Search

Objective:To describe the genomic analysis and epidemiologic response related to a slow and prolonged methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) outbreak.Design:Prospective observational study.Setting:Neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).Methods:We conducted an epidemiologic investigation of a NICU MRSA outbreak involving serial baby and staff screening to identify opportunities for decolonization. Whole-genome sequencing was performed on MRSA isolates.Results:A NICU with excellent hand hygiene compliance and longstanding minimal healthcare-associated infections experienced an MRSA outbreak involving 15 babies and 6 healthcare personnel (HCP). In total, 12 cases occurred slowly over a 1-year period (mean, 30.7 days apart) followed by 3 additional cases 7 months later. Multiple progressive infection prevention interventions were implemented, including contact precautions and cohorting of MRSA-positive babies, hand hygiene observers, enhanced environmental cleaning, screening of babies and staff, and decolonization of carriers. Only decolonization of HCP found to be persistent carriers of MRSA was successful in stopping transmission and ending the outbreak. Genomic analyses identified bidirectional transmission between babies and HCP during the outbreak.Conclusions:In comparison to fast outbreaks, outbreaks that are “slow and sustained” may be more common to units with strong existing infection prevention practices such that a series of breaches have to align to result in a case. We identified a slow outbreak that persisted among staff and babies and was only stopped by identifying and decolonizing persistent MRSA carriage among staff. A repeated decolonization regimen was successful in allowing previously persistent carriers to safely continue work duties.

Background Decolonization (decol) and environmental cleaning are strategies to reduce MDRO transmission and infection. While decol in NHs has been proven to reduce MDRO carriage, infection-related hospitalization, and contamination, the impact of enhanced cleaning (EC) with or without decol has not been evaluated. Methods We performed a 4-phase study in 2 NHs from 2019–21 to compare 1) decol, 2) EC, and 3) decol plus EC on MDRO carriage and contamination vs routine care (control). Decol involved nasal iodophor on admission x 5d and then M-F biweekly plus chlorhexidine for routine bathing for all residents. EC involved standardized training for cart setup, disinfectant preparation and saturation, color-coded microfiber cloths for specific items, and UV marker feedback. Outcomes were serial MDRO point prevalence (6 per phase) of nares/skin and MDRO contamination of high-touch bedroom and common area objects. Swabs were processed for MRSA, VRE, ESBL, and CRE. We used generalized linear mixed models to compare phases while clustering by NH. Analyses of objects also clustered by room. Results Table 1 shows crude MDRO prevalence and environmental contamination by study phase. Table 2 shows the impact of each phase vs control. Decol had the greatest impact on MDRO carriage with a 46% reduction vs control. EC alone did not decrease MDRO carriage, and EC plus decol did not further reduce MDRO carriage vs decol alone. The impact of decol vs EC on carriage differed for Gram-positive (GP) vs negative (GN) pathogens. Only decol reduced MRSA and VRE carriage, while both decol and EC reduced GN carriage. The reduction in GN carriage was enhanced with both decol and EC, although this was not statistically significant. With EC, 24-hour UV marker removal of high-touch objects increased from 7% to 45%. Decol and EC both reduced MDRO object contamination, by 84% and 75%, respectively. The impact of decol on object contamination was not enhanced with EC. This table shows the crude MDRO prevalence and environmental contamination results by study phase. Each phase involved 6 serial point prevalence sweeps of 40 residents per nursing home (N=480 total residents per phase), and 6 serial sweeps of high-touch bedroom and common area objects (N=504 total objects per phase). This table shows the odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for any MDRO and specific MDRO-types for each study phase for the outcomes of 1) MDRO body-site prevalence and 2) MDRO contamination of high-touch objects. The P-value reported represents the overall comparison of the intervention study phases versus control (routine care). Conclusion Multimodal strategies are needed to reduce MDRO burden in NHs. While both decolonization and cleaning independently reduced MDRO object contamination, only decolonization significantly reduced MDRO carriage prevalence. Decolonization provided substantial reductions in MDRO carriage and environmental contamination compared to cleaning alone. Disclosures Gabrielle M. Gussin, MS, Medline: Conducted studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and/or environmental cleaning products|Stryker: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products|Xttrium Laboratories: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products Raveena D. Singh, MA, Medline: Conducted studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and/or environmental cleaning products|Stryker: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products|Xttrium Laboratories: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products Raheeb Saavedra, AS, Medline: Conducted studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and/or environmental cleaning products|Stryker: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products|Xttrium Laboratories: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products Susan S. Huang, MD, MPH, Medline: Conducted studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and/or environmental cleaning products|Molnlyke: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals received contributed antiseptic product|Stryker: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products|Xttrium Laboratories: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic product.

