Search

Persons with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) are prone to receiving reduced quality of care. We compared the quality of room cleaning of rooms with ADRD residents and rooms with non-ADRD residents in nursing homes using an ultraviolet (UV) marker. ADRD status was associated with greater failure of UV marker removal (odds ratio, 1.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.04–2.71; P = .03).

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 Outpatient peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) use has grown without standardized protocols for their management. We assessed the impact of a mobile app strategy for outpatient CLABSI prevention using photo-monitoring, assessment, and response to lines with local inflammation/infection in a cohort of cancer clinic patients. Methods This prospective cohort study evaluated adults with PICCs at an academic cancer clinic at baseline (7/2015–12/2016) and after implementing the SAFER (Standardizing Assessment For Effective Response) Lines program (intervention 5/2017–11/2018). This included a mobile app enabling (1) clinic assessment of localized inflammation or infection defined as Central Line Insertion Site Assessment (CLISA) score 2 or 3, respectively (Table 1), (2) photo-documentation, and (3) score-based automated physician alerts for remote response. We assessed demographics, malignancy type, and line characteristics. Generalized linear mixed effects model assessed program impact on frequency of CLISA 2 or 3 lines, clustered by patient. Cox proportional hazards and Kaplan Meier models assessed days to line removal after CLISA 2 or 3 were identified. Results Among 4,894 assessments of 528 PICCs in 380 outpatients, there were 272 lines (199 patients) at baseline and 256 lines (181 patients) after SAFER program implementation. Mean age, gender, PICC dwell time, and history of prior PICC were similar at baseline and intervention. The proportion of inflamed (CLISA 2) and infected (CLISA 3) lines decreased 40% (from 26% to 16%, and 19% to 11%, respectively) during intervention compared to baseline. Lines with peeling dressings decreased 80% (from 46% to 9%). Mean days to removal of inflamed lines decreased 59% (from 19 to 8 days); removal of infected lines decreased 85% (from 11 to < 2 days). Intervention was associated with 46% lower risk of local inflammation/infection (OR 0.46, CI=0.26–0.83, p< 0.01, Table 2) and faster line removal when such lines were identified (HR 0.18, CI=0.12–0.27, p< 0.01). Conclusion The SAFER Lines mobile app and program decreased the frequency of locally inflamed or infected PICC insertion sites and increased the speed of removal when local inflammation/infection was found in cancer clinic patients. Disclosures 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 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 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.

In a retrospective, cohort study at 4 medical centers with high coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination rates, we evaluated breakthrough severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Delta variant infections in vaccinated healthcare workers. Few work-related secondary cases were identified. Breakthrough cases were largely due to unmasked social activities outside of work.

This SHEA white paper identifies knowledge gaps and challenges in healthcare epidemiology research related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with a focus on core principles of healthcare epidemiology. These gaps, revealed during the worst phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, are described in 10 sections: epidemiology, outbreak investigation, surveillance, isolation precaution practices, personal protective equipment (PPE), environmental contamination and disinfection, drug and supply shortages, antimicrobial stewardship, healthcare personnel (HCP) occupational safety, and return to work policies. Each section highlights three critical healthcare epidemiology research questions with detailed description provided in supplementary materials. This research agenda calls for translational studies from laboratory-based basic science research to well-designed, large-scale studies and health outcomes research. Research gaps and challenges related to nursing homes and social disparities are included. Collaborations across various disciplines, expertise and across diverse geographic locations will be critical.

Novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a highly infectious, rapidly spreading viral disease with an alarming case fatality rate up to 5%. The risk factors for severe presentations are concentrated in patients with chronic kidney disease, particularly patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who are dialysis dependent. We report the first US case of a 56-year-old nondiabetic male with ESRD secondary to IgA nephropathy undergoing thrice-weekly maintenance hemodialysis for 3 years, who developed COVID-19 infection. He has hypertension controlled with angiotensin receptor blocker losartan 100 mg/day and coronary artery disease status-post stent placement. During the first 5 days of his febrile disease, he presented to an urgent care, 3 emergency rooms, 1 cardiology clinic, and 2 dialysis centers in California and Utah. During this interval, he reported nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and low-grade fevers but was not suspected of COVID-19 infection until he developed respiratory symptoms and was admitted to the hospital. Imaging studies upon admission were consistent with bilateral interstitial pneumonia. He was placed in droplet-eye precautions while awaiting COVID-19 test results. Within the first 24 h, he deteriorated quickly and developed acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), requiring intubation and increasing respiratory support. Losartan was withheld due to hypotension and septic shock. COVID-19 was reported positive on hospital day 3. He remained in critical condition being treated with hydroxychloroquine and tocilizumab in addition to the standard medical management for septic shock and ARDS. Our case is unique in its atypical initial presentation and highlights the importance of early testing.

BackgroundEarly evaluations of healthcare professional (HCP) COVID-19 risk occurred during insufficient personal protective equipment and disproportionate testing, contributing to perceptions of high patient-care related HCP risk. We evaluated HCP COVID-19 seropositivity after accounting for community factors and coworker outbreaks.MethodsPrior to universal masking, we conducted a single-center retrospective cohort plus cross-sectional study. All HCP (1) seen by Occupational Health for COVID-like symptoms (regardless of test result) or assigned to (2) dedicated COVID-19 units, (3) units with a COVID-19 HCP outbreak, or (4) control units from 01/01/2020 to 04/15/2020 were offered serologic testing by an FDA-authorized assay plus a research assay against 67 respiratory viruses, including 11 SARS-CoV-2 antigens. Multivariable models assessed the association of demographics, job role, comorbidities, care of a COVID-19 patient, and geocoded socioeconomic status with positive serology.ResultsOf 654 participants, 87 (13.3%) were seropositive; among these 60.8% (N = 52) had never cared for a COVID-19 patient. Being male (OR 1.79, CI 1.05–3.04,p = 0.03), working in a unit with a HCP-outbreak unit (OR 2.21, CI 1.28–3.81,p p = 0.05), and ethnically Latino (OR 2.10, CI 1.12–3.96,p = 0.02) were positively-associated with COVID-19 seropositivity, while working in dedicated COVID-19 units was negatively-associated (OR 0.53, CI = 0.30–0.94,p = 0.03). The research assay identified 25 additional seropositive individuals (78 [12%] vs. 53 [8%],p ConclusionsPrior to universal masking, HCP COVID-19 risk was dominated by workplace and community exposures while working in a dedicated COVID-19 unit was protective, suggesting that infection prevention protocols prevent patient-to-HCP transmission.Article summaryPrior to universal masking, HCP COVID-19 risk was dominated by workplace and community exposures while working in a dedicated COVID-19 unit was protective, suggesting that infection prevention protocols prevent patient-to-HCP transmission.

