Search

Background:Prophylactic antibiotics are commonly prescribed at discharge for mastectomy, despite guidelines recommending against this practice. We investigated factors associated with postdischarge prophylactic antibiotic use after mastectomy with and without immediate reconstruction and the impact on surgical-site infection (SSI).Study design:We studied a cohort of women aged 18–64 years undergoing mastectomy between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2015, using the MarketScan commercial database. Patients with nonsurgical perioperative infections were excluded. Postdischarge oral antibiotics were identified from outpatient drug claims. SSI was defined using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis codes. Generalized linear models were used to determine factors associated with postdischarge prophylactic antibiotic use and SSI.Results:The cohort included 38,793 procedures; 24,818 (64%) with immediate reconstruction. Prophylactic antibiotics were prescribed after discharge after 2,688 mastectomy-only procedures (19.2%) and 17,807 mastectomies with immediate reconstruction (71.8%). The 90-day incidence of SSI was 3.5% after mastectomy only and 8.8% after mastectomy with immediate reconstruction. Antibiotics with anti–methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) activity were associated with decreased SSI risk after mastectomy only (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55–0.99) and mastectomy with immediate reconstruction (aRR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73–0.88), respectively. The numbers needed to treat to prevent 1 additional SSI were 107 and 48, respectively.Conclusions:Postdischarge prophylactic antibiotics were common after mastectomy. Anti-MSSA antibiotics were associated with decreased risk of SSI for patients who had mastectomy only and those who had mastectomy with immediate reconstruction. The high numbers needed to treat suggest that potential benefits of postdischarge antibiotics should be weighed against potential harms associated with antibiotic overuse.

The importance of visual perception, motor coordination and visual motor integration (VMI) skills for school achievements has been shown in various studies. Cognitive orientation to daily occupational performance or CO-OP is an evidence-based approach that has been effective in children with developmental coordination disorder and autism spectrum. The present study evaluated the effect of CO-OP approach in improving VMI skills in children with learning disability. Sample of 58 children were included in the study. National Centre for Learning Disabilities (NCLD) Checklist was used as a screen tool and pre and post intervention Beery VMI and Canadian Occupational Performance Measures (COPM) was used as outcome measures.Occupational therapy program using CO-OP approach, based on each childs individualized goals. children were thought global strategy of GO-PLAN-DO-CHECK the sessions were conducted for 12 weeks one hour a day three times a week. After 12 weeks post assessment was done using t test. There significant difference in pre and post CO-OP intervention. p-value was found to be less than 0.0001 for VMI, COPM performance and satisfaction whereas, there was significant difference in motor coordination and visual perception component of Beery VMI. The result shows that CO-OP approach is effective in improving visual motor integration skills of children with learning disability.

High case counts after the Gamma (P. 1) variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 emerged in Brazil raised concerns that previously infected persons might become reinfected. Investigation of a cluster of coronavirus disease cases in Parintins, in the Brazilian Amazon, suggested household transmission but did not identify high rates of reinfection.

Objective:Ventilator-capable skilled nursing facilities (vSNFs) are critical to the epidemiology and control of antibiotic-resistant organisms. During an infection prevention intervention to control carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), we conducted a qualitative study to characterize vSNF healthcare personnel beliefs and experiences regarding infection control measures.Design:A qualitative study involving semistructured interviews.Setting:One vSNF in the Chicago, Illinois, metropolitan region.Participants:The study included 17 healthcare personnel representing management, nursing, and nursing assistants.Methods:We used face-to-face, semistructured interviews to measure healthcare personnel experiences with infection control measures at the midpoint of a 2-year quality improvement project.Results:Healthcare personnel characterized their facility as a home-like environment, yet they recognized that it is a setting where germs were ‘invisible’ and potentially ‘threatening.’ Healthcare personnel described elaborate self-protection measures to avoid acquisition or transfer of germs to their own household. Healthcare personnel were motivated to implement infection control measures to protect residents, but many identified structural barriers such as understaffing and time constraints, and some reported persistent preference for soap and water.Conclusions:Healthcare personnel in vSNFs, from management to frontline staff, understood germ theory and the significance of multidrug-resistant organism transmission. However, their ability to implement infection control measures was hampered by resource limitations and mixed beliefs regarding the effectiveness of infection control measures. Self-protection from acquiring multidrug-resistant organisms was a strong motivator for healthcare personnel both outside and inside the workplace, and it could explain variation in adherence to infection control measures such as a higher hand hygiene adherence after resident care than before resident care.