To describe the genomic analysis and epidemiologic response related to a slow and prolonged methicillin-resistantProspective observational study.Neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).We conducted an epidemiologic investigation of a NICU MRSA outbreak involving serial baby and staff screening to identify opportunities for decolonization. Whole-genome sequencing was performed on MRSA isolates.A NICU with excellent hand hygiene compliance and longstanding minimal healthcare-associated infections experienced an MRSA outbreak involving 15 babies and 6 healthcare personnel (HCP). In total, 12 cases occurred slowly over a 1-year period (mean, 30.7 days apart) followed by 3 additional cases 7 months later. Multiple progressive infection prevention interventions were implemented, including contact precautions and cohorting of MRSA-positive babies, hand hygiene observers, enhanced environmental cleaning, screening of babies and staff, and decolonization of carriers. Only decolonization of HCP found to be persistent carriers of MRSA was successful in stopping transmission and ending the outbreak. Genomic analyses identified bidirectional transmission between babies and HCP during the outbreak.In comparison to fast outbreaks, outbreaks that are "slow and sustained" may be more common to units with strong existing infection prevention practices such that a series of breaches have to align to result in a case. We identified a slow outbreak that persisted among staff and babies and was only stopped by identifying and decolonizing persistent MRSA carriage among staff. A repeated decolonization regimen was successful in allowing previously persistent carriers to safely continue work duties.

In a prospective cohort study, we compared a 2-swabs-per-nostril 5% iodophor regimen with a 1-swab-per-nostril 10% iodophor regimen on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carriage in nursing-home residents. Compared with baseline, both single-swab and double-swab regimens resulted in an identical 40% reduction in nasal carriage and 60% reduction in any carriage, skin or nasal.

The CLEAR trial demonstrated that a multi-site body decolonization regimen reduced post-discharge infection and hospitalization in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) carriers. This report describes decolonization efficacy in clearing site-specific MRSA colonization during the trial.We performed a large, multi-center, randomized clinical trial of MRSA decolonization among adult patients after hospital discharge with MRSA infection or colonization. Participants were randomized 1:1 to either MRSA prevention education or education plus decolonization with 4% topical chlorhexidine daily, 0.12% oral chlorhexidine rinse twice daily, and 2% nasal mupirocin twice daily. The intervention was given for five consecutive days twice monthly. Participants were swabbed in the nares, throat, axilla/groin, and wound (if applicable) at baseline, 1, 3, 6, and 9 months after randomization. The primary outcomes of this report are follow-up colonization differences between groups.Among 2,121 participants, 1,058 were randomized to the decolonization group. By one month, MRSA colonization was lower in the decolonization group compared to the education only group (OR = 0.44 [95% Confidence Interval 0.36-0.54, p≤0.001). Similar magnitude of reduction was seen in the nares (OR = 0.34 [0.27-0.42], p 0.001) throat (OR = 0.55 [0.42-0.73], p 0.001), and axilla/groin (OR = 0.57 [0.43-0.75], p 0.001). These differences persisted through month 9 except at the wound site, which had a relatively small sample size. Higher regimen adherence was associated with lower MRSA colonization (p≤0.01).In a randomized clinical trial, a repeated post-discharge decolonization regimen for MRSA carriers reduced MRSA colonization overall and at multiple body sites. Higher treatment adherence was associated with greater reductions in MRSA colonization.

Accurately identifying carbapenem resistant enterobacteriace (CRE) from fomites is critical for infection control practices, research, and assessing patient risk. We compared a commercial CRE agar intended for patient use with a modified MacConkey agar. We found that our modified MacConkey agar was more selective at identifying CRE from environmental sources.

In a prospective cohort study, we compared a 2-swabs-per-nostril 5% iodophor regimen with a 1-swab-per-nostril 10% iodophor regimen on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carriage in nursing-home residents. Compared with baseline, both single-swab and double-swab regimens resulted in an identical 40% reduction in nasal carriage and 60% reduction in any carriage, skin or nasal.

