Search

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

Pooling of samples can increase throughput and reduce costs for large-scale SARS-CoV-2 testing when incidence is low. In a cross-sectional study of serial SARS-CoV-2 sampling of staff and residents at three nursing homes, laboratory labor constraints limited the feasibility of pooling prior to the maximal incidence that favored cost savings. IMPORTANCE This study highlights the pragmatic considerations surrounding SARS-CoV-2 sample pooling beyond accuracy and costs. We performed a cost analysis to determine the percent positivity at which pooling would reduce costs versus single testing. We found that the need for a stable amount of daily work hours staffed by a highly trained workforce was a major limitation in pooling as test positivity increased. For the COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemic threats, laboratories should carefully consider the thresholds at which sample pooling is beneficial, with a particular focus on the impact on laboratory staff.

The CLEAR Trial recently found that decolonization reduced infections and hospitalizations in MRSA carriers in the year following hospital discharge. In this secondary analysis, we explored whether decolonization had a similar benefit in the subgroup of trial participants who harbored USA300, using two different definitions for the USA300 strain-type.

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.

Background Nursing homes (NHs) are high risk settings for COVID. Staff are the primary source for introducing COVID into a NH. Preventing staff from working when ill is key to resident safety. NH staff face significant socioeconomic pressures that may influence their willingness to report COVID symptoms. Understanding the drivers behind unreported illness can inform ways to prevent working when ill. Methods We conducted a confidential survey of 120 COVID-positive NH staff in Orange County, CA from Dec ‘20-Feb ‘22 to quantify the frequency and drivers of unreported COVID symptoms. We designed a 40-item survey to assess demographics, course of illness, symptom reporting behavior, and monetary, logistic, and emotional (stigma/fear) barriers to reporting using a 5-point Likert scale. Recruitment flyers were shared with all 70 NHs in the county and referrals were accepted from NH leadership. Participants received $50 for completing the 20-30 min phone-based survey. We calculated summary statistics, transformed all data to a 0-100 scale, assessed the reliability of each factor related to reporting at the group level using Cronbach’s alpha, and assessed discriminant validity with t-tests comparing responses among subsets expected to differ. Results Table 1 shows participant characteristics. 49% of surveys were during the 2020-21 winter wave and 51% were during the Delta/Omicron waves, with a relatively even distribution of certified nursing assistants (CNAs), nurses, and non-frontline staff. Most cases (70%) were detected by routine testing at the NH and most (63%) had ≥1 symptom prior to their test. Only 39% disclosed their symptom to a supervisor. It is unknown how many staff would have disclosed symptoms if they were not captured during routine testing. Responses were consistent across 15 discrete factors with Cronbach alpha >0.7. Overall, fear and encouragement from supervisors were the most salient factors for speaking up about COVID symptoms (Table 2). Responses varied between the two waves and between frontline vs non-frontline workers. Conclusion Frequent surveillance testing of NH staff during a pandemic is critical due to many factors that drive reluctance to speak up about potential symptoms. Encouragement from supervisors to report symptoms and stay home when ill may improve NH safety. Disclosures Gabrielle M. Gussin, MS, Medline: Conducted studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and/or environmental cleaning products|Stryker: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products|Xttrium Laboratories: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products Raveena D. Singh, MA, Medline: Conducted studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and/or environmental cleaning products|Stryker: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products|Xttrium Laboratories: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products Raheeb Saavedra, AS, Medline: Conducted studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and/or environmental cleaning products|Stryker: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products|Xttrium Laboratories: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products Susan S. Huang, MD, MPH, Medline: Conducted studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and/or environmental cleaning products|Molnlyke: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals received contributed antiseptic product|Stryker: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products|Xttrium Laboratories: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic product.