This cohort study investigates asymptomatic and symptomatic COVID-19 case rates before and after the initial vaccine rollout among health care personnel in Orange County, California.

Background: Early evaluations of healthcare professional (HCP) COVID-19 risk occurred during insufficient personal protective equipment and disproportionate testing, contributing to perceptions of high patient-care related HCP risk. We evaluated HCP COVID-19 seropositivity after accounting for community factors and coworker outbreaks.Methods: Prior to universal masking, we conducted a single-center retrospective cohort plus cross-sectional study. All HCP 1) seen by Occupational Health for COVID-like symptoms (regardless of test result) or assigned to 2) dedicated COVID-19 units, 3) units with a COVID-19 HCP outbreak, or 4) control units from 01/01/2020-04/15/2020 were offered serologic testing by an FDA-authorized assay plus a research assay against 67 respiratory viruses, including 11 SARS-CoV-2 antigens. Multivariable models assessed the association of demographics, job role, comorbidities, care of a COVID-19 patient, and geocoded socioeconomic status with positive serology.Results: Of 654 participants, 87 (13.3%) were seropositive; among these 60.8% (N=52) had never cared for a COVID-19 patient. Being male (OR 1.79, CI 1.05-3.04, p=0.03), working in a HCP-outbreak unit (OR 2.21, CI 1.28-3.81, pConclusions: Prior to universal masking, HCP COVID-19 risk was dominated by workplace and community exposures while working in a dedicated COVID-19 unit was protective, suggesting that infection prevention protocols prevent patient-to-HCP transmission.

Background Up to 40% of hospitalized patients receive unnecessary or inappropriately broad antibiotics despite a low risk of multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) infection. Empiric standard spectrum antibiotic use would reduce extended-spectrum (ES) antibiotic exposure and future resistance. We evaluated whether computerized prescriber order entry prompts providing patient-specific MDRO risk estimates could reduce ES antibiotic use compared to routine stewardship practices in patients hospitalized with urinary tract infection (UTI). Methods This 59-hospital cluster randomized trial compared: 1) INSPIRE prompts providing patient-specific MDRO UTI risk estimates at order entry and recommended standard spectrum antibiotics for risk < 10% versus 2) routine stewardship practices. Prompt used an absolute MDRO risk algorithm based on a 140 hospital data set. Trial population included adults treated with antibiotics for UTI in ED or non-ICU wards in first 3 days of admission (empiric days); prompt was triggered if ES antibiotics were ordered. Prescribers received feedback on prompt response. Trial periods: 18-month Baseline (Apr 2017–Sept 2018); 6-month Phase-in (Oct 2018–Mar 2019); 15-month Intervention (Apr 2019 – June 2020). Primary outcome was ES antibiotic days of therapy (ES-DOT) per empiric day; secondary outcomes were a) vancomycin and b) anti-pseudomonal DOT per empiric day. Unadjusted, as-randomized analyses used generalized linear mixed effects models to assess differences in ES-DOT rates between the intervention vs baseline period across arms (difference in differences), while clustering by patient and hospital. Results Results: We randomized 59 hospitals in 12 states, with 87,749 and 66,996 non-ICU UTI admissions in baseline and intervention periods, respectively. Intervention group had a a 21% reduction in ES-DOT compared to routine care. Vancomycin and anti-pseudomonal DOT were similarly reduced in the intervention group by 17% and 23%, respectively (Table). Conclusion Conclusion: INSPIRE order entry prompts providing real-time, patient-specific MDRO risk estimates with recommendation to use standard spectrum antibiotics in low risk patients significantly reduced empiric ES prescribing in adults admitted with UTI. Disclosures Shruti K. Gohil, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Investigator in studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Molnycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Investigator in studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Investigator in studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products) Edward Septimus, MD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products) Ken Kleinman, PhD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products) Lauren Heim, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic product)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic product) Syma Rashid, MD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic product)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic product) Taliser R. Avery, MS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Kenneth Sands, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Julia Moody, MS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Kimberly N. Smith, MBA, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Brandon Carver, BA, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Caren Spencer-Smith, MS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Russell Poland, PhD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Jason Hickok, MBA, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Arjun Srinivasan, MD, Nothing to disclose John A. Jernigan, MD, MS, Nothing to disclose Jonathan B. Perlin, MD, PhD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Richard Platt, MD, MSc, Medline (Research Grant or Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Susan S. Huang, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)