Background: More than half of nursing home (NH) residents harbor a multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO), and MDRO contamination of the environment is common. Whether NH decolonization of residents reduces MDRO contamination remains unclear. The PROTECT trial was a cluster-randomized trial of decolonization versus routine care in 28 California NHs from April 2017 through December 2018. Decolonization involved chlorhexidine bathing plus nasal iodophor (Monday–Friday, every other week), and it reduced resident nares and skin MDRO colonization by 36%. Methods: We swabbed high-touch objects in resident rooms and common areas for MDROs before and after the 3-month decolonization phase-in (April–July 2017). Five high-touch objects (bedrail, call button and TV remote, doorknob, light switch, and bathroom handles) were swabbed in 3 resident rooms per NH based on care needs (Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD), ie, total care; ADRD, ambulatory care; and short stay). Five high-touch objects were also swabbed in the common area (nursing station, table, chair, railing, and drinking fountain). Swabs were processed for methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE), extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) producing Enterobacteriaceae, and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE). We used generalized linear mixed models to assess the impact of decolonization on MDRO environmental contamination when clustering by NH and room and adjusting for room type and object because unclustered and unadjusted results are likely to be inaccurate. Results: A high proportion of rooms were contaminated with any MDRO in control NHs: 43 of 56 (77%) in the baseline period and 46 of 56 (82%) in the intervention period. In contrast, decolonization NHs had similar baseline contamination (45 of 56, 80%) but lower intervention MDRO contamination (29 of 48, 60%). When evaluating the intervention impact using multivariable models, decolonization was associated with significantly less room contamination for any MDRO (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.06–0.96; P = .04) and MRSA (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05–0.55; P = .004) but nonsignificant reductions in VRE contamination (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.23–3.13) and ESBL contamination (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.01–1.62). CRE was not modeled due to rare counts (2 rooms total). In addition, room type was important, with common areas associated with 5-fold, 9-fold, and 3-fold higher contamination with any MDRO, MRSA, and VRE, respectively, compared with short-stay rooms. Conclusions: The high burden of MDROs in NHs calls for universal prevention strategies that can protect all residents. Although decolonization was associated with an 84% reduction in odds of MRSA contamination of inanimate room objects, significant reductions in VRE or ESBL contamination were not seen, possibly due to the lower proportion of baseline contamination due to these organisms. Multimodal strategies are needed to address high levels of MDRO contamination in NHs.Funding: NoneDisclosures: Gabrielle Gussin: Stryker (Sage Products): Conducting studies in which contributed antiseptic product is provided to participating hospitals and nursing homes. Clorox: Conducting studies in which contributed antiseptic product is provided to participating hospitals and nursing homes. Medline: Conducting studies in which contributed antiseptic product is provided to participating hospitals and nursing homes. Xttrium: Conducting studies in which contributed antiseptic product is provided to participating hospitals and nursing homes.

Background: Addressing the high burden of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) in nursing homes is a public health priority. High interfacility transmission may be attributed to inadequate infection prevention practices, shared living spaces, and frequent care needs. We assessed the contribution of roommates to the likelihood of MDRO carriage in nursing homes. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of the SHIELD OC (Shared Healthcare Intervention to Eliminate Life-threatening Dissemination of MDROs in Orange County, CA) Project, a CDC-funded regional decolonization intervention to reduce MDROs among 38 regional facilities (18 nursing homes, 3 long-term acute-care hospitals, and 17 hospitals). Decolonization in participating nursing homes involved routine chlorhexidine bathing plus nasal iodophor (Monday through Friday, twice daily every other week) from April 2017 through July 2019. MDRO point-prevalence assessments involving all residents at 16 nursing homes conducted at the end of the intervention period were used to determine whether having a roommate was associated with MDRO carriage. Nares, bilateral axilla/groin, and perirectal swabs were processed for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococcus (VRE), extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)–producing Enterobacteriaceae, and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE). Generalized linear mixed models assessed the impact of maximum room occupancy on MDRO prevalence when clustering by room and hallway, and adjusting for the following factors: nursing home facility, age, gender, length-of-stay at time of swabbing, bedbound status, known MDRO history, and presence of urinary or gastrointestinal devices. CRE models were not run due to low counts. Results: During the intervention phase, 1,451 residents were sampled across 16 nursing homes. Overall MDRO prevalence was 49%. In multivariable models, we detected a significant increasing association of maximum room occupants and MDRO carriage for MRSA but not other MDROs. For MRSA, the adjusted odds ratios for quadruple-, triple-, and double-occupancy rooms were 3.5, 3.6, and 2.8, respectively, compared to residents in single rooms (P = .013). For VRE, these adjusted odds ratios were 0.3, 0.3, and 0.4, respectively, compared to residents in single rooms (P = NS). For ESBL, the adjusted odds ratios were 0.9, 1.1, and 1.5, respectively, compared to residents in single rooms (P = nonsignificant). Conclusions: Nursing home residents in shared rooms were more likely to harbor MRSA, suggesting MRSA transmission between roommates. Although decolonization was previously shown to reduce MDRO prevalence by 22% in SHIELD nursing homes, this strategy did not appear to prevent all MRSA transmission between roommates. Additional efforts involving high adherence hand hygiene, environmental cleaning, and judicious use of contact precautions are likely needed to reduce transmission between roommates in nursing homes.Funding: NoneDisclosures: Gabrielle M. Gussin, Stryker (Sage Products): Conducting studies in which contributed antiseptic product is provided to participating hospitals and nursing homes. Clorox: Conducting studies in which contributed antiseptic product is provided to participating hospitals and nursing homes. Medline: Conducting studies in which contributed antiseptic product is provided to participating hospitals and nursing homes. Xttrium: Conducting studies in which contributed antiseptic product is provided to participating hospitals and nursing homes.