Objectives Best practice guidelines and quality metrics recommend immediate antibiotic treatment for all patients with suspected sepsis. However, little is known about how many patients given IV antibiotics in the emergency department are ultimately confirmed to have bacterial infection. Design, setting, and patients We performed a retrospective study of adult patients who presented to four Massachusetts emergency departments between June 2015 and June 2018 with suspected serious bacterial infection, defined as blood cultures drawn and broad-spectrum IV antibiotics administered. Structured medical record reviews were performed on a random sample of 300 cases to determine the post hoc likelihood of bacterial infection, categorized as definite, likely, unlikely, or definitely none. Interventions None. Measurements and main results Among the 300 patients with suspected serious bacterial infections, mean age was 68 years (SD 18), median hospital length of stay was 5 days (interquartile range, 3-8 d), 45 (15%) were admitted directly to ICU, and 14 (5%) died in hospital. Overall, 196 (65%) had definite (n = 115; 38%) or likely (n = 81; 27%) bacterial infection, whereas 104 (35%) were unlikely (n = 55; 18%) or definitely not infected (n = 49; 16%). Antibiotic treatment durations differed by likelihood of infection (median 15 days for definite, 9 for likely, 7 for unlikely, and 3 for definitely not infected). The most frequent post hoc diagnoses in patients with unlikely or definitely no bacterial infection included viral infections (28%), volume overload or cardiac disease (9%), drug effects (9%), and hypovolemia (7%). The likelihoods of infection were similar in the subset of 96 cases in whom emergency department providers explicitly documented possible or suspected sepsis and in the 45 patients admitted from the emergency department to the ICU. Conclusions One third of patients empirically treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics in the emergency department are ultimately diagnosed with noninfectious or viral conditions. These findings underscore the difficulty diagnosing serious infections in the emergency department and have important implications for guidelines and quality measures that compel immediate empiric antibiotics for all patients with possible sepsis.

Objective:Alteration of the colonic microbiota following antimicrobial exposure allows colonization by antimicrobial-resistant organisms (AROs). Ingestion of a probiotic, such as Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG), could prevent colonization or infection with AROs by promoting healthy colonic microbiota. The purpose of this trial was to determine the effect of LGG administration on ARO colonization in hospitalized patients receiving antibiotics.Design:Prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial of LGG versus placebo among patients receiving broad-spectrum antibiotics.Setting:Tertiary care center.Patients:In total, 88 inpatients receiving broad-spectrum antibiotics were enrolled.Intervention:Patients were randomized to receive 1 capsule containing 1×1010 cells of LGG twice daily (n = 44) or placebo (n = 44), stratified by ward type. Stool or rectal-swab specimens were collected for culture at enrollment, during admission, and at discharge. Using selective media, specimens were cultured for Clostridioides difficile, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp (VRE), and antibiotic-resistant gram-negative bacteria. The primary outcome was any ARO acquisition. Secondary outcomes included loss of any ARO if colonized at enrollment, and acquisition or loss of individual ARO.Results:ARO colonization prevalence at study enrollment was similar (LGG 39% vs placebo 39%). We detected no difference in any ARO acquisition (LGG 30% vs placebo 33%; OR,1.19; 95% CI, 0.38–3.75) nor for any individual ARO acquisition. There was no difference in the loss of any ARO (LGG 18% vs placebo 24%; OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.27–7.68) nor for any individual ARO.Conclusion:LGG administration neither prevented acquisition of ARO nor accelerated loss of ARO colonization.