Background Up to 40% of hospitalized patients receive unnecessary or inappropriately broad antibiotics despite a low risk of multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) infection. Empiric standard spectrum antibiotic use would reduce extended-spectrum (ES) antibiotic exposure and future resistance. We evaluated whether computerized prescriber order entry prompts providing patient-specific MDRO risk estimates could reduce ES antibiotic use compared to routine stewardship practices in patients hospitalized with pneumonia. Methods This 59 hospital cluster-randomized trial compared: 1) INSPIRE prompts providing patient-specific MDRO pneumonia risk estimates at order entry and recommended standard spectrum antibiotics for risk < 10% versus 2) routine stewardship practices. Prompt used an absolute MDRO risk algorithm based on a 140 hospital data set. Trial population included adults treated with antibiotics for pneumonia in ED or non-ICU wards in first 3 days of admission (empiric days); prompt was triggered if ES antibiotics were ordered. Prescribers received feedback on prompt response. Trial periods: 18-month Baseline (Apr 2017–Sept 2018); 6-month Phase-in (Oct 2018–Mar 2019); 15-month Intervention (Apr 2019 – June 2020). Primary outcome was ES antibiotic days of therapy (ES-DOT) per empiric day; secondary outcomes were a) vancomycin and b) anti-pseudomonal DOT per empiric day. Unadjusted, as-randomized analyses used generalized linear mixed effects models to assess differences in ES-DOT rates between the intervention vs baseline period across arms (difference in differences), while clustering by patient and hospital. Results We randomized 59 hospitals in 12 states, with 59,897 and 51,486 non-ICU pneumonia admissions in baseline and intervention periods, respectively. Intervention group had a 33% reduction in ES-DOT compared to routine care. Vancomycin and anti-pseudomonal DOT were similarly reduced in the intervention group by 27% and 33%, respectively (Table). Conclusion INSPIRE order entry prompts providing real-time, patient-specific MDRO risk estimates with recommendation to use standard spectrum antibiotics in low risk patients significantly reduced empiric ES prescribing in adults admitted with pneumonia. Disclosures Shruti K. Gohil, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Investigator in studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Molnycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Investigator in studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Investigator in studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products) Edward Septimus, MD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products) Ken Kleinman, PhD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products) Lauren Heim, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic product)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic product) Syma Rashid, MD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic product)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic product) Taliser R. Avery, MS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Kenneth Sands, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Julia Moody, MS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Micaela H. Coady, MS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Kimberly N. Smith, MBA, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Brandon Carver, BA, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Caren Spencer-Smith, MS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Russell Poland, PhD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Jason Hickok, MBA, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Arjun Srinivasan, MD, Nothing to disclose John A. Jernigan, MD, MS, Nothing to disclose Jonathan B. Perlin, MD, PhD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Richard Platt, MD, MSc, Medline (Research Grant or Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Susan S. Huang, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)

Background Nursing home (NH) residents are at high infection and hospital readmission risk. Colonization with multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) is common. In ICU and post-hospital discharge settings, decolonization has reduced infection rates. However, the effectiveness of this strategy in NHs is unclear. Methods We performed a cluster randomized trial of 1:1 universal decolonization (decol) vs standard of care bathing (control) in 28 California NHs. After an 18 month baseline evaluation of hospitalization rates due to infection and MDRO prevalence, NHs were randomized to decol or control. Decol consisted of 1) chlorhexidine bathing; 2) nasal povidone iodine bid on admission x 5d and then M-F biweekly x 18 mo. Primary outcome was the probability that a transfer to a hospital was due to infection. Secondary outcome was the probability that a NH discharge was to a hospital. Results Four of 28 NHs dropped from the trial (3 decol, 1 control). Mean facility baseline of hospital transfers due to infection was 58% and 57% in the control and decol groups. In the intervention period, proportions were 57% and 48% in the control and decol groups. When accounting for clustering within NHs, hospital transfers due to infection had an OR of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.82-1.02) in the control group and an OR of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.56-0.95) in the decol group when comparing intervention to baseline period. For the primary outcome, decol had a 18% greater impact v. control (P=0.005, Fig. A). Baseline proportion of NH discharges due to hospitalization was 37% and 39% in the control and decol groups. In the intervention period, proportions were 36% and 33%. When accounting for clustering within NHs, the proportion of discharges due to hospitalization had an OR of 1.14 (95% CI: 1.06-1.22) in the control group and 0.91 (CI: 0.77-1.07) in the decol group when comparing the intervention period to the baseline period. For the secondary outcome, decol had a 23% greater impact v. control (P< 0.0001, Fig. B). In this figure, each nursing home is represented by a circle. The size of the circle represents the amount of contributed patient days to the trial. The groups represent “as randomized” categories. Panel A) compares the probability that a transfer to a hospital was due to infection; panel B) compares the probability that a nursing home discharge was to a hospital. The y-axis represents the odds ratio of these probabilities comparing the baseline to the intervention period. The p values represent the significance of the difference between groups (the trial effect). Conclusion Universal NH decolonization with chlorhexidine and nasal iodophor significantly reduced the proportion of transfers to hospitals due to infection and discharges due to hospitalization. Our findings suggest that NH decolonization reduces serious infections and can decrease morbidity in this vulnerable population. Disclosures Loren G. Miller, MD, MPH, Medline (Grant/Research Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Contributed product) Stryker (Other Financial or Material Support, Contributed product) Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Contributed product) James A. McKinnell, MD, Medline (Grant/Research Support) Raveena Singh, MA, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products) Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products) Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products) Gabrielle Gussin, MS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products) Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products) Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products) Ken Kleinman, PhD, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products) Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic products) Raheeb Saavedra, AS, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products) Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products) Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products) Lauren Heim, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products) Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic product) Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted clinical trials and studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic product) Shruti K. Gohil, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Investigator in studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products) Molnycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Investigator in studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products) Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Investigator in studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products) Susan S. Huang, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products) Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products) Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is a leading cause of healthcare-associated infections, accounting for significant disease burden and mortality. The clinical spectrum of C. difficile ranges from asymptomatic colonization to toxic megacolon and fulminant colitis. CDI is characterized by new onset of ≥ 3 unformed stools in 24 h and is confirmed by laboratory test for the presence of toxigenic C. difficile. Currently, laboratory tests to diagnose CDI include toxigenic culture, glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH), nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT), and toxins A/B enzyme immunoassay (EIA). The sensitivities of these tests are variable with toxin EIA ranging from 53 to 60% and with NAAT at about 95%. Overall, the specificity is > 90% for these methods. However, the positive predictive value (PPV) depends on the disease prevalence with lower CDI rates associated with lower PPVs. Notably, the widespread use of the highly sensitive NAAT and its relatively lower clinical specificity have led to overdiagnosis of C. difficile by identifying carriers when NAAT is used as the sole diagnostic method. Overdiagnosis of C. difficile has resulted in unwarranted treatment, possibly attributing to resistance to metronidazole and vancomycin, increased risk for overgrowth of vancomycin-resistant enterococci strains in stool specimens, and increased hospitalization thereby impacting patient safety and healthcare costs. Strategies to optimize the clinical sensitivity and specificity of current laboratory tests are critical to differentiate the clinical CDI from colonization. To achieve high diagnostic yield, if preagreed institutional criteria for stool submission are not used, a multistep approach to CDI diagnosis is recommended, such as either GDH or NAAT followed by toxins A/B EIA in conjunction with laboratory stewardship by evaluating C. difficile test orders for appropriateness and providing feedback. Furthermore, antimicrobial stewardship, along with provider education on appropriate testing for C. difficile, is vital to differentiate CDI from colonization.