Background The CLUSTER trial assessed the impact of prospective identification of clusters coupled with a response protocol on the containment of hospital clusters. Methods This 82-hospital CRT in 16 states compared clusters of bacterial and fungal healthcare pathogens using a statistical outbreak detection tool (WHONET-SaTScan) coupled with a standardized response protocol (automated cluster detection arm) compared to routine surveillance with the response protocol (control arm). Trial periods: 24 mo Baseline (2/17–1/19); 5 mo Phase-in (2/19–6/19); 30 mo Intervention (7/19–1/22). The primary outcome was the number of additional cases occurring after initial cluster detection. Analyses used generalized linear mixed models to assess differences in additional cases between the intervention vs baseline periods across arms, clustering by hospital. Results were assessed overall and, to account for the effect of COVID-19 on hospital operations, stratified into pre-COVID-19 (7/19–6/20) and during COVID-19 (7/20–1/22) intervention periods. We also assessed the probability that a patient was in a cluster. Results In the baseline period, the automated cluster detection and control arms had 0.09 and 0.07 additional cluster cases/1000 admissions, respectively. The automated cluster detection arm had a 22% greater relative reduction in additional cluster cases in the intervention vs baseline period compared to control (P=0.5). Within the intervention period, the automated cluster detection arm had a significant 64% relative reduction pre-COVID-19 (P< 0.05) and a non-significant 6% relative reduction during COVID-19 (P=0.9) compared to control (Figure). When evaluating patient risk of being part of a cluster across the entire intervention period, the automated cluster detection arm had a significant 35% relative reduction vs control (P< 0.01). Conclusion A statistical automated tool coupled with a response protocol improved cluster containment by 64% pre-COVID-19 but not during COVID-19; there were no significant differences between the arms when using the entire intervention period. Automated cluster detection may substantially improve outbreak containment in non-pandemic periods when infection prevention programs are able to optimize containment protocols. Disclosures 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.

Background Environmental contamination is suspected to play a key role in transmission of Candida auris in healthcare facilities. We recently showed that environmental surfaces near C. auris-colonized patients are commonly recontaminated within hours after disinfection. Clinical factors contributing to environmental contamination are not well characterized. Methods We conducted a multi-regional (Chicago, IL; Irvine, CA) prospective study of environmental contamination associated with C. auris colonization at six long-term care facilities (LTCF) and 1 acute-care hospital (ACH). On day of sampling, 5 participant body sites were cultured once, followed by routine daily room cleaning by facility staff, then targeted disinfection of high-touch surfaces with hydrogen peroxide wipes by research staff. Surfaces were cultured for C. auris using pre-moistened sponge-sticks and neutralizer immediately pre- and post-disinfection, and 4, 8, and 12 hours post-disinfection. We calculated the odds of surface recontamination after disinfection as a function of body site colonization with C. auris using generalized estimating equations to account for clustering among multiple surfaces within timepoints, patients, and facilities. Models included an interaction between facility type and colonization. Results C. auris was cultured from ≥1 body site in 41 participants (12 ACH and 29 LTCF patients, 205 body sites) on day of sampling. Proportion of body sites colonized did not vary by facility type (Table). Although environmental contamination rates were similar prior to disinfection [ACH 38% (n=60 samples) vs LTCF 29%, (n=145 samples), p=0.209)], the proportion of surfaces recontaminated between 4–12 hours after disinfection was higher in ACH vs LTCF (n=574 samples) (Figure). Number of body sites colonized with C. auris was associated with higher odds of environmental recontamination [ACH: OR 2.16 (95% CI 1.63–2.88), p< 0.001; LTCF: OR 1.40 (95% CI 1.07–1.84), p=0.015; Interaction ACH vs LTCF p< 0.001]. Conclusion The number of body sites colonized was associated with odds of C. auris environmental contamination. Differences in environmental recontamination by facility type may be related to greater provider-patient interactions in ACH as a driving factor. Disclosures Gabrielle M. Gussin, MS, Medline: Conducted studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and/or environmental cleaning products|Stryker: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products|Xttrium Laboratories: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products Raveena D. Singh, MA, Medline: Conducted studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and/or environmental cleaning products|Stryker: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products|Xttrium Laboratories: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products Raheeb Saavedra, AS, Medline: Conducted studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and/or environmental cleaning products|Stryker: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products|Xttrium Laboratories: Conducted clinical studies in which hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic products Nicholas M. Moore, PhD, D(ABMM), Abbott Molecular: Grant/Research Support|Cepheid: Grant/Research Support 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 Mary K. Hayden, MD, Sanofi: Member, clinical adjudication panel for an investigational SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

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

We hosted a confidential helpline to address concerns about COVID-19 prevention among staff in 12 nursing homes in Orange County, California. We fielded 301 inquiries from April 2021-April 2022, most commonly involving questions about vaccines (40%), nursing home COVID-19 prevention (28%), SARS-CoV-2 variants (18%), symptom reporting (10%), and home and community COVID-19 prevention (5%). During COVID-19 surges, staff dominantly expressed fear, anger, and exhaustion. During nadirs, sentiment shifted towards optimism and acceptance.