RESUMENCuando se retira el equipo de protección personal (EPP), los patógenos pueden transferirse desde el EPP al cuerpo de los trabajadores de la salud, poniendo en riesgo de exposición e infección tanto a ellos mismos como a sus pacientes. Entre marzo de 2017 y abril de 2018 se observaron las prácticas de retirada del EPP del personal sanitario que atendía pacientes con infecciones respiratorias virales en un hospital de atención de enfermedades agudas. Un observador capacitado registró el desempeño del personal sanitario cuando retiraba el EPP dentro de las habitaciones de los pacientes, utilizando una lista de verificación predefinida basada en las directrices de los Centros para el Control y Prevención de Enfermedades (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC). Se observaron 162 prácticas de retirada durante el cuidado de 52 pacientes infectados con patógenos virales respiratorios. De estos 52 pacientes, 30 estaban en aislamiento por gota y contacto, 21 en aislamiento por gota y uno en aislamiento de contacto. En general, en 90% de los casos la retirada del EPP observada se realizó de manera incorrecta, ya sea en cuanto a la secuencia de retirada, la técnica de retirada o el uso del EPP apropiado. Los errores más comunes consistieron en quitarse la bata por adelante, retirar la pantalla facial de la mascarilla y tocar superficies y EPP potencialmente contaminados durante el proceso. Las desviaciones del protocolo recomendado para retirar el EPP son comunes y pueden aumentar el potencial de contaminación de la ropa o la piel del personal sanitario después de proporcionar atención. Existe una clara necesidad de cambiar el enfoque utilizado para capacitar al personal en las prácticas de retirada del EPP.

Summary Background Hospitals are sources for acquisition of carbapenem-resistant Entero-bacterales (CRE), and it is believed that the contamination of healthcare personnel (HCP) hands and clothing play a major role in patient-to-patient transmission of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Aim The aim of this study was to determine which HCP types, HCP–patient interactions, and patient characteristics are associated with greater transmission of CRE to HCP gloves and gowns in the hospital. Methods This was a prospective observational cohort study that enrolled patients with recent surveillance or clinical cultures positive for CRE at five hospitals in four states in the USA. HCP gloves and gown were cultured after patient care. Samples were also obtained from patients' stool, perianal area, and skin of the chest and arm to assess bacterial burden. Findings Among 313 CRE-colonized patients and 3070 glove and gown cultures obtained after patient care, HCP gloves and gowns were found to be contaminated with CRE 7.9% and 4.3% of the time, respectively. Contamination of either gloves or gowns occurred in 10.0% of interactions. Contamination was highest (15.3%) among respiratory therapists (odds ratio: 3.79; 95% confidence interval: 1.61–8.94) and when any HCP touched the patient (1.52; 1.10–2.12). Associations were also found between CRE transmission to HCP gloves or gown and: being in the intensive care unit, having a positive clinical culture, and increasing bacterial burden on the patient. Conclusion CRE transmission to HCP gloves and gown occurred frequently. These findings may inform evidence-based policies about what situations and for which patients contact precautions are most important.

As cases and deaths from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Europe rose sharply in late March, most European countries implemented strict mitigation policies, including closure of nonessential businesses and mandatory stay-at-home orders. These policies were largely successful at curbing transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (1), but they came with social and economic costs, including increases in unemployment, interrupted education, social isolation, and related psychosocial outcomes (2,3). A better understanding of when and how these policies were effective is needed. Using data from 37 European countries, the impact of the timing of these mitigation policies on mortality from COVID-19 was evaluated. Linear regression was used to assess the association between policy stringency at an early time point and cumulative mortality per 100,000 persons on June 30. Implementation of policies earlier in the course of the outbreak was associated with lower COVID-19-associated mortality during the subsequent months. An increase by one standard deviation in policy stringency at an early timepoint was associated with 12.5 cumulative fewer deaths per 100,000 on June 30. Countries that implemented stringent policies earlier might have saved several thousand lives relative to those countries that implemented similar policies, but later. Earlier implementation of mitigation policies, even by just a few weeks, might be an important strategy to reduce the number of deaths from COVID-19.