Objective:To assess the impact of a newly developed Central-Line Insertion Site Assessment (CLISA) score on the incidence of local inflammation or infection for CLABSI prevention.Design:A pre- and postintervention, quasi-experimental quality improvement study.Setting and participants:Adult inpatients with central venous catheters (CVCs) hospitalized in an intensive care unit or oncology ward at a large academic medical center.Methods:We evaluated CLISA score impact on insertion site inflammation and infection (CLISA score of 2 or 3) incidence in the baseline period (June 2014–January 2015) and the intervention period (April 2015–October 2017) using interrupted times series and generalized linear mixed-effects multivariable analyses. These were run separately for days-to-line removal from identification of a CLISA score of 2 or 3. CLISA score interrater reliability and photo quiz results were evaluated.Results:Among 6,957 CVCs assessed 40,846 times, percentage of lines with CLISA score of 2 or 3 in the baseline and intervention periods decreased by 78.2% (from 22.0% to 4.7%), with a significant immediate decrease in the time-series analysis (P < .001). According to the multivariable regression, the intervention was associated with lower percentage of lines with a CLISA score of 2 or 3, after adjusting for age, gender, CVC body location, and hospital unit (odds ratio, 0.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.06–0.34; P < .001). According to the multivariate regression, days to removal of lines with CLISA score of 2 or 3 was 3.19 days faster after the intervention (P < .001). Also, line dwell time decreased 37.1% from a mean of 14 days (standard deviation [SD], 10.6) to 8.8 days (SD, 9.0) (P < .001). Device utilization ratios decreased 9% from 0.64 (SD, 0.08) to 0.58 (SD, 0.06) (P = .039).Conclusions:The CLISA score creates a common language for assessing line infection risk and successfully promotes high compliance with best practices in timely line removal.

Key Points Question Which multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) intervention is best to implement in a set of health care facilities to reduce the spread of MDROs regionwide? Findings In this computational simulation modeling study of 102 facilities in Orange County, California, the use of an agent-based model indicated that, after 3 years, increasing contact precaution effectiveness and implementing decolonization procedures in 42 target facilities would yield countywide relative decreases in the prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus of 1% and 24% and countywide relative decreases in the prevalence of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae of 2% and 40%, respectively, but varied with effectiveness. Increasing interfacility communication produced no changes in prevalence or transmission. Meaning This study’s findings suggest that modeling can inform the design of real-world regional interventions to control MDROs when intervening in a set of health care facilities., Importance Multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) can spread across health care facilities in a region. Because of limited resources, certain interventions can be implemented in only some facilities; thus, decision-makers need to evaluate which interventions may be best to implement. Objective To identify a group of target facilities and assess which MDRO intervention would be best to implement in the Shared Healthcare Intervention to Eliminate Life-threatening Dissemination of MDROs in Orange County, a large regional public health collaborative in Orange County, California. Design, Setting, and Participants An agent-based model of health care facilities was developed in 2016 to simulate the spread of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) for 10 years starting in 2010 and to simulate the use of various MDRO interventions for 3 years starting in 2017. All health care facilities (23 hospitals, 5 long-term acute care hospitals, and 74 nursing homes) serving adult inpatients in Orange County, California, were included, and 42 target facilities were identified via network analyses. Exposures Increasing contact precaution effectiveness, increasing interfacility communication about patients’ MDRO status, and performing decolonization using antiseptic bathing soap and a nasal product in a specific group of target facilities. Main Outcomes and Measures MRSA and CRE prevalence and number of new carriers (ie, transmission events). Results Compared with continuing infection control measures used in Orange County as of 2017, increasing contact precaution effectiveness from 40% to 64% in 42 target facilities yielded relative reductions of 0.8% (range, 0.5%-1.1%) in MRSA prevalence and 2.4% (range, 0.8%-4.6%) in CRE prevalence in health care facilities countywide after 3 years, averting 761 new MRSA transmission events (95% CI, 756-765 events) and 166 new CRE transmission events (95% CI, 158-174 events). Increasing interfacility communication of patients’ MDRO status to 80% in these target facilities produced no changes in the prevalence or transmission of MRDOs. Implementing decolonization procedures (clearance probability: 39% in hospitals, 27% in long-term acute care facilities, and 3% in nursing homes) yielded a relative reduction of 23.7% (range, 23.5%-23.9%) in MRSA prevalence, averting 3515 new transmission events (95% CI, 3509-3521 events). Increasing the effectiveness of antiseptic bathing soap to 48% yielded a relative reduction of 39.9% (range, 38.5%-41.5%) in CRE prevalence, averting 1435 new transmission events (95% CI, 1427-1442 events). Conclusions and Relevance The findings of this study highlight the ways in which modeling can inform design of regional interventions and suggested that decolonization would be the best strategy for the Shared Healthcare Intervention to Eliminate Life-threatening Dissemination of MDROs in Orange County., This computational simulation modeling study uses an agent-based model to identify target facilities and assess the optimal intervention to reduce the regional spread of multidrug-resistant organisms across health care facilities in Orange County, California.