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.

Objective:To compare strategies for hospital ranking based on colon surgical-site infection (SSI) rate by combining all colon procedures versus stratifying by surgical approach (ie, laparoscopic vs open).Design:Retrospective cohort study.Methods:We identified SSIs among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing colon surgery from 2009 through 2013 using previously validated methods. We created a risk prediction model for SSI using age, sex, race, comorbidities, surgical approach (laparoscopy vs open), and concomitant colon and noncolon procedures. Adjusted SSI rates were used to rank hospitals. Subanalyses were performed for common colon procedures and procedure types for which there were both open and laparoscopic procedures. We generated ranks using only open and only laparoscopic procedures, overall and for each subanalysis. Rankings were compared using a Spearman correlation coefficient.Results:In total, 694,813 colon procedures were identified among 508,135 Medicare beneficiaries. The overall SSI rate was 7.6%. The laparoscopic approach was associated with lower SSI risk (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4–0.5), and higher SSI risk was associated with concomitant abdominal surgeries (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.4–1.5) and higher Elixhauser score (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0–1.1). Hospital rankings for laparascopic procedures were poorly correlated with rankings for open procedures (r = 0.23).Conclusions:Hospital rankings based on total colon procedures fail to account for differences in SSI risk from laparoscopic vs open procedures. Stratifying rankings by surgical approach yields a more equitable comparison of surgical performance.

Methicillin-resistant

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

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.

Objective:To evaluate the National Health Safety Network (NHSN) hospital-onset Clostridioides difficile infection (HO-CDI) standardized infection ratio (SIR) risk adjustment for general acute-care hospitals with large numbers of intensive care unit (ICU), oncology unit, and hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) patients.Design:Retrospective cohort study.Setting:Eight tertiary-care referral general hospitals in California.Methods:We used FY 2016 data and the published 2015 rebaseline NHSN HO-CDI SIR. We compared facility-wide inpatient HO-CDI events and SIRs, with and without ICU data, oncology and/or HCT unit data, and ICU bed adjustment.Results:For these hospitals, the median unmodified HO-CDI SIR was 1.24 (interquartile range [IQR], 1.15–1.34); 7 hospitals qualified for the highest ICU bed adjustment; 1 hospital received the second highest ICU bed adjustment; and all had oncology-HCT units with no additional adjustment per the NHSN. Removal of ICU data and the ICU bed adjustment decreased HO-CDI events (median, −25%; IQR, −20% to −29%) but increased the SIR at all hospitals (median, 104%; IQR, 90%–105%). Removal of oncology-HCT unit data decreased HO-CDI events (median, −15%; IQR, −14% to −21%) and decreased the SIR at all hospitals (median, −8%; IQR, −4% to −11%).Conclusions:For tertiary-care referral hospitals with specialized ICUs and a large number of ICU beds, the ICU bed adjustor functions as a global adjustment in the SIR calculation, accounting for the increased complexity of patients in ICUs and non-ICUs at these facilities. However, the SIR decrease with removal of oncology and HCT unit data, even with the ICU bed adjustment, suggests that an additional adjustment should be considered for oncology and HCT units within general hospitals, perhaps similar to what is done for ICU beds in the current SIR.

Background The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) use colon surgical site infection (SSI) rates to rank hospitals and apply financial penalties. The CMS’ risk-adjustment model omits potentially impactful variables that might disadvantage hospitals with complex surgical populations. Methods We analyzed adult patients who underwent colon surgery within facilities associated with HCA Healthcare from 2014 to 2016. SSIs were identified from National Health Safety Network (NHSN) reporting. We trained and validated 3 SSI prediction models, using (1) current CMS model variables, including hospital-specific random effects (HCA-adapted CMS model); (2) demographics and claims-based comorbidities (expanded-claims model); and (3) demographics, claims-based comorbidities, and NHSN variables (claims-plus–electronic health record [EHR] model). Discrimination, calibration, and resulting rankings were compared among all models and the current CMS model with published coefficient values. Results We identified 39 468 colon surgeries in 149 hospitals, resulting in 1216 (3.1%) SSIs. Compared to the HCA-adapted CMS model, the expanded-claims model had similar performance (c-statistic, 0.65 vs 0.67, respectively), while the claims-plus-EHR model was more accurate (c-statistic, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, .67–.73; P = .004). The sampling variation, due to the low surgical volume and small number of infections, contributed 74% of the total variation in observed SSI rates between hospitals. When CMS model rankings were compared to those from the expanded-claims and claims-plus-EHR models, 18 (15%) and 26 (22%) hospitals changed quartiles, respectively, and 10 (8.3%) and 12 (10%) hospitals changed into or out of the lowest-performing quartile, respectively. Conclusions An expanded set of variables improved colon SSI risk predictions and quartile assignments, but low procedure volumes and SSI events remain a barrier to effectively comparing hospitals., Using additional variables can improve risk adjustments of hospital-level colon surgical site infection rates, but have limited impact on financial penalties. Low procedure and infection rates contribute to much of the between-hospital variation.