Author(s): McKinnell, James A; Singh, Raveena D; Miller, Loren G; Kleinman, Ken; Gussin, Gabrielle; He, Jiayi; Saavedra, Raheeb; Dutciuc, Tabitha D; Estevez, Marlene; Chang, Justin; Heim, Lauren; Yamaguchi, Stacey; Custodio, Harold; Gohil, Shruti K; Park, Steven; Tam, Steven; Robinson, Philip A; Tjoa, Thomas; Nguyen, Jenny; Evans, Kaye D; Bittencourt, Cassiana E; Lee, Bruce Y; Mueller, Leslie E; Bartsch, Sarah M; Jernigan, John A; Slayton, Rachel B; Stone, Nimalie D; Zahn, Matthew; Mor, Vincent; McConeghy, Kevin; Baier, Rosa R; Janssen, Lynn; O'Donnell, Kathleen; Weinstein, Robert A; Hayden, Mary K; Coady, Micaela H; Bhattarai, Megha; Peterson, Ellena M; Huang, Susan S | Abstract: BackgroundMultidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) spread between hospitals, nursing homes (NHs), and long-term acute care facilities (LTACs) via patient transfers. The Shared Healthcare Intervention to Eliminate Life-threatening Dissemination of MDROs in Orange County is a regional public health collaborative involving decolonization at 38 healthcare facilities selected based on their high degree of patient sharing. We report baseline MDRO prevalence in 21 NHs/LTACs.MethodsA random sample of 50 adults for 21 NHs/LTACs (18 NHs, 3 LTACs) were screened for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. (VRE), extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing organisms (ESBL), and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) using nares, skin (axilla/groin), and peri-rectal swabs. Facility and resident characteristics associated with MDRO carriage were assessed using multivariable models clustering by person and facility.ResultsPrevalence of MDROs was 65% in NHs and 80% in LTACs. The most common MDROs in NHs were MRSA (42%) and ESBL (34%); in LTACs they were VRE (55%) and ESBL (38%). CRE prevalence was higher in facilities that manage ventilated LTAC patients and NH residents (8% vs l1%, P l .001). MDRO status was known for 18% of NH residents and 49% of LTAC patients. MDRO-colonized adults commonly harbored additional MDROs (54% MDRO+ NH residents and 62% MDRO+ LTACs patients). History of MRSA (odds ratio [OR] = 1.7; confidence interval [CI]: 1.2, 2.4; P = .004), VRE (OR = 2.1; CI: 1.2, 3.8; P = .01), ESBL (OR = 1.6; CI: 1.1, 2.3; P = .03), and diabetes (OR = 1.3; CI: 1.0, 1.7; P = .03) were associated with any MDRO carriage.ConclusionsThe majority of NH residents and LTAC patients harbor MDROs. MDRO status is frequently unknown to the facility. The high MDRO prevalence highlights the need for prevention efforts in NHs/LTACs as part of regional efforts to control MDRO spread.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized patients who are colonized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are at high risk for infection after discharge. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of postdischarge hygiene education, as compared with education plus decolonization, in patients colonized with MRSA (carriers). Decolonization involved chlorhexidine mouthwash, baths or showers with chlorhexidine, and nasal mupirocin for 5 days twice per month for 6 months. Participants were followed for 1 year. The primary outcome was MRSA infection as defined according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria. Secondary outcomes included MRSA infection determined on the basis of clinical judgment, infection from any cause, and infection-related hospitalization. All analyses were performed with the use of proportional-hazards models in the per-protocol population (all participants who underwent randomization, met the inclusion criteria, and survived beyond the recruitment hospitalization) and as-treated population (participants stratified according to adherence). RESULTS: In the per-protocol population, MRSA infection occurred in 98 of 1063 participants (9.2%) in the education group and in 67 of 1058 (6.3%) in the decolonization group; 84.8% of the MRSA infections led to hospitalization. Infection from any cause occurred in 23.7% of the participants in the education group and 19.6% of those in the decolonization group; 85.8% of the infections led to hospitalization. The hazard of MRSA infection was significantly lower in the decolonization group than in the education group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.96; P=0.03; number needed to treat to prevent one infection, 30; 95% CI, 18 to 230); this lower hazard led to a lower risk of hospitalization due to MRSA infection (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.99). The decolonization group had lower likelihoods of clinically judged infection from any cause (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.99) and infection-related hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.93); treatment effects for secondary out-comes should be interpreted with caution owing to a lack of prespecified adjustment for multiple comparisons. In as-treated analyses, participants in the decolonization group who adhered fully to the regimen had 44% fewer MRSA infections than the education group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.86) and had 40% fewer infections from any cause (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.78). Side effects (all mild) occurred in 4.2% of the participants. CONCLUSIONS: Postdischarge MRSA decolonization with chlorhexidine and mupirocin led to a 30% lower risk of MRSA infection than education alone. (Funded by the AHRQ Healthcare-Associated Infections Program and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01209234.)