Distinguished OralBackground: Shared Healthcare Intervention to Eliminate Life-threatening Dissemination of MDROs in Orange County, California (SHIELD OC) was a CDC-funded regional decolonization intervention from April 2017 through July 2019 involving 38 hospitals, nursing homes (NHs), and long-term acute-care hospitals (LTACHs) to reduce MDROs. Decolonization in NH and LTACHs consisted of universal antiseptic bathing with chlorhexidine (CHG) for routine bathing and showering plus nasal iodophor decolonization (Monday through Friday, twice daily every other week). Hospitals used universal CHG in ICUs and provided daily CHG and nasal iodophor to patients in contact precautions. We sought to evaluate whether decolonization reduced hospitalization and associated healthcare costs due to infections among residents of NHs participating in SHIELD compared to nonparticipating NHs. Methods: Medicaid insurer data covering NH residents in Orange County were used to calculate hospitalization rates due to a primary diagnosis of infection (counts per member quarter), hospital bed days/member-quarter, and expenditures/member quarter from the fourth quarter of 2015 to the second quarter of 2019. We used a time-series design and a segmented regression analysis to evaluate changes attributable to the SHIELD OC intervention among participating and nonparticipating NHs. Results: Across the SHIELD OC intervention period, intervention NHs experienced a 44% decrease in hospitalization rates, a 43% decrease in hospital bed days, and a 53% decrease in Medicaid expenditures when comparing the last quarter of the intervention to the baseline period (Fig. 1). These data translated to a significant downward slope, with a reduction of 4% per quarter in hospital admissions due to infection (P < .001), a reduction of 7% per quarter in hospitalization days due to infection (P < .001), and a reduction of 9% per quarter in Medicaid expenditures (P = .019) per NH resident. Conclusions: The universal CHG bathing and nasal decolonization intervention adopted by NHs in the SHIELD OC collaborative resulted in large, meaningful reductions in hospitalization events, hospitalization days, and healthcare expenditures among Medicaid-insured NH residents. The findings led CalOptima, the Medicaid provider in Orange County, California, to launch an NH incentive program that provides dedicated training and covers the cost of CHG and nasal iodophor for OC NHs that enroll.Funding: NoneDisclosures: Gabrielle M. Gussin, University of California, Irvine, 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.

C. difficile PCR testing identifies both colonized and infected patients, making it critical to only test patients that meet clinical criteria for C. difficile infection (CDI). We implemented an automated order-entry protocol that reduced inappropriate testing by 64% and hospital-onset (HO) CDI Standardized Infection Ratio (SIR) from 1.62 to 0.82.

Background Higher CHG skin levels may be needed to adequately control infection and transmission of pathogens in the ICU. We assessed whether measurement and feedback of patient CHG skin concentrations could improve CHG bathing quality and identified factors associated with higher CHG skin concentrations. Methods We conducted 6 one-day surveys from January 2018 to February 2019 in 7 academic hospital MICUs with established daily CHG bathing. Adults admitted >1 day were assessed for CHG skin levels with a semi-quantitative colorimetric assay using swabbed 25 cm2 areas of anterior neck, axilla, and inguinal skin. Prior to survey 4, results from the first 3 surveys (baseline) were reported to ICU leadership and front-line staff to retrain and reeducate on bathing technique. Feedback of results from prior surveys also occurred before surveys 5 and 6. For statistical analysis, mixed-effects models accounted for clustering of CHG measurements within patients and ICUs. We categorized CHG product type as “cloth” for no-rinse 2% CHG-impregnated cloth and “liquid” for 4% CHG liquid or foam. Results In total, 681 of 704 (97%) patients were enrolled. Three ICUs used CHG cloth, 3 ICUs used CHG liquid, and 1 ICU switched from liquid to cloth after the second survey. Median CHG skin concentrations were higher in both the baseline and feedback period for institutions using CHG cloth, as compared with liquid (table). Across all time points, axillary and inguinal regions had higher skin CHG concentrations than the neck (median 39.1, 78.1, 19.5 µg/mL, respectively, P < 0.001). After controlling for age, mechanical ventilation, presence of a central venous catheter, body site, and hours since last CHG bath, institutions that used CHG cloth had a 3-fold increase in adjusted CHG skin concentrations in the feedback period compared with the baseline period (P = 0.001, Figure). There was no significant change in CHG skin concentrations from baseline to feedback period for institutions that used liquid CHG. Conclusion CHG skin concentrations on MICU patients receiving daily CHG bathing varied by body site and CHG product type. The use of CHG cloth was associated with higher CHG skin levels, compared with CHG liquid. For ICUs using CHG cloth, feedback of CHG skin concentration results to ICU staff improved CHG bathing quality. Disclosures All Authors: No reported Disclosures.

Adherence to central line insertion practices can significantly reduce infections and is used as a hospital benchmark for quality. However, current national standards for central line insertion practices (CLIP) compliance calculation do not include missing CLIP forms. We found adherence rates significantly decreased when accounting for all lines at an academic medical center.

Background The east-to-west spread of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) represents an opportunity to explore strategies to limit spread in nonendemic areas. We evaluated CRE emergence and regional support for containment strategies. Methods A 17-question cross-sectional survey was administered to infection prevention programs in Orange County, CA (31 hospitals serving 3 million residents), between January and September 2014. Questions addressed newly detected hospital- and community-onset CRE cultures (2008-2013), current CRE control strategies, and support for prevention strategies for a hypothetical regional intervention. Results Among 31 hospitals, 21 (68%, representing 17 infection prevention programs) completed the survey. CRE was scarcely detected between 2009-2010; within 4 years, 90% of hospitals reported CRE, with 2.5-fold higher community-onset than hospital-onset CRE. Between 2011 and 2013, annual CRE incidence increased 4.7-fold (1.4-6.3 cases/10,000 admissions). Support for a regional CRE prevention bundle was unanimous. Although 22% bathed patients positive for CRE with chlorhexidine gluconate and 11% actively screened for CRE, 86% and 57%, respectively, would consider these strategies in a regional intervention. Conclusions CRE epidemiology in Orange County parallels early progression previously seen in now-endemic areas, representing an opportunity to consider interventions to prevent endemic spread. Many facilities would consider proactive strategies, such as chlorhexidine bathing, in the setting of a regional collaborative.

