vector and inactivated virus) can significantly prevent COVID-19 among HCWs, CoronaVac was much less effective. The COVID-19 vaccines were also effective against the dominant γ variant.

In 2010, following the recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO), our hospital implemented a surgical safety programme centred around a surgical safety checklist.The aim of this study was to compare indicators of surgical site infection, antimicrobial consumption, antimicrobial resistance, costs and in-hospital mortality before (January 2006 to July 2010) and after (August 2010 to December 2014) implementation of the programme.A case-control study was carried out matching patients with surgical site infection (SSI) to surgical patients without infection to examine the impact of the intervention.Use of the surgical checklist was associated with a significant reduction in SSI. When comparing the two time periods, we also identified a reduction in infections due to micro-organisms in the ESKAPE group (from 90.7% to 73.9%, P0.001), a reduction of SSI in patients with contaminated, infected and potentially contaminated wounds, and for those in whom perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis was discontinued in less than 48 hours. Overall, there was a reduction in antimicrobial resistance, though there was increased resistance to carbapenems for, to glycopeptides for Enterococcus faecium, and to clindamycin for Staphylococcus aureus. We also detected increased antimicrobial consumption of second- and third-generation cephalosporins and clindamycin. We observed a reduction in hospital deaths from 6.4% to 3.2% (P=0.001), but we did not observe any reduction in costs.Implementation of a surgical checklist was an independent predictor of SSI reduction, and was also associated with a decrease in antimicrobial resistance and reduced in-hospital mortality.

Background Literature shows early intravenous (IV) to oral (PO) antimicrobial transition for infective endocarditis (IE) and bone and joint infection (BJI) is noninferior to prolonged IV antimicrobial therapy. COVID-19 pandemic peaks resulted in critical shortages of staffed hospital beds spurring innovation. Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT), a well-established program using prolonged IV antimicrobials, faces challenges such as infusion resource needs and social circumstance limitations. Complex outpatient antimicrobial therapy (COpAT) uses PO in place of IV antimicrobials. We hypothesized rapid adoption of COpAT would decrease hospital length of stay and open beds while retaining satisfactory clinical outcomes. Methods COpAT protocols (Image 1) and guidelines by infection type and isolated organism (Image 2) were created. Hospitalized patients including persons who inject drugs (PWID) were evaluated for IV to PO antimicrobial transition by an infectious diseases (ID) physician and then followed by an ID physician-pharmacist team. Demographic, ID, and clinical outcome data for the first 100 COpAT patients between December 2020 and February 2022 were obtained by retrospective chart review. Image 1.COpAT Inpatient and Outpatient Protocols Image 2. COpAT Guidelines by Infection Type and Isolated Organism MSSA = methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus; MRSA = methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; spp. = species; TMP/SMX = trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole; DS = double strength; SSTI = skin and soft tissue infection; CAP = community-acquired pneumonia Results PWID accounted for 78% of COpAT patients. BJI followed by mixed infection (IE and BJI) was most prevalent (Image 3) with bacteremia in 53% of cases. Staphylococcus aureus was most frequently isolated (Image 4). Oral linezolid and fluoroquinolones, often in combination, were most commonly used. IV and PO antimicrobials were taken for a median 28 and 14 days, respectively. The COpAT program saved 1425 IV antimicrobial and 1363 hospital days. Assuming daily inpatient cost of $2050, cost avoided was $2,794,150. COpAT patients participated in ID follow-up and adhered to PO antimicrobials with low 30-day readmission rates (Image 5). Image 3.Infection TypeImage 4.Isolated Organism CoNS = coagulase-negative staphylococci Image 5.Clinical Outcomes Conclusion In a sample of 100 COpAT patients including PWID, IV to PO antimicrobial transition safely saved hospital days and mitigated critical bed shortages during pandemic peaks. A successful COpAT program requires a multidisciplinary group: close ID physician-pharmacist collaboration extending to OPAT and antimicrobial stewardship teams. With a COpAT program in place, even earlier IV to PO antimicrobial transitions should be studied. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures.

Objective:Patients admitted to the hospital may unknowingly carry severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and hospitals have implemented SARS-CoV-2 admission screening. However, because SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays may remain positive for months after infection, positive results may represent active or past infection. We determined the prevalence and infectiousness of patients who were admitted for reasons unrelated to COVID-19 but tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on admission screening.Methods:We conducted an observational study at the University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics from July 7 to October 25, 2020. All patients admitted without suspicion of COVID-19 were included, and medical records of those with a positive admission screening test were reviewed. Infectiousness was determined using patient history, PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, and serology.Results:In total, 5,913 patients were screened and admitted for reasons unrelated to COVID-19. Of these, 101 had positive admission RT-PCR results; 36 of these patients were excluded because they had respiratory signs/symptoms on admission on chart review. Also, 65 patients (1.1%) did not have respiratory symptoms. Finally, 55 patients had Ct values available and were included in this analysis. The median age of the final cohort was 56 years and 51% were male. Our assessment revealed that 23 patients (42%) were likely infectious. The median duration of in-hospital isolation was 5 days for those likely infectious and 2 days for those deemed noninfectious.Conclusions:SARS-CoV-2 was infrequent among patients admitted for reasons unrelated to COVID-19. An assessment of the likelihood of infectiousness using clinical history, RT-PCR Ct values, and serology may help in making the determination to discontinue isolation and conserve resources.