Objective Determine the prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. (VRE), extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing organisms (ESBLs), and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) among residents and in the environment of nursing homes (NHs). Design Point prevalence sampling of residents and environmental sampling of high-touch objects in resident rooms and common areas. Setting Twenty-eight NHs in Southern California from 2016 to 2017. Participants NH participants in Project PROTECT, a cluster-randomized trial of enhanced bathing and decolonization vs routine care. Methods Fifty residents were randomly sampled per NH. Twenty objects were sampled, including 5 common room objects plus 5 objects in each of 3 rooms (ambulatory, total care, and dementia care residents). Results A total of 2797 swabs were obtained from 1400 residents in 28 NHs. Median prevalence of multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) carriage per NH was 50% (range: 24%-70%). Median prevalence of specific MDROs were as follows: MRSA, 36% (range: 20%-54%); ESBL, 16% (range: 2%-34%); VRE, 5% (range: 0%-30%); and CRE, 0% (range: 0%-8%). A median of 45% of residents (range: 24%-67%) harbored an MDRO without a known MDRO history. Environmental MDRO contamination was found in 74% of resident rooms and 93% of common areas. Conclusions and Implications In more than half of the NHs, more than 50% of residents were colonized with MDROs of clinical and public health significance, most commonly MRSA and ESBL. Additionally, the vast majority of resident rooms and common areas were MDRO contaminated. The unknown submerged portion of the iceberg of MDRO carriers in NHs may warrant changes to infection prevention and control practices, particularly high-fidelity adoption of universal strategies such as hand hygiene, environmental cleaning, and decolonization.

Nursing home residents are at risk for acquiring and transmitting MDROs. A serial point-prevalence study of 605 residents in 3 facilities using random sampling found MDRO colonization in 45% of residents: methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA, 26%); extended-spectrum β-lactamase–producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL, 17%); vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. (VRE, 16%); carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE, 1%). MDRO colonization was associated with history of MDRO, care needs, incontinence, and catheters.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;1485–1488

Background The prevalence of MDROs in nursing homes (NH) is much higher than that of hospitals. Decolonization to reduce the reservoir of MDRO carriage in NH residents may be a strategy to address MDRO spread within and among healthcare facilities. Methods PROTECT is an 18-month cluster randomized trial of 1:1 universal decolonization vs. routine care in 28 NHs in California. Decolonization consists of chlorhexidine (CHG) bathing plus twice daily nasal iodophor on admission and Monday–Friday biweekly. We assessed pre- vs. post-intervention MDRO prevalence by sampling 50 randomly selected residents at each NH as an outcome unrelated to the trial’s primary intent (infection, hospitalization reduction). NH residents had nasal swabs cultured for methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), and skin (axilla/groin) swabs taken for MRSA, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE), extended-spectrum β-lactamase producers (ESBL), and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE). Generalized linear mixed models (GLM) assessed the difference in differences of MDRO prevalence using an arm by period interaction term, clustering by NH. Results Four NHs dropped from the trial. Among the 24 NHs that remained, MDRO colonization at baseline was 49.4% and 47.5% of residents in control (N = 650) vs. decolonization (N = 550) NHs, with no difference in MRSA, VRE, ESBL, and CRE (Table 1). Among remaining NHs, decolonization was associated with 28.8% raw decrease in MDRO prevalence in decolonization sites (GLM OR = 0.51, P < 0.001), 24.3% raw decrease in MRSA (OR = 0.66, P = 0.03), 61.0% raw decrease in VRE (OR = 0.17, P < 0.001), and 51.9% raw decrease in ESBL (OR = 0.40, P < 0.001). CRE increased, but numbers were small (Control arm: 10 in baseline, 4 in intervention; intervention arm: 1 in baseline, 2 in intervention, P = NS). Conclusion Universal NH decolonization with CHG bathing and nasal iodophor resulted in a marked decrease in Gram-positive and Gram-negative MDRO prevalence. This decrease may lower MDRO acquisition, infection, and antibiotic use within NHs, as well as regional MDRO spread to other healthcare facilities. Disclosures All Authors: No reported Disclosures.

We assessed characteristics associated with community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA) carriage among residents of 22 nursing homes. Of MRSA-positive swabs, 25% (208/824) were positive for CA-MRSA. Median facility CAMRSA percentage was 22% (range, 0%-44%). In multivariate models, carriage was associated with age less than 65 years (odds ratio, 1.2; P