BackgroundA streamlined transition from inpatient to outpatient care can decrease 30-day readmissions. Outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) programs have not reduced readmissions; an OPAT bundle has been suggested to improve outcomes. We implemented a transition-of-care (TOC) OPAT bundle and assessed the effects on all-cause, 30-day hospital readmission.MethodsRetrospectively, patients receiving postdischarge intravenous antibiotics were evaluated before and after implementation of a TOC-OPAT program in Bronx, New York, between July, 2015 and February, 2016. Pearson’s χ2 test was used to compare 30-day readmissions between groups, and logistic regression was used to adjust for covariates. Time from discharge to readmission was analyzed to assess readmission risk, using log-rank test to compare survival curves and Cox proportional hazards model to adjust for covariates. Secondary outcomes, 30-day emergency department (ED) visits, and mortality were analyzed similarly.ResultsCompared with previous standard care (n = 184), the TOC-OPAT group (n = 146) had significantly lower 30-day readmissions before (13.0% vs 26.1%, P < .01) and after adjustment for covariates (odds ratio [OR] = 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27–0.94; P = .03). In time-dependent analyses, TOC-OPAT patients were at significantly lower risk for readmission (log-rank test, P < .01; hazard ratio = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.32–0.97; P = .04). Propensity-matched sensitivity analysis showed lower readmissions in the TOC-OPAT group (13.6% vs 24.6%, P = .04), which was attenuated after adjustment (OR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.25–1.05; P = .07). Mortality and ED visits were similar in both groups.ConclusionsOur TOC-OPAT patients had reduced 30-day readmissions compared with the previous standard of care. An effective TOC-OPAT bundle can successfully improve patient outcomes in an economically disadvantaged area.

Background CHG bathing is used to suppress patients’ microbial skin colonization, in order to prevent infections and transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms. Prior work has suggested that microbial growth is inhibited when CHG skin concentrations exceed threshold levels. Methods We conducted 6 single-day surveys from January 2018 to February 2019 in 7 academic hospital MICUs with established CHG patient bathing. Adult patients were eligible to have skin swabbed from adjacent 25 cm2 areas on the neck, axilla, and inguinal region for culture and CHG concentration determination. CHG skin concentrations were measured by a semi-quantitative colorimetric assay. Selective media were used to isolate targeted microorganisms (Table 1). Species were confirmed by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry; antibiotic susceptibility was determined by MicroScan (Beckman Coulter). We modeled the relationship between CHG skin concentrations (log2-transformed) and microorganism recovery (yes/no as primary outcome) using multilevel models controlling for clustering of body sites within patients and within ICUs, assessing slope and threshold effects. Results We enrolled 736/759 (97%) patients and sampled 2176 skin sites. Gram-positive bacteria were detected most frequently (Table 1). The adjusted odds of identifying gram-positive organisms decreased linearly as CHG skin levels increased (Figure 1a), without evidence of a threshold effect. We also found significant negative linear slopes without evidence of threshold effects for other pathogens tested (Table 2; Figure 1), with the exception of gram-negative bacteria and vancomycin-resistant enterococci. When modeling quantitative culture results (colony-forming units) for gram-positive organisms as a continuous outcome variable, a similar relationship was found. Conclusion Higher concentrations of CHG were associated with less frequent recovery of gram-positive bacteria and Candida species on the skin of MICU patients who were bathed routinely with CHG. For microbial inhibition, we did not identify a threshold concentration of CHG on the skin; rather, increasing CHG skin concentrations led to additional gains in inhibition. For infection prevention, aiming for high CHG skin levels may be beneficial. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Author(s): Gohil, Shruti K; Yim, Jennifer; AQuan, Kathleen; Espinoza, Maurice; Thompson, Deborah; Kong, Allen P; Tjoa, Thomas; Bahadori, Bardia; Paiji, Christopher; Rashid, Syma; Hong, Suzie S; Dickey, Linda; Alsharif, Mohamad N; Amin, Alpesh N; Chang, Justin; Khusbu, Usme; Huang, Susan S

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

Author(s): Gohil, Shruti K; Okubo, Sandra; Klish, Stephen; Dickey, Linda; Huang, Susan S; Zahn, Matthew | Abstract: BackgroundWhen caring for measles patients, N95 respirator use by healthcare workers (HCWs) with documented immunity is not uniformly required or practiced. In the setting of increasingly common measles outbreaks and provider inexperience with measles, HCWs face increased risk for occupational exposures. Meanwhile, optimal infection prevention responses to healthcare-associated exposures are loosely defined. We describe measles acquisition among HCWs despite prior immunity and lessons from healthcare-associated exposure investigations during a countywide outbreak.MethodsPrimary and secondary cases, associated exposures, and risk factors were identified during a measles outbreak in Orange County, California from, 30 January 2014 to 21 April 2014. We reviewed the effect of different strategies in response to hospital exposures and resultant case capture.ResultsAmong 22 confirmed measles cases, 5 secondary cases occurred in HCWs. Of these, 4 had direct contact with measles patients; none wore N95 respirators. Four HCWs had prior evidence of immunity and continued working after developing symptoms, resulting in 1014 exposures, but no transmissions. Overall, 13 of 15 secondary cases had face-to-face contact with measles patients, 8 with prior evidence of immunity.ConclusionsHCWs with unmasked, direct contact with measles patients are at risk for developing disease despite evidence of prior immunity, resulting in potentially large numbers of exposures and necessitating time-intensive investigations. Vaccination may lower infectivity. Regardless of immunity status, HCWs should wear N-95 respirators (or equivalent) when evaluating suspected measles patients. Those with direct unprotected exposure should be monitored for symptoms and be furloughed at the earliest sign of illness.

