Search

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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