Search

Background The objective of this study is to characterize the experiences, knowledge, beliefs, and perceptions of risk related to COVID-19, infection prevention practices, and COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare personnel (HCP) at three non-acute care facilities. Methods The study protocol was approved by the Washington University IRB. Between April-May 2021, anonymous surveys were distributed to HCP at three non-acute care facilities in St. Louis, MO. Data was collected on demographics, experience working in healthcare, COVID-19 exposures, knowledge and beliefs about infection prevention policies and procedures, PPE use, perception of risk of acquiring COVID-19, and COVID-19 vaccination status. Results There were 156 respondents; 78% were female, and 53% reported >10 years of healthcare experience. The largest proportion (32%) were in direct patient care as nurses or nurses’ aides. A majority (97%) reported adequate knowledge of how to protect themselves from COVID-19 at work, and most (95%) reported access to adequate PPE supplies. HCP (58.7%) reported that wearing a mask or face shield made communication difficult, 56% stated they had taken on additional responsibilities due to staff shortages, and 53% indicated that their job became more stressful because of COVID-19. More than a quarter (28%) had considered quitting their job due to COVID-19. HCPs were more concerned about acquiring COVID-19 in the community than at work (47 vs 33%). When asked about the COVID-19 vaccine, 78% of respondents reported receiving at least one dose of vaccine and 72% had completed a primary vaccine series. The most common reasons given for deciding to get vaccinated were a desire to protect family and friends (84%) and wanting to help stop the spread of COVID-19 (82%). For unvaccinated respondents (29%), the most common reasons for not receiving vaccination were concern for side effects (53%) and belief that the vaccine was not tested well enough (50%). Conclusion A significant proportion of HCP reported stress and increased responsibilities at work due to COVID-19, and 1 in 4 considered leaving their job. A majority were vaccinated, with concerns about side effects or inadequate vaccine testing cited as the most common concerns by unvaccinated HCPs. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures.

Objective:Although a growing number of healthcare facilities are implementing healthcare personnel (HCP) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination requirements, vaccine exemption request management as a part of such programs is not well described.Design:Cross-sectional survey.Participants:Infectious disease (ID) physician members of the Emerging Infections Network with infection prevention or hospital epidemiology responsibilities.Methods:Eligible persons were sent a web-based survey focused on hospital plans and practices around exemption allowances from HCP COVID-19 vaccine requirements.Results:Of the 695 ID physicians surveyed, 263 (38%) responded. Overall, 160 respondent institutions (92%) allowed medical exemptions, whereas 132 (76%) allowed religious exemptions. In contrast, only 14% (n = 24) allowed deeply held personal belief exemptions. The types of medical exemptions allowed varied considerably across facilities, with allergic reactions to the vaccine or its components accepted by 145 facilities (84%). For selected scenarios commonly used as the basis for religious and deeply held personal belief exemption requests, 144 institutions (83%) would not approve exemptions focused on concerns regarding right of consent or violations of freedom of personal choice, and 140 institutions (81%) would not approve exemptions focused on introducing foreign substances into one’s body or the sanctity of the body. Most respondents noted plans for additional infection prevention interventions for HCP who received an exemption for COVID-19 vaccination.Conclusions:Although many respondent institutions allowed exemptions from HCP COVID-19 vaccination requirements, the types of exemptions allowed and how the exemption programs were structured varied widely.