As of January 3, 2021, a total of 20,346,372 cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 349,246 associated deaths have been reported in the United States. Long-term sequalae of COVID-19 over the course of a lifetime currently are unknown; however, persistent symptoms and serious complications are being reported among COVID-19 survivors, including persons who initially experience a mild acute illness.* On December 11, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to prevent COVID-19, administered as 2 doses separated by 21 days. On December 12, 2020, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued an interim recommendation for use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (1); initial doses were recommended for health care personnel and long-term care facility residents (2). As of December 23, 2020, a reported 1,893,360 first doses of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine had been administered in the United States, and reports of 4,393 (0.2%) adverse events after receipt of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine had been submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Among these, 175 case reports were identified for further review as possible cases of severe allergic reaction, including anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening allergic reaction that does occur rarely after vaccination, with onset typically within minutes to hours (3). Twenty-one cases were determined to be anaphylaxis (a rate of 11.1 per million doses administered), including 17 in persons with a documented history of allergies or allergic reactions, seven of whom had a history of anaphylaxis. The median interval from vaccine receipt to symptom onset was 13 minutes (range = 2-150 minutes). Among 20 persons with follow-up information available, all had recovered or been discharged home. Of the remaining case reports that were determined not to be anaphylaxis, 86 were judged to be nonanaphylaxis allergic reactions, and 61 were considered nonallergic adverse events. Seven case reports were still under investigation. This report summarizes the clinical and epidemiologic characteristics of case reports of allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis and nonanaphylaxis allergic reactions, after receipt of the first dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine during December 14-23, 2020, in the United States. CDC has issued updated interim clinical considerations for use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines currently authorized in the United States (4) and interim considerations for preparing for the potential management of anaphylaxis (5). In addition to screening for contraindications and precautions before administering COVID-19 vaccines, vaccine locations should have the necessary supplies available to manage anaphylaxis, should implement postvaccination observation periods, and should immediately treat persons experiencing anaphylaxis signs and symptoms with intramuscular injection of epinephrine (4,5).

As of January 20, 2021, a total of 24,135,690 cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 400,306 associated deaths had been reported in the United States (https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100klast7days). On December 18, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Moderna COVID-19 vaccine administered as 2 doses, 1 month apart to prevent COVID-19. On December 19, 2020, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued an interim recommendation for use of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine (1). As of January 10, 2021, a reported 4,041,396 first doses of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine had been administered in the United States, and reports of 1,266 (0.03%) adverse events after receipt of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine were submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Among these, 108 case reports were identified for further review as possible cases of severe allergic reaction, including anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening allergic reaction that occurs rarely after vaccination, with onset typically within minutes to hours (2). Among these case reports, 10 cases were determined to be anaphylaxis (a rate of 2.5 anaphylaxis cases per million Moderna COVID-19 vaccine doses administered), including nine in persons with a documented history of allergies or allergic reactions, five of whom had a previous history of anaphylaxis. The median interval from vaccine receipt to symptom onset was 7.5 minutes (range = 1-45 minutes). Among eight persons with follow-up information available, all had recovered or been discharged home. Among the remaining case reports that were determined not to be anaphylaxis, 47 were assessed to be nonanaphylaxis allergic reactions, and 47 were considered nonallergic adverse events. For four case reports, investigators have been unable to obtain sufficient information to assess the likelihood of anaphylaxis. This report summarizes the clinical and epidemiologic characteristics of case reports of allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis and nonanaphylaxis allergic reactions, after receipt of the first dose of Moderna COVID-19 vaccine during December 21, 2020-January 10, 2021, in the United States. CDC has issued updated interim clinical considerations for use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines currently authorized in the United States (3) and interim considerations for preparing for the potential management of anaphylaxis (4).