Objectives To determine temporal associations of local measures of influenza morbidity and mortality by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) with influenza hospitalizations in nursing home residents. Design Retrospective, longitudinal panel study. Setting and participants Long-stay nursing home residents, aged 65 years or older in 823 nursing homes from 2011 to 2015. Measures CDC-reported rates of influenza and pneumonia mortality and laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalizations. We compared the CDC measures to nursing home resident hospitalizations due to (1) all-cause, (2) a primary diagnosis of respiratory or circulatory illness, and (3) a primary diagnosis of pneumonia or influenza based on Medicare Part A Claims data. Results Our final sample included 273,743 unique residents in 819 nursing homes in 108 cities. National laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations for the group aged 65 and older occurred 0 to 1 week prior to nursing home resident influenza-related hospitalizations (Spearman ρ = 0.54). CDC-reported influenza hospitalizations occurred 3 weeks prior to CDC-reported influenza deaths (ρ = 0.59). Nursing home resident influenza hospitalizations occurred 2 weeks before local CDC-reported pneumonia and influenza deaths occurred (ρ = 0.44). Conclusions/implications Publicly reported CDC measures correlate well with nursing home hospitalizations for pneumonia and influenza. Rates of laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalizations (as reported by the CDC) may be a useful surrogate for nursing home influenza outbreaks but should be considered along with local indicators of disease outbreaks. Early community signals could be clinically leveraged as a trigger for increased infection control measures in nursing homes.

MRSA colonization is a critical public health concern. Decolonization protocols have been designed for the clearance of MRSA. Successful decolonization protocols reduce disease incidence; however, multiple protocols exist, comprising diverse therapies targeting multiple body sites, and the optimal protocol is unclear. Here, we formulate a machine learning model using data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of MRSA decolonization, which estimates interactions between body sites, quantifies the contribution of each therapy to successful decolonization, and enables predictions of the efficacy of therapy combinations. This work shows how a machine learning model can help design and improve complex clinical protocols., Comment: Extended Abstract presented at Machine Learning for Health (ML4H) symposium 2022, November 28th, 2022, New Orleans, United States & Virtual, http://www.ml4h.cc, 12 pages

BackgroundCarbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) are an urgent global health threat. Inferring the dynamics of local CRE dissemination is currently limited by our inability to confidently trace the spread of resistance determinants to unrelated bacterial hosts. Whole genome sequence comparison is useful for identifying CRE clonal transmission and outbreaks, but high-frequency horizontal gene transfer (HGT) of carbapenem resistance genes and subsequent genome rearrangement complicate tracing the local persistence and mobilization of these genes across organisms.MethodsTo overcome this limitation, we developed a new approach to identify recent HGT of large, near-identical plasmid segments across species boundaries, which also allowed us to overcome technical challenges with genome assembly. We applied this to complete and near-complete genome assemblies to examine the local spread of CRE in a systematic, prospective collection of all CRE, as well as time- and species-matched carbapenem susceptible Enterobacterales, isolated from patients from four U.S. hospitals over nearly five years.ResultsOur CRE collection comprised a diverse range of species, lineages and carbapenem resistance mechanisms, many of which were encoded on a variety of promiscuous plasmid types. We found and quantified rearrangement, persistence, and repeated transfer of plasmid segments, including those harboring carbapenemases, between organisms over multiple years. Some plasmid segments were found to be strongly associated with specific locales, thus representing geographic signatures that make it possible to trace recent and localized HGT events.Functional analysis of these signatures revealed genes commonly found in plasmids of nosocomial pathogens, such as functions required for plasmid retention and spread, as well survival against a variety of antibiotic and antiseptics common to the hospital environment.ConclusionsCollectively, the framework we developed provides a clearer, high resolution picture of the epidemiology of antibiotic resistance importation, spread, and persistence in patients and healthcare networks.