Background MDROs can spread between hospitals, nursing homes (NH), and long-term acute care facilities (LTACs) via shared patients. SHIELD OC is a regional decolonization collaborative involving 38 of 104 countywide adult facilities identified by their high degree of direct and indirect patient sharing with one another. We report baseline MDRO prevalence in these facilities. Methods Adult patients in 38 facilities (17 hospitals, 18 NHs, 3 LTACs) underwent point-prevalence screening between September 2016–April 2017 for MRSA, VRE, ESBL, and CRE using nares, skin (axilla/groin), and peri-rectal swabs. In NHs and LTACs, residents were randomly selected until 50 sets of swabs were obtained. Swabbing in hospitals involved all patients in contact precautions. An additional set of swabs were also performed for all LTAC admissions from November 2016–February 2017. Results The overall prevalence of any MDRO among patients was 64% (44%–88%) in NHs, 80% (range 72%–86%) in LTACs, and 64% (54–84%) in hospitals (contact precaution patients) (Table 1). Only 25%, 64%, and 81% of patients were already known to harbor an MDRO in NHs, LTACs, and hospitals, respectively. Known MDRO patients also harbored another MDRO 49%, 63%, and 34% of the time for NHs, LTACs, and hospitals, respectively. In LTACs, MDRO point prevalence was 38% higher than the usual admission prevalence (65% higher for MRSA, 34% higher for VRE, 95% higher for ESBL, and 50% higher for CRE). Conclusion MDRO carriage in highly inter-connected NHs and LTACs was widespread, rivaling that found in hospitalized patients on contact precautions. MRSA, VRE, and ESBL carriage far outnumbered CRE carriage. A history of MDRO was insensitive for identifying MDRO carriers, and many patients carried multiple MDROs. The extensive MDRO burden and transmission in long-term care settings suggests that regional MDRO prevention efforts must include MDRO control in long-term care facilities. Disclosures R. D. Singh, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; J. A. McKinnell, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; L. G. Miller, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; K. Kleinman, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Molnlycke: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; L. Heim, Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; T. D. Dutciuc, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; M. Estevez, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; G. Gussin, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; L’Oreal: Consultant, Consulting fee; J. Chang, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; E. M. Peterson, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; B. Y. Lee, GSK: Consultant, Consulting fee; R. A. Weinstein, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Molnlycke: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; OpGen Company: Study support, Provided services at no charge; M. K. Hayden, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Sage is contributing product to healthcare facilities participating in a regional collaborative on which I am a co-investigator. Neither I nor my hospital receive product.; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Research support; CDC: Grant Investigator and Receipt of contributed product, Research grant; Molnlycke: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; OpGen Company: Study support, Provided services at no charge for studies; S. K. Gohil, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; S. Park, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; S. Tam, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; R. Saavedra, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; S. Yamaguchi, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; H. Custodio, Xttrium Laboratories: Study coordination, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Sage Products: Study coordination, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Study coordination, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; J. Nguyen, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; T. Tjoa, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; J. He, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; M. H. Coady, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Molnlycke: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; R. Platt, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting clinical studies in which participating healthcare facilities are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting clinical studies in which participating healthcare facilities are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting clinical studies in which participating healthcare facilities are receiving contributed product; receive research funds from Clorox, but Clorox has no role in the design; Molnlycke: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; S. S. Huang, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in which participating healthcare facilities are receiving contributed product (no contribution in submitted abstract), Participating healthcare facilities in my studies received contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in which participating healthcare facilities are receiving contributed product (no contribution in submitted abstract), Participating healthcare facilities in my studies received contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in which participating healthcare facilities are receiving contributed product (no contribution in submitted abstract), Participating healthcare facilities in my studies received contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in which participating healthcare facilities are receiving contributed product (no contribution in submitted abstract), Participating healthcare facilities in my studies received contributed product; Molnlycke: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in which participating healthcare facilities are receiving contributed product (no contribution in submitted abstract), Participating healthcare facilities in my studies received contributed product

Background The majority of healthcare-associated infections due to MDROs occur in the post-discharge setting. Understanding MDRO spread and containment in NHs can help identify infection prevention activities needed to care for vulnerable patients in a medical home setting. Methods We conducted a baseline point prevalence study of MDRO colonization in residents of 28 Southern California NHs participating in a decolonization trial. In Fall 2016, residents were randomly sampled to obtain a set of 50 nares and skin (axilla/groin) swabs from each NH. Nasal swabs were processed for MRSA and skin swabs were processed for MRSA, VRE, ESBL, and CRE. In addition, environmental swabs were collected from high touch objects in resident rooms (bedrail, call button/TV remote, door knobs, light switch, bathroom) and common areas (nursing station, table, chair, railing, and drinking fountain). Results A total of 2,797 body swabs were obtained from 1400 residents. Overall, 48.6% (N = 680) of residents harbored MDROs. MRSA was found in 37% of residents (29.5% nares, 24.4% skin), followed by ESBL in 16% (Table 1). Resident MDRO status was only known for 11% of MRSA (59/518), 18% ESBL (40/228), 4% VRE (4/99), and none of the CRE (0/13) carriers. Colonization did not differ between long stay (48.8%, 534/1094) vs. post-acute (47.7%, 146/306) residents (P = NS), but bedbound residents were more likely to be MDRO colonized (58.7%, 182/310) vs. ambulatory residents (45.7%, 497/1088, P Conclusion One in two NH residents are colonized with MDROs, which is largely unknown to the facility. MDRO carriage is associated with total care needs, but not long stay status. Environmental contamination in resident rooms and common areas is common. The burden of MDRO colonization and contamination is sufficiently high that universal strategies to reduce colonization and transmission are warranted. Disclosures J. A. McKinnell, Allergan: Research Contractor, Scientific Advisor and Speaker’s Bureau, Consulting fee, Research support and Speaker honorarium; Achaogen: Research Contractor, Scientific Advisor and Shareholder, Research support; Cempra: Research Contractor and Scientific Advisor, Research support; Theravance: Research Contractor, Research support; Science 37: Research Contractor, Salary; Expert Stewardship, LLC: Board Member and Employee, Salary; Thermo Fisher: Scientific Advisor, Salary; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; L. Miller, 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; R. D. Singh, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; J. Mendez, Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; R. Franco, Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; G. Gussin, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; L’Oreal: Consultant, Consulting fee; J. Chang, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; T. D. Dutciuc, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; R. Saavedra, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; K. Kleinman, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Molnlycke: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; E. M. Peterson, Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; L. Heim, Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; A. Miner, Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; M. Estevez, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; H. Custodio, Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; S. Yamaguchi, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; J. Nguyen, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; A. Varasteh, Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Sage Product: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; B. Launer, 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; S. Agrawal, Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; T. Tjoa, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; J. He, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; S. Park, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; S. Tam, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; S. K. Gohil, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in healthcare facilities that are receiving contributed product; S. S. Huang, Sage Products: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in which participating healthcare facilities are receiving contributed product (no contribution in submitted abstract), Participating healthcare facilities in my studies received contributed product; Xttrium Laboratories: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in which participating healthcare facilities are receiving contributed product (no contribution in submitted abstract), Participating healthcare facilities in my studies received contributed product; Clorox: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in which participating healthcare facilities are receiving contributed product (no contribution in submitted abstract), Participating healthcare facilities in my studies received contributed product; 3M: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in which participating healthcare facilities are receiving contributed product (no contribution in submitted abstract), Participating healthcare facilities in my studies received contributed product; Molnlycke: Receipt of contributed product, Conducting studies in which participating healthcare facilities are receiving contributed product (no contribution in submitted abstract), Participating healthcare facilities in my studies received contributed product