We aimed to investigate real-world vaccine effectiveness (VE) for Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) and CoronaVac against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers (HCWs).We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) working in a private healthcare system in Brazil between January 1, 2021 and August 3, 2021. To assess VE, we calculated VE=1-RR (rate ratio), with RR determined by adjusting Poisson models with the occurrence of COVID-19 infection as the outcome, and the vaccination status as the main exploratory variable. We used the logarithmic link function and simple models adjusting for sex, age and job types.13,813 HCWs met the inclusion criteria for this analysis. 6,385 (46.2%) received the CoronaVacvaccine, 5,916 (42.8%) received the ChAdOx1 vaccine, and 1,512 (11.0%) were not vaccinated. Overall, COVID-19 infection cases happened in 6% of unvaccinated HCWs, 3% of HCWs receiving two doses of CoronaVacvaccine, and 0.7% of HCWs receiving two doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine (p-value0.001). In the adjusted analyses, the estimated VE was 51.3% for CoronaVac, and 88.1% for ChAdOx1 vaccine. Both vaccines reduced the number of hospitalizations, the length of hospital stay, and the need of mechanical ventilation. Nineteen SARSCoV-2 samples from nineteen HCWs were screened for mutations of interest. Eighteen out of nineteen of those samples were Gamma SARS-CoV-2 variant.While both COVID-19 vaccines (viral vector and inactivated virus) can significantly prevent COVID-19 infection among HCWs, CoronaVac was much less effective. The COVID-19 vaccines were also effective even against a dominant Gamma variant.

Little is currently known about vaccine effectiveness (VE) for either two doses of Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) viral vector vaccine or CoronaVac inactivated viral vaccine followed by a third dose of mRNA vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech) among healthcare workers (HCWs).We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) working in a private healthcare system in Brazil from January to December 2021. VE was defined as 1-IRR (incidence rate ratio), with IRR determined using Poisson models with the occurrence of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection as the outcome, adjusting for age, sex, and job type. We compared those receiving viral vector or inactivated viral primary series (two doses) to those who received an mRNA booster.A total of 11,427 HCWs met the inclusion criteria. COVID-19 was confirmed in 31.5% of HCWs receiving two doses of CoronaVac vaccine vs. 0.9% of HCWs receiving two doses of CoronaVac vaccine with mRNA booster (p 0.001), and 9.8% of HCWs receiving two doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine vs. 1% among HCWs receiving two doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine with mRNA booster (p 0.001). In the adjusted analyses, the estimated VE was 92.0% for two CoronaVac vaccines plus mRNA booster, and 60.2% for two ChAdOx1 vaccines plus mRNA booster, when compared to those with no mRNA booster. Of 246 samples screened for mutations, 191 (77.6%) were Delta variants.While two doses of ChAdOx1 or CoronaVac vaccines prevent COVID-19, the addition of a Pfizer/BioNTech booster provided significantly more protection.

Objectives: We aimed to assess the short-term effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines among immunocompromised patients to prevent laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 infection. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratio [DOR] (95% CI) for COVID-19 infection between immunocompromised patients and healthy people or those with stable chronic medical conditions. VE was estimated as 100% x (1-DOR). We also investigated the rates of developing anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein IgG between the 2 groups. Results: Twenty studies evaluating COVID-19 vaccine response, and four studies evaluating VE were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled DOR for symptomatic COVID-19 infection in immunocompromised patients was 0.296 (95% CI: 0.108-0.811) with an estimated VE of 70.4% (95% CI: 18.9%- 89.2%). When stratified by diagnosis, IgG antibody levels were much higher in the control group compared to immunocompromised patients with solid organ transplant (pOR 232.3; 95% Cl: 66.98-806.03), malignant diseases (pOR 42.0, 95% Cl: 11.68-151.03), and inflammatory rheumatic diseases (pOR 19.06; 95% Cl: 5.00-72.62). Conclusions: We found COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were effective against symptomatic COVID-19 among the immunocompromised patients but had lower VE compared to the controls. Further research is needed to understand the discordance between antibody production and protection against symptomatic COVID-19 infection.

Objective: We sought to determine whether an electronic hand hygiene (HH) system could monitor HH compliance at similar rates to direct human observation. Methods: This 4-year proof-of-concept study was conducted in an intensive care unit (ICU) of a private tertiary-care hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, where electronic HH systems were installed in 2 rooms. HH compliance was reported respectively using direct observation and electronic counter devices with an infrared system for detecting HH opportunities. Results: In phase 1, HH compliance by human observers was 56.3% (564 of 1,001 opportunities), while HH compliance detected by the electronic observer was 51.0% (515 of 1,010 opportunities). In phase 2, human observers registered 484 HH opportunities with a HH compliance rate of 64.7% (313 of 484) versus 70.6% (346 of 490) simultaneously detected by the electronic system. In addition, an enhanced HH electronic system monitored activity 24 hours per day and HH compliance without the presence of a human observer was 40.3% (10,642 of 26,421 opportunities), providing evidence for the Hawthorne effect. Conclusions: The electronic HH monitoring system had good correlation with human HH observation, but compliance was remarkably lower when human observers were not present due to the Hawthorne effect (25%–30% absolute difference). Electronic monitoring systems can replace direct observation and can markedly reduce the Hawthorne effect.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has affected infection prevention and control (IPC) programs worldwide. We evaluated the impact of COVID-19 on the University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics IPC program by measuring the volume of calls to the program, changes in healthcare-associated infection rates, and team member perceptions. Methods We retrieved the IPC call log and healthcare-associated infection trends for 2018-2020. We defined 2 periods: pre-COVID-19 (2018-2019) and COVID-19 (January-December 2020). We also conducted one-on-one interviews and focus group interviews with members of the IPC program and describe changes in their working conditions during the COVID-19 period. Results A total of 6,564 calls were recorded during 2018-2020. The pre-COVID-19 period had a median of 71 calls and/or month (range: 50-119). During the COVID-19 period, the median call volume increased to 368/month (range: 149-829), and most calls were related to isolation precautions (50%). During the COVID-19 period, the central line-associated bloodstream infection incidence increased significantly. Infection preventionists reported that the ambiguity and conflicting guidance during the pandemic were major challenges. Conclusions Our IPC program experienced a 500% increase in consultation requests. Planning for future bio-emergencies should include creative strategies to increase response capacity within IPC programs.