Objectives The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention considers carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) an urgent public health threat; however, its economic burden is unknown. Methods We developed a CRE clinical and economics outcomes model to determine the cost of CRE infection from the hospital, third-party payer, and societal, perspectives and to evaluate the health and economic burden of CRE to the USA. Results Depending on the infection type, the median cost of a single CRE infection can range from $22 484 to $66 031 for hospitals, $10 440 to $31 621 for third-party payers, and $37 778 to $83 512 for society. An infection incidence of 2.93 per 100 000 population in the USA (9418 infections) would cost hospitals $275 million (95% CR $217–334 million), third-party payers $147 million (95% CR $129–172 million), and society $553 million (95% CR $303–1593 million) with a 25% attributable mortality, and would result in the loss of 8841 (95% CR 5805–12 420) quality-adjusted life years. An incidence of 15 per 100 000 (48 213 infections) would cost hospitals $1.4 billion (95% CR $1.1–1.7 billion), third-party payers $0.8 billion (95% CR $0.6–0.8 billion), and society $2.8 billion (95% CR $1.6–8.2 billion), and result in the loss of 45 261 quality-adjusted life years. Conclusions The cost of CRE is higher than the annual cost of many chronic diseases and of many acute diseases. Costs rise proportionally with the incidence of CRE, increasing by 2.0 times, 3.4 times, and 5.1 times for incidence rates of 6, 10, and 15 per 100 000 persons.

MAJOR ARTICLE Impact of Hospital Population Case-Mix, Including Poverty, on Hospital All-Cause and Infection-Related 30-Day Readmission Rates Shruti K. Gohil, 1,a Rupak Datta, 2,a Chenghua Cao, 1 Michael J. Phelan, 3 Vinh Nguyen, 3 Armaan A. Rowther, 1 and Susan S. Huang 1 Division of Infectious Diseases and Health Policy Research Institute, University of California Irvine School of Medicine, 2 Department of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, and 3 Department of Statistics, University of California, Irvine Background. Reducing hospital readmissions, including preventable healthcare-associated infections, is a na- tional priority. The proportion of readmissions due to infections is not well-understood. Better understanding of hospital risk factors for readmissions and infection-related readmissions may help optimize interventions to prevent readmissions. Methods. Retrospective cohort study of California acute care hospitals and their patient populations discharged between 2009 and 2011. Demographics, comorbidities, and socioeconomic status were entered into a hierarchical generalized linear mixed model predicting all-cause and infection-related readmissions. Crude verses adjusted hos- pital rankings were compared using Cohen’s kappa. Results. We assessed 30-day readmission rates from 323 hospitals, accounting for 213 879 194 post-discharge person-days of follow-up. Infection-related readmissions represented 28% of all readmissions and were associated with discharging a high proportion of patients to skilled nursing facilities. Hospitals serving populations with high proportions of males, comorbidities, prolonged length of stay, and populations living in a federal poverty area, had higher all-cause and infection-related readmission rates. Academic hospitals had higher all-cause and infection- related readmission rates (odds ratio 1.24 and 1.15, respectively). When comparing adjusted vs crude hospital rank- ings for infection-related readmission rates, adjustment revealed 31% of hospitals changed performance category for infection-related readmissions. Conclusions. Infection-related readmissions accounted for nearly 30% of all-cause readmissions. High hospital infection-related readmissions were associated with serving a high proportion of patients with comorbidities, long lengths of stay, discharge to skilled nursing facility, and those living in federal poverty areas. Preventability of these infections needs to be assessed. Keywords. hospital infections; readmissions; healthcare associated infections; poverty. Hospital readmissions represent a major health and fi- nancial burden to patients. Nearly 30% of hospitalized patients are readmitted within 1 year of hospitalization, with over half occurring within 30 days of discharge Received 27 August 2014; accepted 24 June 2015; electronically published 30 June 2015. a S. K. G. and R. D. contributed equally to this work. Correspondence: Shruti K. Gohil, MD, MPH, UCI Medical Center, Division of In- fectious Diseases, 333 City Blvd, W, Ste 400, Orange, CA 92697 (skgohil@uci.edu). Clinical Infectious Diseases ® 2015;61(8):1235–43 © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com. DOI: 10.1093/cid/civ539 [1, 2]. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) estimate rehospitalization cost among Medicare patients alone at $17 billion annually. Readmission rates serve as hospital quality indicators in an era of transpar- ency, accountability, and best practices in healthcare de- livery [3]. As of October 2012, CMS began restricting reimbursements for readmissions associated with con- gestive heart failure, acute myocardial infarctions, and pneumonia and are now implementing further financial restrictions for hospitals with elevated all-cause read- mission rates [4–6]. The interest in readmission rates is driven, in part, by the recognition that a significant proportion of Hospital Readmissions Due to Infection CID 2015:61 (15 October)

The attention and resources being dedicated to improving sepsis care are welcome. The policy response to this apparent epidemic, however, ought to be tempered by recognition that we do not yet have reliable tools for measuring sepsis incidence.