Campylobacter (Campy; BD Diagnostics, Sparks, MD), Spectra VRE (Remel, Lenexa, KS), and bile-esculin-azide-vancomycin (BEAV; Remel) agars were compared for their ability to detect vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) in 750 stool specimens. The media were compared at 24 h and 48 h of incubation at 35°C and 42°C. When incubated for 24 h at 35°C, Campy was the most sensitive (97.8%) and specific (99.9%) but was comparable to Spectra, which has a sensitivity of 95.6% and a specificity of 99.1%, whereas BEAV was significantly less sensitive (90%) and specific (96.1%). Incubation at 42°C or extended incubation at 35°C for 48 h yielded no advantage over incubation at 35°C for 24 h.

Background Early diagnosis of BSI and appropriate antimicrobials are crucial; additionally avoidance of overly broad antibiotics is important to curb the development of resistance. Rapid molecular approaches are costly and have spectrum limitations. In our prior pilot study simple phenotypic RDDDT provided accurate susceptibility data for GNB over 24 hours earlier than conventional methods. This follow up pilot study evaluated RDDDT plus prompt stewardship intervention to decrease the time to optimal antimicrobial therapy. Methods GNB positive blood cultures (BACTEC) were inoculated by expressed swab to MH agar plates. 12 antibiotic discs were applied. After at least 8 hr incubation, results in conjunction with MALDI-TOF speciation, were reported to EMR at 9am or 3pm. After review the ID Fellow contacted the primary MD to escalate, deescalate, or continue current antibiotics. Results of the RDDDT were compared with routine VITEK and assessed as complete agreement (CA) or as very major (VM), major (M), minor (MI) discrepancies. Times to susceptibility, RDDDT based antibiotic optimization, and VITEK reports were assessed. Time to VITEK based optimization was obtained from the prior baseline pilot study. Results 164 patients with GNB were evaluated. 1688 individual RDDDT readings, including 297 ESBL and 66 CRE were compared with VITEK. RDDDT had 85% CA and 0.4% VM, 2.3% M, 13% MI discrepancies. The median time from BC positivity to RDDDT report was 17.5 hours vs. 46 hours for VITEK. Of 164 patients, 162 were assessed clinically. Of those, 72 (44%) required antibiotic change with median time to optimization 21 hours based on RDDDT vs. 71 hours based on prior baseline VITEK. Conclusion RDDDT coupled with prompt stewardship intervention provided a safe and reliable strategy to improve time to antibiotic optimization with savings of ~2 days compared with standard VITEK reporting. Furthermore, RDDDT is simple and applicable worldwide, especially in resource limited areas. Accuracy: RDDDT vs. VITEK Results Total N (%) Excluding Cefazolin N (%) Discrepancies VM 6 (0.4) 6 (0.4) M 39 (2.3) 31 (2) MI 217 (13) 152 (10) CA 1426 (85) 1349 (88) Total 1688 1538 Intervention Based on RDDDT vs. VITEK RDDDT (%) VITEK (%) Escalation 25 (35) 16 (25) De-escalation 47 (65) 47 (75) Total 72 (100) 63 (100) Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Chlorhexidine and mupirocin are used in health care facilities to eradicate methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) carriage. The objective of this study was to assess the frequency of chlorhexidine and mupirocin resistance in isolates from nares carriers in multiple nursing homes and to examine characteristics associated with resistance. Nasal swab samples were collected from approximately 100 new admissions and 100 current residents in 26 nursing homes in Orange County, CA, from October 2008 to May 2011. MRSA isolates were tested for susceptibility by using broth microdilution, disk diffusion, and Etest; for genetic relatedness using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis; and for qac gene carriage by PCR. Characteristics of the nursing homes and their residents were collected from the Medicare Minimum Data Set and Long-Term Care Focus. A total of 829 MRSA isolates were obtained from swabbing 3,806 residents in 26 nursing homes. All isolates had a chlorhexidine MIC of ≤4 μg/ml. Five (0.6%) isolates harbored the qacA and/or qacB gene loci. Mupirocin resistance was identified in 101 (12%) isolates, with 78 (9%) isolates exhibiting high-level mupirocin resistance (HLMR). HLMR rates per facility ranged from 0 to 31%. None of the isolates with HLMR displayed qacA or qacB , while two isolates carried qacA and exhibited low-level mupirocin resistance. Detection of HLMR was associated with having a multidrug-resistant MRSA isolate (odds ratio [OR], 2.69; P = 0.004), a history of MRSA (OR, 2.34; P < 0.001), and dependency in activities of daily living (OR, 1.25; P = 0.004). In some facilities, HLMR was found in nearly one-third of MRSA isolates. These findings may have implications for the increasingly widespread practice of MRSA decolonization using intranasal mupirocin.