The current COVID-19 pandemic has heightened the focus on infection prevention in hospitals. We evaluated hand hygiene compliance with alcohol-based hand rub via electronic observation among healthcare workers in an intensive care unit from 2017 to 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic was not associated with an increase in hand hygiene compliance., Graphical Abstract Image, graphical abstract

Background: Most hand hygiene (HH) intervention studies use a quasi-experimental design, are primarily uncontrolled before-and-after studies, or are controlled before-and-after studies with a nonequivalent control group. Well-funded studies with improved designs and HH interventions are needed. Objectives: To evaluate healthcare worker (HCW) HH compliance with alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) through direct observation (human observer), 2 electronic technologies, a radio frequency identification (RFID) badge system, and an invasive device sensor. Methods: In our controlled experimental study, 2,269 observations were made over a 6-month period from July 1 to December 30, 2020, in a 4-bed intensive care unit. We compared HH compliance between a basic feedback loop system with RFID badges and an enhanced feedback loop system that utilized sensors on invasive devices. Results: Real-time feedback by wireless technology connected to a patient’s invasive device (enhanced feedback loop) resulted in a significant increase in HH compliance (69.5% in the enhanced group vs 59.1% in the basic group; P = .0001). Conclusion: An enhanced feedback loop system connected to invasive devices, providing real-time alerts to HCWs, is effective in improving HH compliance.

Hospitals are increasingly consolidating into health systems. Some systems have appointed healthcare epidemiologists to lead system-level infection prevention programs. Ideal program infrastructure and support resources have not been described. We informally surveyed 7 healthcare epidemiologists with recent experience building and leading system-level infection prevention programs. Key facilitators and barriers for program structure and implementation are described.

Background: Although multiple studies revealed high vaccine effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines within 3 months after the completion of vaccines, long-term vaccine effectiveness has not been well established, especially after the δ (delta) variant became prominent. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of long-term vaccine effectiveness. Methods: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from December 2019 to November 15, 2021, for studies evaluating the long-term vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or COVID-19 hospitalization among individuals who received 2 doses of Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccines, or 1 dose of the Janssen vaccine. Long-term was defined as >5 months after the last dose. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) with 95% confidence interval for COVID-19 between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% × (1 − DOR). Results: In total, 16 studies including 17,939,172 individuals evaluated long-term vaccine effectiveness and were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled DOR for COVID-19 was 0.158 (95% CI: 0.157-0.160) with an estimated vaccine effectiveness of 84.2% (95% CI, 84.0- 84.3%). Estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization was 88.7% (95% CI, 55.8%–97.1%). Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 during the δ variant period was 61.2% (95% CI, 59.0%–63.3%). Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccines are effective in preventing COVID-19 and COVID-19 hospitalization across a long-term period for the circulating variants during the study period. More observational studies are needed to evaluate the vaccine effectiveness of third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, the vaccine effectiveness of mixing COVID-19 vaccines, COVID-19 breakthrough infection, and vaccine effectiveness against newly emerging variants.

Background: Although multiple studies have revealed that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines can reduce COVID-19–related outcomes, little is known about their impact on post–COVID-19 conditions. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination against post–COVID-19 conditions (ie, long COVID). Methods: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from December 1, 2019, to April 27, 2022, for studies evaluating COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against post–COVID-19 conditions among individuals who received at least 1 dose of Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca, or Janssen vaccine. A post–COVID-19 condition was defined as any symptom that was present 3 or more weeks after having COVID-19. Editorials, commentaries, reviews, study protocols, and studies in the pediatric population were excluded. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) for post–COVID-19 conditions between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% × (1 − DOR). Results: In total, 10 studies with 1,600,830 individuals evaluated the effect of vaccination on post–COVID-19 conditions, of which 6 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled DOR for post–COVID-19 conditions among individuals vaccinated with at least 1 dose was 0.708 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.692–0.725) with an estimated vaccine effectiveness of 29.2% (95% CI, 27.5%–30.8%). The vaccine effectiveness was 35.3% (95% CI, 32.3%–38.1%) among those who received the COVID-19 vaccine before having COVID-19, and 27.4% (95% CI, 25.4%–29.3%) among those who received it after having COVID-19. Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccination both before and after having COVID-19 significantly decreased post–COVID-19 conditions for the circulating variants during the study period although vaccine effectiveness was low.

Data visualization refers to the techniques used to communicate information by encoding it as visual objects (eg, points, lines, or bars) contained in graphics. The recent acceleration in informatics technology has made it possible to obtain and process large amounts of data. Although data visualization can provide insights from large datasets, it can also help simplify messaging, making information more accessible for healthcare stakeholders. The field of data visualization is constantly evolving, and new techniques are frequently being created. However, evidence regarding the best way to visualize data in the fields of infection prevention and antimicrobial stewardship is limited. We provide an overview of data visualization theory and history, as well as recommendations for creating graphs for infection prevention and antimicrobial stewardship.

The learning hospital is distinguished by ceaseless evolution of erudition, enhancement, and implementation of clinical best practices. We describe a model for the learning hospital within the framework of a hospital infection prevention program and argue that a critical assessment of safety practices is possible without significant grant funding. We reviewed 121 peer-reviewed manuscripts published by the VCU Hospital Infection Prevention Program over 16 years. Publications included quasi-experimental studies, observational studies, surveys, interrupted time series analyses, and editorials. We summarized the articles based on their infection prevention focus, and we provide a brief summary of the findings. We also summarized the involvement of nonfaculty learners in these manuscripts as well as the contributions of grant funding. Despite the absence of significant grant funding, infection prevention programs can critically assess safety strategies under the learning hospital framework by leveraging a diverse collaboration of motivated nonfaculty learners. This model is a valuable adjunct to traditional grant-funded efforts in infection prevention science and is part of a successful horizontal infection control program.