On August 1, 2018, the Democratic Republic of the Congo Ministry of Health (DRC MoH) declared the tenth outbreak of Ebola virus disease (Ebola) in DRC, in the North Kivu province in eastern DRC on the border with Uganda, 8 days after another Ebola outbreak was declared over in northwest Equateur province. During mid- to late-July 2018, a cluster of 26 cases of acute hemorrhagic fever, including 20 deaths, was reported in North Kivu province.* Blood specimens from six patients hospitalized in the Mabalako health zone and sent to the Institut National de Recherche Biomedicale (National Biomedical Research Institute) in Kinshasa tested positive for Ebola virus. Genetic sequencing confirmed that the outbreaks in North Kivu and Equateur provinces were unrelated. From North Kivu province, the outbreak spread north to Ituri province, and south to South Kivu province (1). On July 17, 2019, the World Health Organization designated the North Kivu and Ituri outbreak a public health emergency of international concern, based on the geographic spread of the disease to Goma, the capital of North Kivu province, and to Uganda and the challenges to implementing prevention and control measures specific to this region (2). This report describes the outbreak in the North Kivu and Ituri provinces. As of November 17, 2019, a total of 3,296 Ebola cases and 2,196 (67%) deaths were reported, making this the second largest documented outbreak after the 2014-2016 epidemic in West Africa, which resulted in 28,600 cases and 11,325 deaths.† Since August 2018, DRC MoH has been collaborating with partners, including the World Health Organization, the United Nations Children's Fund, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the International Organization of Migration, The Alliance for International Medical Action (ALIMA), Medecins Sans Frontieres, DRC Red Cross National Society, and CDC, to control the outbreak. Enhanced communication and effective community engagement, timing of interventions during periods of relative stability, and intensive training of local residents to manage response activities with periodic supervision by national and international personnel are needed to end the outbreak.

In a large, system-wide, healthcare personnel (HCP) testing experience using severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and serologic testing early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we did not find increased infection risk related to COVID-19 patient contact. Our findings support workplace policies for HCP protection and underscore the role of community exposure and asymptomatic infection.

As of December 14, 2020, children and adolescents aged

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a viral respiratory illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. During January 21-July 25, 2020, in response to official requests for assistance with COVID-19 emergency public health response activities, CDC deployed 208 teams to assist 55 state, tribal, local, and territorial health departments. CDC deployment data were analyzed to summarize activities by deployed CDC teams in assisting state, tribal, local, and territorial health departments to identify and implement measures to contain SARS-CoV-2 transmission (1). Deployed teams assisted with the investigation of transmission in high-risk congregate settings, such as long-term care facilities (53 deployments; 26% of total), food processing facilities (24; 12%), correctional facilities (12; 6%), and settings that provide services to persons experiencing homelessness (10; 5%). Among the 208 deployed teams, 178 (85%) provided assistance to state health departments, 12 (6%) to tribal health departments, 10 (5%) to local health departments, and eight (4%) to territorial health departments. CDC collaborations with health departments have strengthened local capacity and provided outbreak response support. Collaborations focused attention on health equity issues among disproportionately affected populations (e.g., racial and ethnic minority populations, essential frontline workers, and persons experiencing homelessness) and through a place-based focus (e.g., persons living in rural or frontier areas). These collaborations also facilitated enhanced characterization of COVID-19 epidemiology, directly contributing to CDC data-informed guidance, including guidance for serial testing as a containment strategy in high-risk congregate settings, targeted interventions and prevention efforts among workers at food processing facilities, and social distancing.