Identification of members of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and the M. avium-M. intracellulare complex (MAC) directly from primary BACTEC cultures was evaluated by using acridinium-ester-labeled DNA probes (AccuProbe; GenProbe, Inc., San Diego, Calif.). In preliminary experiments, blood present in samples was found to interfere with the assay because of nonspecific chemiluminescence, which was measured in relative light units (RLUs). There was a direct relationship between the age of the culture and the number of nonspecific RLUs. A protocol using 1% sodium dodecyl sulfate-5 mM EDTA to treat BACTEC broth cultures which, with specimens containing blood, gave on the average a ninefold reduction in nonspecific chemiluminescence was developed. By using this treatment protocol, 120 specimens were tested directly from BACTEC broth cultures with an AccuProbe for the M. tuberculosis complex and/or the MAC. In order to establish the background of the specimen, the patient sample was assayed without probe. The criteria for the inclusion of BACTEC cultures in the evaluation were a growth index of greater than or equal to 100 and a positive smear for acid-fast bacilli directly from the BACTEC broth. For the 120 cultures tested, if a hybridization result of greater than or equal to 30,000 RLUs was considered positive, the sensitivities for detecting the M. tuberculosis complex and the MAC were 47 and 90%, respectively, with a specificity of 100% for both. However, if a ratio of the RLUs obtained with the MAC or the M. tuberculosis complex probe to those obtained with the specimen background of >/= 20 was considered positive, this gave 77% sensitivity and 100% specificity for BACTEC cultures containing M. tuberculosis complex isolates and 96% sensitivity and 100% specificity for those growing MAC isolates.

If technological constraints generate scale economies, the cost of achieving a more competitive market structure may be the sacrifice of cost advantages arising from large scale production at a single site. This trade-off has been described and explored theoretically by Williamson (1968, 1977). Using a plausible hypothetical model, he demonstrated that the social cost of forgone scale economies could easily outweigh the social gains arising from a reduction in the deadweight loss generated by enhanced competition. The seriousness of the trade-off between competition and cost efficiency has not been well documented.' Bain (1956) and Weiss (1976) attempted to estimate the fraction of output which is produced in plants of less than minimum efficient production scale (MES), that output level at which the average cost curve attains a level close to its minimum. Bain concluded that

Background MRSA prevalence in nursing homes often exceeds that in hospitals, but reasons for this are not well understood. We sought to measure MRSA burden in a large number of nursing homes and identify facility characteristics associated with high MRSA burden. Methods We performed nasal swabs of residents from 26 nursing homes to measure MRSA importation and point prevalence, and estimate transmission. Using nursing home administrative data, we identified facility characteristics associated with MRSA point prevalence and estimated transmission risk in multivariate models. Results We obtained 1,649 admission and 2,111 point prevalence swabs. Mean MRSA point prevalence was 24%, significantly higher than mean MRSA admission prevalence, 16%, (paired t-test, p

The effect of holding temperature on the recovery of Neisseria gonorrhoeae was studied. From 300 specimens tested, Thayer-Martin medium plates inoculated and incubated in the presence of CO2 at 35, 22, and 4 degrees C for 24 h before incubation at 35 degrees C yielded 100, 96, and 95% of all isolates ultimately recovered from 82 positive specimens. Although there was a decrease in the quantity of organisms recovered, initial incubation of specimens under refrigeration or at room temperature yielded greater than or equal to 95% of the positive specimens.