Objective: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at risk of COVID-19 due to high levels of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Thus, effective vaccines are needed. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on COVID-19 short-term vaccine effectiveness among HCWs. Methods: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from December 2019 to June 11, 2021, for studies evaluating vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 among HCWs. To meta-analyze the extracted data, we calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for COVID-19 between vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% × (1 − DOR). We also performed a stratified analysis for vaccine effectiveness by vaccination status: 1 dose and 2 doses of the vaccine. Results: We included 13 studies, including 173,742 HCWs evaluated for vaccine effectiveness in the meta-analysis. The vast majority (99.9%) of HCWs were vaccinated with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. The pooled DOR for symptomatic COVID-19 among vaccinated HCWs was 0.072 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.028–0.184) with an estimated vaccine effectiveness of 92.8% (95% CI, 81.6%–97.2%). In stratified analyses, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 among HCWs who had received 1 dose of vaccine was 82.1% (95% CI, 46.1%–94.1%) and the vaccine effectiveness among HCWs who had received 2 doses was 93.5% (95% CI, 82.5%–97.6%). Conclusions: The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are highly effective against symptomatic COVID-19, even with 1 dose. More observational studies are needed to evaluate the vaccine effectiveness of other COVID-19 vaccines, COVID-19 breakthrough after vaccination, and vaccine efficacy against new variants.

The global outbreak of invasive Mycobacterium chimaera infections associated with heater-cooler devices (HCDs) presented several important and unique challenges. To mitigate the risk of infection, we removed the HCDs from operating rooms (ORs) at our hospital and since that time (4.5 years ago) we have had no new cases.

Background: Central-line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates have steadily decreased as evidence-based prevention bundles were implemented. Bone marrow transplant (BMT) patients are at increased risk for CLABSI due to immunosuppression, prolonged central-line utilization, and frequent central-line accesses. We assessed the impact of an enhanced prevention bundle on BMT nonmucosal barrier injury CLABSI rates. Methods: The University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics is an 811-bed academic medical center that houses the only BMT program in Iowa. During October 2018, we added 3 interventions to the ongoing CLABSI prevention bundle in our BMT inpatient unit: (1) a standardized 2-person dressing change team, (2) enhanced quality daily chlorhexidine treatments, and (3) staff and patient line-care stewardship. The bundle included training of nurse champions to execute a team approach to changing central-line dressings. Standard process description and supplies are contained in a cart. In addition, 2 sets of sterile hands and a second person to monitor for breaches in sterile procedure are available. Site disinfection with chlorhexidine scrub and dry time are monitored. Training on quality chlorhexidine bathing includes evaluation of preferred product, application per product instructions for use and protection of the central-line site with a waterproof shoulder length glove. In addition to routine BMT education, staff and patients are instructed on device stewardship during dressing changes. CLABSIs are monitored using NHSN definitions. We performed an interrupted time-series analysis to determine the impact of our enhanced prevention bundle on CLABSI rates in the BMT unit. We used monthly CLABSI rates since January 2017 until the intervention (October 2018) as baseline. Because the BMT changed locations in December 2018, we included both time points in our analysis. For a sensitivity analysis, we assessed the impact of the enhanced prevention bundle in a hematology-oncology unit (March 2019) that did not change locations. Results: During the period preceding bundle implementation, the CLABSI rate was 2.2 per 1,000 central-line days. After the intervention, the rate decreased to 0.6 CLABSI per 1,000 central-line days (P = .03). The move in unit location did not have a significant impact on CLABSI rates (P = .85). CLABSI rates also decreased from 1.6 per 1,000 central-line days to 0 per 1,000 central-line days (P < .01) in the hematology-oncology unit. Conclusions: An enhanced CLABSI prevention bundle was associated with significant decreases in CLABSI rates in 2 high-risk units. Novel infection prevention bundle elements should be considered for special populations when all other evidence-based recommendations have been implemented.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

Objectives: To identify drugs that were administered off label to hospitalized patients with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to identify adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and drug–drug interactions associated with these therapies. Methods: This case–control study was conducted in a Brazilian hospital from March to April 2020 among patients with suspected COVID-19, comparing those with positive severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results and those with negative results. Results: The most commonly used medications in both groups were azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine. There was a significantly higher prevalence of reactions among patients with positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 (48.5% vs 28.8%; P = .008) in the propensity score–matched cohort, and the most commonly reported ADRs among these patients were diarrhea (43.8%), elevated liver enzymes (31.3%), and nausea and vomiting (29.7%). Conclusions: Our data demonstrate that ADRs and drug–drug interactions are common with off-label treatments for COVID-19.

ObjectiveWe performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of the infectious complications of hysterectomy, comparing robotic-assisted hysterectomy to conventional laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy.MethodsWe searched PubMed, CINAHL, CDSR, and EMBASE through July 2018 for studies evaluating robotic-assisted hysterectomy, laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy, and infectious complications. We employed random-effect models to obtain pooled OR estimates. Heterogeneity was evaluated with I2 estimation and the Cochran Q statistic. Pooled ORs were calculated separately based on the reason for hysterectomy (eg, benign uterine diseases, endometrial cancer, and cervical cancer).ResultsFifty studies were included in the final review for the meta-analysis with 176 016 patients undergoing hysterectomy. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of infectious complication events between robotic-assisted hysterectomy and laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy (pooled OR 0.97; 95 % CI 0.74 to 1.28). When we performed a stratified analysis, similar results were found with no statistically significant difference in infectious complications comparing robotic-assisted hysterectomy to laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy among patients with benign uterine disease (pooled OR 1.10; 95 % CI 0.70 to 1.73), endometrial cancer (pooled OR 0.97; 95 % CI 0.55 to 1.73), or cervical cancer (pooled OR 1.09; 95 % CI 0.60 to 1.97).ConclusionIn our meta-analysis the rate of infectious complications associated with robotic-assisted hysterectomy was no different than that associated with conventional laparoscopic-assisted hysterectomy.