The extent to which donor multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) affect organ utilization remains unclear. We performed a retrospective cohort study at 4 transplant centers between 2015 and 2016 to evaluate this question. All deceased donors who donated at least one organ were included. Exposed donors had at least one MDRO on culture. Unexposed donors had no MDRO-positive cultures. Only cultures obtained during the donor's terminal hospitalization were evaluated. Multivariable regression was used to determine the association between donor MDRO and (1) number of organs transplanted per donor and (2) the match run at which each organ was accepted. Subsequently, we restricted the analysis to donors with MDR-Gram-negative (GN) organisms. Of 440 total donors, 29 (7%) donors grew MDROs and 7 (2%) grew MDR-GNs. There was no significant association between donor MDRO and either measure of organ utilization. However, donor MDR-GNs were associated with a significant reduction in the number of organs transplanted per donor (incidence rate ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-0.48, P < .01), and organs were accepted significantly further down the match list (relative count 5.08, 95% CI 1.64-15.68, P = .01). Though donor MDR-GNs were infrequent in our study, their growing prevalence could meaningfully reduce the donor pool over time.

Background:Fluoroquinolones (FQs) and extended-spectrum cephalosporins (ESCs) are associated with higher risk of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). Decreasing the unnecessary use of FQs and ESCs is a goal of antimicrobial stewardship. Understanding how prescribers perceive the risks and benefits of FQs and ESCs is needed.Methods:We conducted interviews with clinicians from 4 hospitals. Interviews elicited respondent perceptions about the risk of ESCs, FQs, and CDI. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a flexible coding approach.Results:Interviews were conducted with 64 respondents (38 physicians, 7 nurses, 6 advance practice providers, and 13 pharmacists). ESCs and FQs were perceived to have many benefits, including infrequent dosing, breadth of coverage, and greater patient adherence after hospital discharge. Prescribers stated that it was easy to make decisions about these drugs, so they were especially appealing to use in the context of time pressures. They described having difficulty discontinuing these drugs when prescribed by others due to inertia and fear. Prescribers were skeptical about targeting specific drugs as a stewardship approach and felt that the risk of a negative outcome from under treatment of a suspected bacterial infection was a higher priority than the prevention of CDI.Conclusions:Prescribers in this study perceived many advantages to using ESCs and FQs, especially under conditions of time pressure and uncertainty. In making decisions about these drugs, prescribers balance risk and benefit, and they believed that the risk of CDI was acceptable in compared with the risk of undertreatment.

Community transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was first detected in the United States in February 2020. By mid-March, all 50 states, the District of Columbia (DC), New York City (NYC), and four U.S. territories had reported cases of COVID-19. This report describes the geographic distribution of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases and related deaths reported by each U.S. state, each territory and freely associated state,* DC, and NYC during February 12-April 7, 2020, and estimates cumulative incidence for each jurisdiction. In addition, it projects the jurisdiction-level trajectory of this pandemic by estimating case doubling times on April 7 and changes in cumulative incidence during the most recent 7-day period (March 31-April 7). As of April 7, 2020, a total of 395,926 cases of COVID-19, including 12,757 related deaths, were reported in the United States. Cumulative COVID-19 incidence varied substantially by jurisdiction, ranging from 20.6 cases per 100,000 in Minnesota to 915.3 in NYC. On April 7, national case doubling time was approximately 6.5 days, although this ranged from 5.5 to 8.0 days in the 10 jurisdictions reporting the most cases. Absolute change in cumulative incidence during March 31-April 7 also varied widely, ranging from an increase of 8.3 cases per 100,000 in Minnesota to 418.0 in NYC. Geographic differences in numbers of COVID-19 cases and deaths, cumulative incidence, and changes in incidence likely reflect a combination of jurisdiction-specific epidemiologic and population-level factors, including 1) the timing of COVID-19 introductions; 2) population density; 3) age distribution and prevalence of underlying medical conditions among COVID-19 patients (1-3); 4) the timing and extent of community mitigation measures; 5) diagnostic testing capacity; and 6) public health reporting practices. Monitoring jurisdiction-level numbers of COVID-19 cases, deaths, and changes in incidence is critical for understanding community risk and making decisions about community mitigation, including social distancing, and strategic health care resource allocation.