We performed secondary analyses of a postdischarge decolonization trial of MRSA carriers that reduced MRSA infection and hospitalization by 30%. Hospitalized MRSA infection was associated with 7.9 days of non-MRSA antibiotics and CDI in 3.9%. Preventing MRSA infection and associated hospitalization may reduce antibiotic use and CDI incidence.

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.

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

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

Background The profound changes wrought by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on routine hospital operations may have influenced performance on hospital measures, including healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). We aimed to evaluate the association between COVID-19 surges and HAI and cluster rates. Methods In 148 HCA Healthcare-affiliated hospitals, from 1 March 2020 to 30 September 2020, and a subset of hospitals with microbiology and cluster data through 31 December 2020, we evaluated the association between COVID-19 surges and HAIs, hospital-onset pathogens, and cluster rates using negative binomial mixed models. To account for local variation in COVID-19 pandemic surge timing, we included the number of discharges with a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis per staffed bed per month. Results Central line-associated blood stream infections (CLABSI), catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI), and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia increased as COVID-19 burden increased. There were 60% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 23–108%) more CLABSI, 43% (95% CI: 8–90%) more CAUTI, and 44% (95% CI: 10–88%) more cases of MRSA bacteremia than expected over 7 months based on predicted HAIs had there not been COVID-19 cases. Clostridioides difficile infection was not significantly associated with COVID-19 burden. Microbiology data from 81 of the hospitals corroborated the findings. Notably, rates of hospital-onset bloodstream infections and multidrug resistant organisms, including MRSA, vancomycin-resistant enterococcus, and Gram-negative organisms, were each significantly associated with COVID-19 surges. Finally, clusters of hospital-onset pathogens increased as the COVID-19 burden increased. Conclusions COVID-19 surges adversely impact HAI rates and clusters of infections within hospitals, emphasizing the need for balancing COVID-related demands with routine hospital infection prevention.

Candida auris is a human fungal pathogen classified as an urgent threat to the delivery of health care due to its extensive antimicrobial resistance and the high mortality rates associated with invasive infections. Global outbreaks have occurred in health care facilities, particularly, long-term care hospitals and nursing homes. Skin is the primary site of colonization for C. auris. To accelerate research studies, we developed microbiome sequencing protocols, including amplicon and metagenomic sequencing, directly from patient samples at health care facilities with ongoing C. auris outbreaks. We characterized the skin mycobiome with a database optimized to classify Candida species and C. auris to the clade level. While Malassezia species were the predominant skin-associated fungi, nursing home residents also harbored Candida species, including C. albicans, and C. parapsilosis. Amplicon sequencing was concordant with culturing studies to identify C. auris-colonized patients and provided further resolution that distinct clades of C. auris are colonizing facilities in New York and Illinois. Shotgun metagenomic sequencing from a clinical sample with a high fungal bioburden generated a skin-associated profile of the C. auris genome. Future larger scale clinical studies are warranted to more systematically investigate the effects of commensal microbes and patient risk factors on the colonization and transmission of C. auris. IMPORTANCE Candida auris is a human pathogen of high concern due to its extensive antifungal drug resistance and high mortality rates associated with invasive infections. Candida auris skin colonization and persistence on environmental surfaces make this pathogen difficult to control once it enters a health care facility. Residents in long-term care hospitals and nursing homes are especially vulnerable. In this study, we developed microbiome sequencing protocols directly from surveillance samples, including amplicon and metagenomic sequencing, demonstrating concordance between sequencing results and culturing.

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.

In group or cluster-randomized trials (GRTs), matching is a technique that can be used to improve covariate balance. When baseline data are available, we suggest a strategy that can be used to achieve the desired balance between treatment and control groups across numerous potential confounding variables. This strategy minimizes the overall within-pair Mahalanobis distance; and involves iteratively: 1) making pairs that minimize the distance between pairs of clusters with respect to potentially confounding variables; 2) visually assessing the potential effects of these pairs and resulting possible randomizations; and 3) reweighting variables of selecting weights to make pairs of clusters. In step 2, we plot the between-arm differences with a parallel-coordinates plot. Investigators can compare plots of different weighting schemes to determine the one that best suits their needs prior to the actual, final, randomization. We demonstrate application of the approach with the Mupirocin-Iodophor Swap Out trial. A webapp is provided.