Recent studies have shown that using minimally invasive surgical techniques (conventional laparoscopy or robotic) for prostatectomy is associated with lower perioperative complication rates compared with open radical retropubic prostatectomy. However, differences in infectious complications between these minimally invasive approaches are not well characterized. To study this further, we performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of the infectious complications of prostatectomy, comparing robotic prostatectomy (RP) with conventional laparoscopic prostatectomy (LP).We searched PubMed, CINAHL, CDSR, and EMBASE through September 2018 for studies evaluating minimally invasive prostatectomy and infectious complications. We employed random-effect models to obtain pooled odds ratio (pOR) estimates. Heterogeneity was evaluated with IFifteen studies were included in the final review for the meta-analysis with 14,121 patients undergoing minimally invasive prostatectomy. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of infectious complication events between RP and LP (pOR 0.94; 95% CI 0.50, 1.76). When we performed a stratified analysis, similar results were found with no statistically significant difference in infectious complications comparing RP with LP among patients with prostate cancer (pOR 0.73; 95% CI 0.43, 1.24). We observed that infectious complications were nearly threefold higher with the robotic approach in earlier studies (published between 2007 and 2012, pOR 2.81; 95% CI 1.07, 7.39), but no significant difference was found in later studies (between 2013 and 2018, pOR 0.80, 95% CI 0.40, 1.57).The rate of infectious complications associated with RP was no different than that associated with conventional LP.

We compared the incidence of Clostridioides difficile infection before and after the discontinuation of Ultraviolet light used in addition to bleach in terminal disinfection of hospital rooms. We found no difference in C. difficile infection rates but found a decreased turn over time. The benefit of Ultraviolet light may be diminished in hospitals with a high thoroughness of manual cleaning.

Background:Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) remain a major challenge. Various strategies have been tried to prevent or control HAIs. Positive deviance, a strategy that has been used in the last decade, is based on the observation that a few at-risk individuals follow uncommon, useful practices and that, consequently, they experience better outcomes than their peers who share similar risks. We performed a systematic literature review to measure the impact of positive deviance in controlling HAIs.Methods:A systematic search strategy was used to search PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Embase through May 2020 for studies evaluating positive deviance as a single intervention or as part of an initiative to prevent or control healthcare-associated infections. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Downs and Black score.Results:Of 542 articles potentially eligible for review, 14 articles were included for further analysis. All studies were observational, quasi-experimental (before-and-after intervention) studies. Hand hygiene was the outcome in 8 studies (57%), and an improvement was observed in association with implementation of positive deviance as a single intervention in all of them. Overall HAI rates were measured in 5 studies (36%), and positive deviance was associated with an observed reduction in 4 (80%) of them. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections were evaluated in 5 studies (36%), and positive deviance containing bundles were successful in all of them.Conclusions:Positive deviance may be an effective strategy to improve hand hygiene and control HAIs. Further studies are needed to confirm this effect.

There are currently no guidelines for central-line insertion site evaluation. Our study revealed an association between insertion site inflammation (ISI) and the development of central-line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs). Automated surveillance for ISI is feasible and could help prevent CLABSI.

The global outbreak of invasive Mycobacterium chimaera infections associated with heater-cooler devices (HCDs) presented several important and unique challenges. To mitigate the risk of infection, we removed the HCDs from operating rooms (ORs) at our hospital and since that time (4.5 years ago) we have had no new cases.

We implemented serial coronavirus disease 2019 testing for inpatients with a negative test on admission. The conversion rate (negative to positive) on repeat testing was 1%. We identified patients during their incubation period and hospital-onset cases, rapidly isolated them, and potentially reduced exposures. Serial testing and infectiousness determination were resource intensive.

We performed a retrospective analysis of the impact of using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision procedure coding system (ICD-10) or current procedural terminology (CPT) codes to calculate surgical site infection (SSI) rates. Denominators and SSI rates vary depending on the coding method used. The coding method used may influence interhospital performance comparisons.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic created a significant disruption in the personal protective equipment (PPE) supply chain while simultaneously creating unprecedented demand for their use. Hospitals pursued different PPE strategies based on local factors, PPE availability, and interpretation of the evolving data on the epidemiology of the disease. After instituting universal face coverings, we sought to assess the comfort and tolerability, along with the advantages and disadvantages for face masks and face shields through a survey of employees at an academic medical center.

Background Contact precautions (CP) are a widely adopted strategy to prevent cross-transmission of organisms, commonly methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE). Some hospitals have discontinued CP for patients with MRSA or VRE; however, the impact on hospital-acquired infection rates (HAI) has not been assessed systematically. Methods Retrospective multicenter interrupted time series between 2002 and 2017 at three academic hospitals. Participating hospitals discontinued CP for patients with contained body fluids who were colonized or infected with MRSA or VRE. The primary intervention was stopping the use of CP. Secondary interventions were horizontal infection prevention strategies. The primary outcomes were rates of central line-associated bloodstream infections, catheter-associated urinary tract infections, mediastinal surgical site infection, and ventilator-associated pneumonia due to MRSA, VRE, or any organism using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Healthcare Safety Network surveillance definitions. Results Central line-associated bloodstream infections, catheter-associated urinary tract infections, mediastinal surgical site infection, and ventilator-associated pneumonia rates trended down at each institution. There were no statistically significant increases in these infections associated with discontinuing CP. Individual horizontal infection prevention strategies variably impacted HAI outcomes. Conclusions Stopping the routine use of CP for patients with contained body fluids who are colonized or infected with MRSA or VRE did not result in increased HAIs. Bundled horizontal infection prevention strategies resulted in sustained HAI reductions.

BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) and non-HCWs may contribute to the transmission of influenza-like illness (ILI) to colleagues and susceptible patients by working while sick (presenteeism). The present study aimed to explore the views and behavior of HCWs and non-HCWs towards the phenomenon of working while experiencing ILI.MethodsThe study was a cross-sectional online survey conducted between October 2018 and January 2019 to explore sickness presenteeism and the behaviour of HCWs and non-HCWs when experiencing ILI. The survey questionnaire was distributed to the members and international networks of the International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (ISAC) Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) Working Group, as well as via social media platforms, including LinkedIn, Twitter and IPC Blog.ResultsIn total, 533 respondents from 49 countries participated (Europe 69.2%, Asia-Pacific 19.1%, the Americas 10.9%, and Africa 0.8%) representing 249 HCWs (46.7%) and 284 non-HCWs (53.2%). Overall, 312 (58.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 56.2-64.6) would continue to work when sick with ILI, with no variation between the two categories. Sixty-seven (26.9%) HCWs and forty-six (16.2%) non-HCWs would work with fever alone (pConclusionA future strategy to successfully prevent the transmission of ILI in healthcare settings should address sick-leave policy management, in addition to encouraging the uptake of influenza vaccine.