Cryptococcus neoformans is one of the most common causes of fungal disease in HIV-infected persons, but not all of those who are infected develop cryptococcal disease (CD). Although CD4+ T cell deficiency is a risk factor for HIV-associated CD, polymorphisms of phagocytic Fc gamma receptors (FCGRs) have been linked to CD risk in HIV-uninfected persons. To investigate associations between FCGR2A 131 H/R and FCGR3A 158 F/V polymorphisms and CD risk in HIV-infected persons, we performed PCR-based genotyping on banked samples from 164 men enrolled in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS): 55 who were HIV infected and developed CD and a matched control group of 54 who were HIV infected and 55 who were HIV uninfected. Using additive and allelic statistical models for analysis, the high-affinity FCGR3A 158V allele was significantly associated with CD status after adjusting for race/ethnicity (odds ratio [OR], 2.1; P = 0.005), as was the FCGR3A 158 VV homozygous genotype after adjusting for race/ethnicity, rate of CD4+ T cell decline, and nadir CD4+ T cell count (OR, 21; P = 0.005). No associations between CD and FCGR2A 131 H/R polymorphism were identified. In binding studies, human IgG (hIgG)-C. neoformans complexes exhibited more binding to CHO-K1 cells expressing FCGR3A 158V than to those expressing FCGR3A 158F, and in cytotoxicity assays, natural killer (NK) cells expressing FCGR3A 158V induced more C. neoformans-infected monocyte cytotoxicity than those expressing FCGR3A 158F. Together, these results show an association between the FCGR3A 158V allele and risk for HIV-associated CD and suggest that this polymorphism could promote C. neoformans pathogenesis via increased binding of C. neoformans immune complexes, resulting in increased phagocyte cargo and/or immune activation., IMPORTANCE HIV-associated CD4+ T cell deficiency is a sine qua non for HIV-associated cryptococcal disease (CD), but not all patients with CD4+ T cell deficiency develop CD despite serological evidence of previous infection. At present, there are no biomarkers that predict HIV-associated CD risk. The goal of our study was to understand whether Fc gamma receptor (FCGR) polymorphisms that have been shown to portend CD risk in HIV-uninfected people are associated with CD risk in HIV-infected people. Such biomarkers could identify those who would benefit most from targeted prophylaxis and/or earlier treatment, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, where there are nearly a million cases of HIV-associated CD annually. A biomarker of risk could also identify potential candidates for immunization, should there be a vaccine for Cryptococcus neoformans.

Bacterial pneumonia risk is disproportionately high among those infected with HIV. This risk is present across all CD4(+) T-cell levels (TCLs), suggesting that additional factors govern susceptibility. This study examines CD8(+) TCLs and risk for HIV-associated bacterial pneumonia and all-cause mortality.Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were obtained for 885 HIV-infected women enrolled in the HIV Epidemiologic Research Study (HERS). Bacterial pneumonia cases were identified using clinical, microbiological, and radiographic criteria. CD8(+) TCLs were assessed at 6-month intervals. Statistical methods included Cox proportional hazards regression modeling and covariate-adjusted survival estimates.Relative to a referent CD8(+) TCL of 401-800 cells per cubic millimeter, risk for bacterial pneumonia was significantly higher when CD8(+) TCLs were400 (hazard ratio 1.65, P = 0.017, 95% confidence interval 1.10 to 2.49), after adjusting for age, CD4(+) TCL, viral load, and antiretroviral use. There was also a significantly higher risk of death when CD8(+) TCLs were ≤400 cells per cubic millimeter (hazard ratio 1.45, P = 0.04, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 2.06). Covariate-adjusted survival estimates revealed shorter time to pneumonia and death in this CD8(+) TCL category, and the overall associations of the categorized CD8(+) TCL with bacterial pneumonia and all-cause mortality were each statistically significant (P = 0.017 and P0.0001, respectively).CD8(+) TCL ≤400 cells per cubic millimeter was associated with increased risk for pneumonia and all-cause mortality in HIV-infected women in the HERS cohort, suggesting that CD8(+) TCL could serve as an adjunctive biomarker of pneumonia risk and mortality in HIV-infected individuals.

The use of pneumococcal capsular polysaccharide (PPS)-based vaccines has resulted in a substantial reduction in invasive pneumococcal disease. However, much remains to be learned about vaccine-mediated immunity, as seven-valent PPS-protein conjugate vaccine use in children has been associated with nonvaccine serotype replacement and 23-valent vaccine use in adults has not prevented pneumococcal pneumonia. In this report, we demonstrate that certain PPS-specific monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) enhance the transformation frequency of two different Streptococcus pneumoniae serotypes. This phenomenon was mediated by PPS-specific MAbs that agglutinate but do not promote opsonic effector cell killing of the homologous serotype in vitro. Compared to the autoinducer, competence-stimulating peptide (CSP) alone, transcriptional profiling of pneumococcal gene expression after incubation with CSP and one such MAb to the PPS of serotype 3 revealed changes in the expression of competence (com)-related and bacteriocin-like peptide (blp) genes involved in pneumococcal quorum sensing. This MAb was also found to induce a nearly 2-fold increase in CSP2-mediated bacterial killing or fratricide. These observations reveal a novel, direct effect of PPS-binding MAbs on pneumococcal biology that has important implications for antibody immunity to pneumococcus in the pneumococcal vaccine era. Taken together, our data suggest heretofore unsuspected mechanisms by which PPS-specific antibodies could affect genetic exchange and bacterial viability in the absence of host cells., IMPORTANCE Current thought holds that pneumococcal capsular polysaccharide (PPS)-binding antibodies protect against pneumococcus by inducing effector cell opsonic killing of the homologous serotype. While such antibodies are an important part of how pneumococcal vaccines protect against pneumococcal disease, PPS-specific antibodies that do not exhibit this activity but are highly protective against pneumococcus in mice have been identified. This article examines the effect of nonopsonic PPS-specific monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) on the biology of Streptococcus pneumoniae. The results showed that in the presence of a competence-stimulating peptide (CSP), such MAbs increase the frequency of pneumococcal transformation. Further studies with one such MAb showed that it altered the expression of genes involved in quorum sensing and increased competence-induced killing or fratricide. These findings reveal a novel, previously unsuspected mechanism by which certain PPS-specific antibodies exert a direct effect on pneumococcal biology that has broad implications for bacterial clearance, genetic exchange, and antibody immunity to pneumococcus.