Background Immunocompromised (IC) patients (pts) can have prolonged SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity, even after resolution of COVID-19 symptoms. This study aimed to determine if viable virus could be detected in samples collected > 21 days after an initial positive (pos) SARS-CoV-2 PCR in IC pts. Methods We obtained 20 remnant SARS-CoV-2 PCR pos nasopharyngeal swabs from IC pts (bone marrow or solid organ transplant, high dose steroids, immunosuppressive medications) with a pos repeat PCR within the previous 30 days. The repeat specimens were cultured on Vero-hACE2-TMPRSS2 cells and incubated for 96 hours to assess viral viability. Viable RNA and infectious virus in the cultured cells were measured by qPCR and infectious plaque assays. RNA sequencing was performed on a HiSeq platform (Illumina). Samples also underwent SARS-CoV-2 antigen (Ag) testing (BD Veritor). Clinical data were extracted from the electronic health record by chart review. Results Pt characteristics are in Table 1. Viral cultures from the repeat specimen were negative (neg) for 18 pts and pos for 2 (Table 2). Pt 1 is a 60M treated with obinatuzumab 19 days prior to his first pos PCR test, with repeat specimen collected 21 days later (cycle threshold (Ct) not available). Pt 1 had a low viral titer (27 PFU/mL) & a D614G mutation on sequencing. Pt 2 is a 75M treated with rituximab 10 days prior to his first pos PCR test, with repeat specimen collected 23 days later (Ct 27.56/27.74). Pt 2 had a high viral titer (2e6 PFU/mL) and D614G, S98F, and S813I mutations. Demographics of Study Population (N=20) Characteristics of patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 viral culture Conclusion 90% of specimens collected > 21 days after an initial pos SARS-CoV-2 PCR did not have viable virus detected on their repeat specimen. The 2 pts with pos viral cultures had active hematologic malignancies treated with an anti-CD20 mAb at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis. One pt had a high concentration of active, viable virus. No known variants of concern were noted in this cohort, collected in Q2 2020, though prolonged replication is a risk for variant development. Further data are needed about risk factors for persistent viable viral shedding & methods to prevent transmission of viable virus from IC hosts. Disclosures Victoria J. Fraser, MD, CDC Epicenters (Grant/Research Support)Cigna/Express Scripts (Other Financial or Material Support, Spouse is Chief Clinical Officer)Doris Duke Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists (Grant/Research Support, Research Grant or Support)Foundation for Barnes-Jewish Hospital (Grant/Research Support, Research Grant or Support)NIH (Grant/Research Support, Research Grant or Support) Victoria J. Fraser, MD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support, Research Grant or Support; Cigna/Express Scripts (Individual(s) Involved: Spouse/Partner): Employee; Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support, Research Grant or Support; National Institutes of Health (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support, Research Grant or Support; The Foundation for Barnes-Jewish Hospital (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support, Research Grant or Support Michael S. Diamond, MD, PhD, Carnival Corporation (Consultant)Emergent BioSolutions (Grant/Research Support)Fortress Biotech (Consultant)Immunome (Advisor or Review Panel member)Inbios (Consultant)Moderna (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)Vir Biotechnology (Consultant, Grant/Research Support) Carey-Ann Burnham, PhD, BioFire (Grant/Research Support, Other Financial or Material Support)bioMerieux (Grant/Research Support)Cepheid (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Luminex (Grant/Research Support)Roche (Other Financial or Material Support) Carey-Ann Burnham, PhD, BioFire (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support; bioMerieux (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Speakers’ bureau; Cepheid (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator; Luminex (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Scientific Research Study Investigator Hilary Babcock, MD, MPH, FIDSA, FSHEA, Nothing to disclose

Background: More than 18 million healthcare workers (HCW) in the United States work in hospitals and other healthcare settings. Precise national data are not available on the annual number of needlestick injuries (NSI) among HCW; however, recent estimates indicate that over 440,000 NSI occur annually. Active safety engineered devices (ASED) are the most widely used type of safety engineered device (SED) at the trial facility. The ASED requires a deliberate activation of the safety feature to re-sheath the needle, while the passive safety-engineered device (PSED) automatically retracts the needle into the barrel of the syringe once medication is delivered, immediately removing the physical hazard. Needlesticks from the ASED used for subcutaneous (SQ) medication administration account for roughly 35% of NSI at the trial facility. Objective: To evaluate the incidence of NSI among HCW with a new PSED, specifically a SQ retractable needle, compared to the ASED.