Background Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI) systems are gaining popularity, however objective comparisons of their characteristics are lacking. While environmental cultures and reduction of hospital-associated infections rates are excellent study endpoints, they are impractical for centers with limited resources who want to compare or optimize UVGI systems use. Methods We evaluated radiometry and commercial test cards, two simple and low cost tools, to compare 2 full size UVGI systems (Tru-D and Optimum-UV Enlight) and 2 small units (Lumalier EDU 435 and MRSA-UV Turbo-UV). Results Radiometry-derived output curves show that if both large devices emit enough energy to reach C. difficile lethal doses at 10 ft, the reduction in output in distance is almost perfectly logarithmic. In a patient room environment, Enlight and Tru-D performed similarly when compared using radiometry and commercial test cards. The two small devices reached C. difficile range around the bathroom with the device raised above the floor, but longer times are needed. Conclusions Despite different workflows and price points, no clear superiority emerges between Tru-D and Enlight. Bathroom disinfection should be dealt with separately from the main room and small, cheaper units can be used. Radiometry and commercial test cards are promising ways to compare UVGI systems, but further validation is needed using correlation with environmental cultures. Trial registration Not applicable.

BACKGROUNDRecent studies have shown that using no-touch disinfection technologies (ie, ultraviolet light [UVL] or hydrogen peroxide vapor [HPV] systems) can limit the transmission of nosocomial pathogens and prevent healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). To investigate these findings further, we performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the impact of no-touch disinfection methods to decrease HAIs.METHODSWe searched PubMed, CINAHL, CDSR, DARE and EMBASE through April 2017 for studies evaluating no-touch disinfection technology and the nosocomial infection rates forClostridium difficile, methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus(MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), and other multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). We employed random-effect models to obtain pooled risk ratio (pRR) estimates. Heterogeneity was evaluated with I2estimation and the Cochran Q statistic. Pooled risk ratios forC. difficile, MRSA, VRE, and MDRO were assessed separately.RESULTSIn total, 20 studies were included in the final review: 13 studies using UVL systems and 7 studies using HPV systems. When the results of the UVL studies were pooled, statistically significant reduction insC. difficileinfection (CDI) (pRR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49–0.84) and VRE infection rates (pRR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.28–0.65) were observed. No differences were found in rates of MRSA or gram-negative multidrug-resistant pathogens.CONCLUSIONSUltraviolet light no-touch disinfection technology may be effective in preventing CDI and VRE infection.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2018;39:20–31

Background Although there are systems for reporting adverse drug reactions (ADR), these safety events remain under reported. The low-cost, low-tech trigger tool method is based on the detection of events through clues, and it seems to increase the detection of adverse events compared to traditional methodologies. This study seeks to estimate the prevalence of adverse reactions to drugs in patients seeking care in the emergency department. Methods Retrospective study from January to December, 2014, applying the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) trigger tool methodology for patients treated at the emergency room of a tertiary care hospital. Results The estimated prevalence of adverse reactions in patients presenting to the emergency department was 2.3% [CI95 1.3% to 3.3%]; 28.6% of cases required hospitalization at an average cost of US$ 5698.44. The most common triggers were hydrocortisone (57% of the cases), diphenhydramine (14%) and fexofenadine (14%). Anti-infectives (19%), cardiovascular agents (14%), and musculoskeletal drugs (14%) were the most common causes of adverse reactions. According to the Naranjo Scale, 71% were classified as possible and 29% as probable. There was no association between adverse reactions and age and sex in the present study. Conclusions The use of the trigger tool to identify adverse reactions in the emergency department was possible to identify a prevalence of 2.3%. It showed to be a viable method that can provide a better understanding of adverse drug reactions in this patient population.

Background: Hospitalized patients may unknowingly carry severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), even if they are admitted for other reasons. Because SARS-CoV-2 may remain positive by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for months after infection, patients with a positive result may not necessarily be infectious. We aimed to determine the frequency of SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients admitted for reasons unrelated to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics is an 811-bed tertiary-care center. We use a nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR to screen admitted patients without signs or symptoms compatible with COVID-19. Patients with positive tests undergo a repeat test to assess cycle threshold (Ct) value kinetics. We reviewed records for patients with positive RT-PCR screening admitted during July–October 2020. We used a combination of history, serologies, and RT-PCR Ct values to assess and qualify likelihood of infectiousness: (1) likely infectious, if Ct values were Results: In total, 6,447 patients were tested on hospital admission for any reason (persons under investigation or admitted for reasons other than COVID-19). Of these, 240 (4%) had positive results, but 65 (27%) of these were admitted for reasons other than COVID-19. In total, 55 patients had Ct values available and were included in this analysis. The median age was 56 years (range, 0–91), 28 (51%) were male, and 12 (5%) were children. The most frequent admission syndromes were neurological (36%), gastrointestinal (16%), and trauma (16%). Our assessment revealed 23 likely infections (42%; 14 definite, 9 possible) and 32 cases likely not infectious (58%). The mean Ct for patients who were likely infectious was 22; it was 34 for patients who were likely not infectious. Mean duration of in-hospital isolation was 6 days for those who were likely infectious and 2 days for those who were likely not infectious. We detected 8 individuals (1 healthcare worker and 7 patients) who were exposed to a likely infectious patient. Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients hospitalized for other reasons was infrequent. An assessment of the likelihood of infectiousness including history, RT-PCR Cts, and serology may help prioritize patients in need of isolation and contact investigations.Funding: NoDisclosures: None