We performed systematic review on 40 paired hospital and nursing home charts from a clinical trial to evaluate the fidelity of transitions of care among those discharged on antibiotics. We found that 30% of transitions included an inappropriate change to the patient’s antibiotic plan of care.

Background The profound changes wrought by COVID-19 on routine hospital operations may have influenced performance on hospital measures, including healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Objective Evaluate the association between COVID-19 surges and HAI or cluster rates Methods Design: Prospective cohort study Setting 148 HCA Healthcare-affiliated hospitals, 3/1/2020-9/30/2020, and a subset of hospitals with microbiology and cluster data through 12/31/2020 Patients All inpatients Measurements We evaluated the association between COVID-19 surges and HAIs, hospital-onset pathogens, and cluster rates using negative binomial mixed models. To account for local variation in COVID-19 pandemic surge timing, we included the number of discharges with a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis per staffed bed per month at each hospital. Results Central line-associated blood stream infections (CLABSI), catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI), and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia increased as COVID-19 burden increased (P ≤ 0.001 for all), with 60% (95% CI, 23 to 108%) more CLABSI, 43% (95% CI, 8 to 90%) more CAUTI, and 44% (95% CI, 10 to 88%) more cases of MRSA bacteremia than expected over 7 months based on predicted HAIs had there not been COVID-19 cases. Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) was not significantly associated with COVID-19 burden. Microbiology data from 81 of the hospitals corroborated the findings. Notably, rates of hospital-onset bloodstream infections and multidrug resistant organisms, including MRSA, vancomycin-resistant enterococcus and Gram-negative organisms were each significantly associated with COVID-19 surges (P < 0.05 for all). Finally, clusters of hospital-onset pathogens increased as the COVID-19 burden increased (P = 0.02). Limitations Variations in surveillance and reporting may affect HAI data. Table 1. Effect of an increase in number of COVID-19 discharges on HAIs and hospital-onset pathogens Figure 1. Predicted mean HAI rates as COVID-19 discharges increase Predicted mean HAI rate by increasing monthly COVID-19 discharges. Panel a. CLABSI, Panel b, CAUTI Panel c. MRSA Bacteremia, Panel d. CDI. Data are stratified by small, medium and large hospitals. Figure 2. Monthly comparison of COVID discharges to clusters COVID-19 discharges and the number of clusters of hospital-onset pathogens are correlated throughout the pandemic. Conclusion COVID-19 surges adversely impact HAI rates and clusters of infections within hospitals, emphasizing the need for balancing COVID-related demands with routine hospital infection prevention. Disclosures Kenneth Sands, MD, MPH, Medline (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) 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) 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) Eunice J. Blanchard, MSN RN, Medline (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) 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) Deborah S. Yokoe, MD, MPH, Nothing to disclose 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) 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) 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)