Objective:To characterize the presence and magnitude of viruses in the air and on surfaces in the rooms of hospitalized patients with respiratory viral infections, and to explore the association between care activities and viral contamination.Design:Prospective observational study.Setting:Acute-care academic hospital.Participants:In total, 52 adult patients with a positive respiratory viral infection test within 3 days of observation participated. Healthcare workers (HCWs) were recruited in staff meetings and at the time of patient care, and 23 wore personal air-sampling devices.Methods:Viruses were measured in the air at a fixed location and in the personal breathing zone of HCWs. Predetermined environmental surfaces were sampled using premoistened Copan swabs at the beginning and at the end of the 3-hour observation period. Preamplification and quantitative real-time PCR methods were used to quantify viral pathogens.Results:Overall, 43% of stationary and 22% of personal air samples were positive for virus. Positive stationary air samples were associated with ≥5 HCW encounters during the observation period (odds ratio [OR], 5.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2–37.8). Viruses were frequently detected on all of the surfaces sampled. Virus concentrations on the IV pole hanger and telephone were positively correlated with the number of contacts made by HCWs on those surfaces. The distributions of influenza, rhinoviruses, and other viruses in the environment were similar.Conclusions:Healthcare workers are at risk of contracting respiratory virus infections when delivering routine care for patients infected with the viruses, and they are at risk of disseminating virus because they touch virus-contaminated fomites.

We assessed environmental contamination of inpatient rooms housing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in a dedicated COVID-19 unit. Contamination with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 was found on 5.5% (19/347) of surfaces via reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction and 0.3% (1/347) of surfaces via cell culture. Environmental contamination is uncommon in hospitals rooms; RNA presence is not a specific indicator of infectious virus.

We assessed environmental contamination of inpatient rooms housing COVID-19 patients in a dedicated COVID-19 unit. Contamination with SARS-CoV-2 was found on 5.5% (19/347) of surfaces via RT-PCR and 0.3% (1/347) of surfaces via cell culture. Environmental contamination is uncommon in hospitals rooms; RNA presence is not a specific indicator of infectious virus.

Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) collected by trained healthcare professionals are the preferred specimen for SARS-CoV-2 testing. Self-collected specimens might decrease patient discomfort, conserve healthcare resources, and be preferred by patients. During August – November 2020, 1,806 adults undergoing SARS-CoV-2 testing in Denver, Colorado and Atlanta, Georgia, provided self-collected anterior nares swabs (ANS) and saliva specimens before NPS collection. Compared to NPS, sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR appeared higher for saliva than for ANS (85% versus 80% in Denver; 67% versus 58% in Atlanta) and higher among participants reporting current symptoms (94% and 87% in Denver; 72% and 62% in Atlanta, for saliva and ANS, respectively) than among those reporting no symptoms (29% and 50% in Denver; 50% and 44% in Atlanta, for saliva and ANS, respectively). Compared to ANS, saliva was more challenging to collect and process. Self-collected saliva and ANS are less sensitive than NPS for SARS-CoV-2 detection; however, they offer practical advantages and might be most useful for currently symptomatic patients.

Healthcare-associated infection and antimicrobial resistance are major concerns. However, the extent to which antibiotic exposure affects transmission and detection of infections such as MRSA is unclear. Additionally, temporal trends are typically reported in terms of changes in incidence, rather than analysing underling transmission processes. We present a data-augmented Markov chain Monte Carlo approach for inferring changing transmission parameters over time, screening test sensitivity, and the effect of antibiotics on detection and transmission. We expand a basic model to allow use of typing information when inferring sources of infections. Using simulated data, we show that the algorithms are accurate, well-calibrated and able to identify antibiotic effects in sufficiently large datasets. We apply the models to study MRSA transmission in an intensive care unit in Oxford, UK with 7924 admissions over 10 years. We find that falls in MRSA incidence over time were associated with decreases in both the number of patients admitted to the ICU colonised with MRSA and in transmission rates. In our inference model, the data were not informative about the effect of antibiotics on risk of transmission or acquisition of MRSA, a consequence of the limited number of possible transmission events in the data. Our approach has potential to be applied to a range of healthcare-associated infections and settings and could be applied to study the impact of other potential risk factors for transmission. Evidence generated could be used to direct infection control interventions.