Background: Manual cleaning is the recommended method of environmental disinfection; it plays a key role in the prevention of healthcare-associated infections. Recently, automated no-touch disinfection technologies, such as ultraviolet (UV) light, have been proposed as a supplement to manual cleaning. However, UV light adds time to the cleaning process and may decrease the quality of manual cleaning. We evaluated the impact of adding UV light on the quality of manual cleaning and on room turnover times. Methods: During January–September 2019, we assessed the thoroughness of disinfection cleaning (TDC) of environmental surfaces in rooms identified for discharge. According to hospital policy, contact precautions rooms use UV light after manual cleaning with an EPA-approved sporicidal agent (bleach). Non–contact precautions rooms are disinfected using quaternary ammonium only. Rooms were identified after patient admission, selected randomly, and marked once discharge orders were placed. Fluorescent markers were applied on high-touch surfaces before discharge and were assessed after the cleaning process was completed. TDC scores were defined as the percentage of cleaned surfaces of the total of examined surfaces. UV-light disinfection time is determined automatically based on room size. We compared TDC scores and manual cleaning times between contact precautions rooms and noncontact precautions rooms. We also calculated UV-light cycle durations. Results: We assessed 2,383 surfaces in 24 contact precautions rooms with UV-light disinfection and 201 noncontact precautions rooms without UV-light disinfection. The TDC score was similar in contact precautions rooms (243 of 273 surfaces) and noncontact precautions rooms (1,835 of 2,110 surfaces; 89% vs 87%). The median manual cleaning time for contact precautions rooms was 56 minutes (IQR, 37–79), and for noncontact precautions rooms the median manual cleaning time was 33 minutes (IQR, 22–43). UV-light use added a median of 49 minutes (IQR, 35–67) to the overall cleaning process. The median turnover time for contact precautions rooms was 156 minutes (IQR, 87–216) versus 58 minutes (IQR, 40–86) in noncontact precautions room. Conclusions: In a setting with an objective assessment of environmental cleaning, there was no difference in quality of manual cleaning between contact precautions rooms (UV light) and noncontact precautions rooms (UV light). Adding UV light following manual disinfection increased the overall cleaning time and delayed room availability.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

Background: Including infection preventionists (IPs) in hospital design, construction, and renovation projects is important. According to the Joint Commission, “Infection control oversights during building design or renovations commonly result in regulatory problems, millions lost and even patient deaths.” We evaluated the number of active major construction projects at our 800-bed hospital with 6.0 IP FTEs and the IP time required for oversight. Methods: We reviewed construction records from October 2018 through October 2019. We classified projects as active if any construction occurred during the study period. We describe the types of projects: inpatient, outpatient, non–patient care, and the potential impact to patient health through infection control risk assessments (ICRA). ICRAs were classified as class I (non–patient-care area and minimal construction activity), class II (patients are not likely to be in the area and work is small scale), class III (patient care area and work requires demolition that generates dust), and class IV (any area requiring environmental precautions). We calculated the time spent visiting construction sites and in design meetings. Results: During October 2018–October 2019, there were 51 active construction projects with an average of 15 active sites per week. These sites included a wide range of projects from a new bone marrow transplant unit, labor and delivery expansion and renovation, space conversion to an inpatient unit to a project for multiple air handler replacements. All 51 projects were classified as class III or class IV. We visited, on average, 4 construction sites each week for 30 minutes per site, leaving 11 sites unobserved due to time constraints. We spent an average of 120 minutes weekly, but 450 minutes would have been required to observe all 15 sites. Yearly, the required hours to observe these active construction sites once weekly would be 390 hours. In addition to the observational hours, 124 hours were spent in design meetings alone, not considering the preparation time and follow-up required for these meetings. Conclusions: In a large academic medical center, IPs had time available to visit only a quarter of active projects on an ongoing basis. Increasing dedicated IP time in construction projects is essential to mitigating infection control risks in large hospitals.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

Background: Central lines (CL) are widely used in the inpatient setting and central-line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) is a serious complication of CL use. Because CL insertion site inflammation (ISI) may precede the onset of CLABSI, we aimed to define ISI, to determine whether ISI was associated with CLABSI, and to develop an automated surveillance system for ISI. Methods: We extracted electronic medical records (EMRs) of adult patients hospitalized at the University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics during January 2015–December 2018. Nurses routinely document CL insertion-site characteristics in specifically designed flow sheets in the EMR. An ISI was counted every time ≥1 of the following signs were documented during CL assessments: edema, erythema, induration, tenderness, or drainage. A 1:2 case-control investigation was performed by matching nonmucosal barrier injury (non-MBI) CLABSI patients (cases) to patients without a CLABSI diagnosis (controls). We matched for age (±10 years), sex, date (±30 days), inpatient unit, central-line days, and central-line type (temporary vs permanent). The main exposure of interest was having an ISI on or before CLABSI onset. CLABSIs were determined using CDC NHSN definitions. We then created a metric: ISI days (defined as the number of days with ≥1 ISI documented) and plotted ISI incidence (ISI days per central-line days) to quantify the burden of ISIs and to determine whether ISI and non-MBI CLABSI incidences were collinear. An automated surveillance system for ISI was created using structured query language queries to the EMR data repository and Tableau software. Results: During 2015–2018, we detected 194 CLABSI cases that were matched to 338 controls. CLABSI patients had greater odds of having an ISI (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.3–4.0). Over the study period, ISI incidence decreased from ~80 to ~50 ISI days per 1,000 CL days. Non-MBI CLABSI rates also decreased from ~1.5 to ~1.0 CLABSIs per 1,000 CL days. Conclusions: ISI incidence is associated with non-MBI CLABSI incidence. Because ISI incidence is higher than CLABSI incidence, surveillance for ISI could be a more sensitive indicator for monitoring the impact of CLABSI prevention practices. Automated surveillance for novel process metrics is a promising infection prevention tool.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