Background Traditional approaches for SSI surveillance have deficiencies that can delay detection of SSI outbreaks and other clinically important increases in SSI rates. Optimized SPC methods for SSI surveillance have not been prospectively evaluated. Methods We conducted a prospective multicenter stepped wedge cluster RCT to evaluate the performance of SSI surveillance and feedback performed with optimized SPC plus traditional surveillance methods compared to traditional surveillance alone. We divided 13 common surgical procedures into 6 clusters (Table 1). A cluster of procedures at a single hospital was the unit of randomization and analysis, and 105 total clusters across 29 community hospitals were randomized to 12 groups of 8-10 clusters (Figure 1). After a 12-month baseline observation period (3/2016-2/2017), the SPC surveillance intervention was serially implemented according to stepped wedge assignment over a 36-month intervention period (3/2017-2/2020) until all 12 groups of clusters had received the intervention. The primary outcome was the overall SSI prevalence rate (PR=SSIs/100 procedures), evaluated with a GEE model with Poisson distribution. Table 1 Figure 1 Schematic for stepped wedge design. The 12-month baseline observation period was followed by the 36-month intervention period, comprised of 12 3-month steps. Results Our trial involved prospective surveillance of 237,704 procedures that resulted in 1,952 SSIs (PR=0.82). The overall SSI PR did not differ significantly between clusters of procedures assigned to SPC surveillance (781 SSIs/89,339 procedures; PR=0.87) and those assigned to traditional surveillance (1,171 SSIs/148,365 procedures; PR=0.79; PR ratio=1.10 [95% CI, 0.94–1.30]; P=.25) (Table 2). SPC surveillance identified 104 SSI rate increases that required formal investigations, compared to only 25 investigations generated by traditional surveillance. Among 10 best practices for SSI prevention, 453 of 502 (90%) SSIs analyzed due to SPC detection of SSI rate increases had at least 2 deficiencies (Table 3). Table 2 Poisson regression models comparing surgical site infection (SSI) prevalence rates for procedure clusters receiving statistical process control surveillance to SSI rates for clusters receiving traditional control surveillance. Table 3 Compliance with 10 best practices for surgical site infection (SSI) prevention among 502 SSIs analyzed during SSI investigations generated by statistical process control surveillance. Conclusion SPC methods more frequently detected important SSI rate increases associated with deficiencies in SSI prevention best practices than traditional surveillance; however, feedback of this information did not lead to SSI rate reductions. Further study is indicated to determine the best application of SPC methods to improve adherence to SSI quality measures and prevent SSIs. Disclosures Arthur W. Baker, MD, MPH, Medincell (Advisor or Review Panel member) 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 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 ICU universal decolonization with daily chlorhexidine (CHG) baths plus mupirocin nasal decolonization reduces all-cause bloodstream infections (BSI) and MRSA clinical cultures. We assessed nasal iodophor, an antiseptic less susceptible to resistance, in place of mupirocin. Methods We conducted a cluster randomized non-inferiority trial in ICUs, comparing universal decolonization with: 1) Mupirocin-CHG: daily CHG baths and 5 days of twice daily nasal mupirocin, to 2) Iodophor-CHG: same regimen, substituting twice daily 10% povidone-iodine for mupirocin. All adult ICUs in a hospital were assigned to the same strategy. We compared each hospital’s outcomes during the 18-month intervention (Nov 2017-Apr 2019) to its own baseline (May 2015-Apr 2017), during which all hospitals used mupirocin-CHG. The primary outcome was ICU-attributable S. aureus clinical isolates. Secondary outcomes included ICU-attributable MRSA clinical isolates and all-cause BSI. As randomized and as treated analyses used unadjusted proportional hazards models assessing differences in outcomes between baseline and intervention periods across the two groups, accounting for clustering by hospital and patient. Results We randomized 137 hospitals with 233 ICUs in 18 states. There were 442,544 admissions in the baseline period and 349,262 in the intervention period. Median ICU length of stay was 4 days. ICU types included mixed medical surgical (56%), medical (9%), surgical (11%), cardiac (15%), and neurologic (9%). CHG adherence was similar in both arms (85%), but adherence was greater for mupirocin (90%) than iodophor (82%). Primary as-randomized results (Table, Figure) exceeded the non-inferiority margin in favor of mupirocin, for S. aureus clinical cultures (21% superiority, P< 0.001) and for MRSA clinical cultures (20% superiority, P< 0.001). The regimens had similar BSI hazards. Analyses of fully adherent patients are in progress. Figure - Primary and Secondary Outcomes of Mupirocin Iodophor Swap Out Trial Conclusion Universal iodophor-CHG was equivalent to mupirocin-CHG for ICU BSI prevention. Mupirocin-CHG was superior to iodophor-CHG for S. aureus and MRSA clinical isolates, potentially due to greater adherence to mupirocin. Disclosures 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) Katherine Haffenreffer, BS, 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) Lauren Shimelman, BA, 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) 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) Selsebil Sljivo, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Ed Rosen, BS, Medline (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) 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) Eunice J. Blanchard, MSN RN, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Kimberly Reddish, DNP, 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) Kimberly N. Smith, MBA, 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) Karen Lolans, BS, Medline (Research Grant or Support) Nadia Khan, BS, Medline (Research Grant or Support) John A. Jernigan, MD, MS, Nothing to disclose Kenneth Sands, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) 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)

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)

We performed secondary analyses of a postdischarge decolonization trial of MRSA carriers that reduced MRSA infection and hospitalization by 30%. Hospitalized MRSA infection was associated with 7.9 days of non-MRSA antibiotics and CDI in 3.9%. Preventing MRSA infection and associated hospitalization may reduce antibiotic use and CDI incidence.