OBJECTIVE Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) pose a challenge to patient safety. Although studies have explored individual level, few have focused on organizational factors such as a hospital's safety infrastructure (indicated by Leapfrog Hospital Safety Score) or workplace quality (Magnet recognition). The aim of the study was to determine whether Magnet and hospitals with better Leapfrog Hospital Safety Scores have fewer HAIs. METHODS Ordered probit regression analyses tested associations between Safety Score, Magnet status, and standardized infection ratios, depicting whether a hospital had a Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bloodstream infection standardized infection ratio that was "better," "no different," or "worse" than a National Benchmark as per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Healthcare Safety Network definitions. RESULTS Accounting for confounders, relative to "A" hospitals, "B" and "C" hospitals had significant and negative relationships with CDI (-0.16, P < 0.01, and -0.14, P < 0.05, respectively) but not MRSA bacteremia. Magnet hospitals had a significant and positive relationship with MRSA bloodstream infections (0.74, P < 0.001) but a significant negative relationship with CDI (-0.21, P < 0.01) compared with non-Magnet. CONCLUSIONS A hospitals performed better on CDI but not MRSA bloodstream infections. In contrast, Magnet designation was associated with fewer than expected MRSA infections but more than expected CDIs. These mixed results indicate that hospital global assessments of safety and workplace quality differentially and imperfectly predict its level of HAIs, suggesting the need for more precise organizational measures of safety and more nuanced approaches to infection prevention and reduction.

The global outbreak of Mycobacterium chimaera infections associated with heater-cooler devices (HCDs) presents several important, unique challenges for the infection prevention community. The primary focus of this article is to assist hospitals in establishing a rapid response for identification, notification, and evaluation of exposed patients, and management of HCDs with regard to placement and containment, environmental culturing, and disinfection.

No comprehensive guidelines or classification exist for infection prevention strategies for medical procedures performed outside operating rooms. We reviewed the available literature and used our clinical experience to develop a progressive, 5-tiered classification of procedures, encompassing clean, aseptic, sterile-superficial, sterile-invasive, and surgical-like procedures to address this need. We provide a description of these categories, along with relevant examples. We fully acknowledge the limitations of our work, which is intended as a starting point for future efforts and not to be definitive.

BackgroundIn epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or coronavirus (COVID‐19), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk by covering exposed body parts. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train HCWs to use PPE as instructed.ObjectivesTo evaluate which type of full‐body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols.Search methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to 20 March 2020.Selection criteriaWe included all controlled studies that evaluated the effect of full‐body PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training on the same outcomes.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials. We conducted random‐effects meta‐analyses were appropriate.Main resultsEarlier versions of this review were published in 2016 and 2019. In this update, we included 24 studies with 2278 participants, of which 14 were randomised controlled trials (RCT), one was a quasi‐RCT and nine had a non‐randomised design.Eight studies compared types of PPE. Six studies evaluated adapted PPE. Eight studies compared donning and doffing processes and three studies evaluated types of training. Eighteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless microbes. In simulation studies, median contamination rates were 25% for the intervention and 67% for the control groups.Evidence for all outcomes is of very low certainty unless otherwise stated because it is based on one or two studies, the indirectness of the evidence in simulation studies and because of risk of bias.Types of PPEThe use of a powered, air‐purifying respirator with coverall may protect against the risk of contamination better than a N95 mask and gown (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.43) but was more difficult to don (non‐compliance: RR 7.5, 95% CI 1.81 to 31.1). In one RCT (59 participants) coveralls were more difficult to doff than isolation gowns (very low‐certainty evidence). Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (small patches: mean difference (MD) −10.28, 95% CI −14.77 to −5.79). PPE made of more breathable material may lead to a similar number of spots on the trunk (MD 1.60, 95% CI −0.15 to 3.35) compared to more water‐repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD −0.46, 95% CI −0.84 to −0.08, scale of 1 to 5). According to three studies that tested more recently introduced full‐body PPE ensembles, there may be no difference in contamination.Modified PPE versus standard PPEThe following modifications to PPE design may lead to less contamination compared to standard PPE: sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55), a better cover of the gown‐wrist interface (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, low‐certainty evidence), added tabs to grab to facilitate doffing of masks (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31).Donning and doffingUsing Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (small patches: MD −5.44, 95% CI −7.43 to −3.45). One‐step removal of gloves and gown may lead to less bacterial contamination (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.77) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28) than separate removal. Double‐gloving may lead to less viral or bacterial contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28). Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD −0.9, 95% CI −1.4 to −0.4) and to fewer contamination spots (MD −5, 95% CI −8.08 to −1.92). Extra sanitation of gloves before doffing with quaternary ammonium or bleach may decrease contamination, but not alcohol‐based hand rub.TrainingThe use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD −1.2, 95% CI −1.6 to −0.7). A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70, 95% CI 20.14 to 41.26) than a traditional lecture. Face‐to‐face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only.Authors' conclusionsWe found low‐ to very low‐certainty evidence that covering more parts of the body leads to better protection but usually comes at the cost of more difficult donning or doffing and less user comfort. More breathable types of PPE may lead to similar contamination but may have greater user satisfaction. Modifications to PPE design, such as tabs to grab, may decrease the risk of contamination. For donning and doffing procedures, following CDC doffing guidance, a one‐step glove and gown removal, double‐gloving, spoken instructions during doffing, and using glove disinfection may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face‐to‐face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than folder‐based training.We still need RCTs of training with long‐term follow‐up. We need simulation studies with more participants to find out which combinations of PPE and which doffing procedure protects best. Consensus on simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. We also need more real‐life evidence. Therefore, the use of PPE of HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should be registered and the HCW should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

Metronidazole is commonly used in the treatment of anaerobic infections. While neuropathy is known to be associated with metronidazole, encephalopathy has been rarely reported. We herein present a case of metronidazole-induced encephalopathy presenting as frequent falls and slurred speech. Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain demonstrated T2/FLAIR hyperintensity in the dentate nuclei bilaterally. Soon after the discontinuation of metronidazole, dysarthria and dysmetria resolved. Metronidazole-induced encephalopathy should be considered in patients presenting with new neurologic symptoms after the initiation of metronidazole. Keywords: Metronidazole, Encephalopathy