Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 13 de 13
Filter
1.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; : 1-10, 2022 Mar 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2326375

ABSTRACT

SARS-CoV-2 transmissions among healthcare personnel (HCP) and hospitalized patients are challenging to confirm. Investigation of infected persons often reveals multiple potential risk factors for viral acquisition. We combined exposure investigation with genomic analysis confirming two hospital-based clusters. Prolonged close contact with unmasked, unrecognized infectious, individuals was a common risk.

2.
Clin Infect Dis ; 76(12): 2106-2115, 2023 Jun 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2239460

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There are limited US data assessing adherence to surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis guidelines, particularly across a large, nationwide sample. Moreover, commonly prescribed inappropriate antimicrobial prophylaxis regimens remain unknown, hindering improvement initiatives. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults who underwent elective craniotomy, hip replacement, knee replacement, spinal procedure, or hernia repair in 2019-2020 at hospitals in the PINC AI (Premier) Healthcare Database. We evaluated adherence of prophylaxis regimens, with respect to antimicrobial agents endorsed in the American Society of Health-System Pharmacist guidelines, accounting for patient antibiotic allergy and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization status. We used multivariable logistic regression with random effects by hospital to evaluate associations between patient, procedural, and hospital characteristics and guideline adherence. RESULTS: Across 825 hospitals and 521 091 inpatient elective surgeries, 308 760 (59%) were adherent to prophylaxis guidelines. In adjusted analysis, adherence varied significantly by US Census division (adjusted OR [aOR] range: .61-1.61) and was significantly lower in 2020 compared with 2019 (aOR: .92; 95% CI: .91-.94; P < .001). The most common reason for nonadherence was unnecessary vancomycin use. In a post hoc analysis, controlling for patient age, comorbidities, other nephrotoxic agent use, and patient and procedure characteristics, patients receiving cefazolin plus vancomycin had 19% higher odds of acute kidney injury (AKI) compared with patients receiving cefazolin alone (aOR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.11-1.27; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to antimicrobial prophylaxis guidelines remains suboptimal, largely driven by unnecessary vancomycin use, which may increase the risk of AKI. Adherence decreased in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
Acute Kidney Injury , Anti-Infective Agents , COVID-19 , Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus , Adult , Humans , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Cefazolin/therapeutic use , Vancomycin/therapeutic use , Antibiotic Prophylaxis/methods , Retrospective Studies , Pandemics , Surgical Wound Infection/epidemiology , Surgical Wound Infection/prevention & control , Surgical Wound Infection/drug therapy , Anti-Infective Agents/therapeutic use , Hospitals , Acute Kidney Injury/drug therapy , Guideline Adherence
3.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; : 1-3, 2021 Aug 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2235761

ABSTRACT

We analyzed the impact of a 7-day recurring asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 testing protocol for all patients hospitalized at a large academic center. Overall, 40 new cases were identified, and 1 of 3 occurred after 14 days of hospitalization. Recurring testing can identify unrecognized infections, especially during periods of elevated community transmission.

4.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(7): e2220512, 2022 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1919178

ABSTRACT

Importance: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Safety Program for Improving Antibiotic Use aimed to improve antibiotic prescribing in ambulatory care practices by engaging clinicians and staff to incorporate antibiotic stewardship into practice culture, communication, and decision-making. Little is known about implementation of antibiotic stewardship in ambulatory care practices. Objective: To examine changes in visits and antibiotic prescribing during the AHRQ Safety Program. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study evaluated a quality improvement intervention in ambulatory care throughout the US in 389 ambulatory care practices from December 1, 2019, to November 30, 2020. Exposures: The AHRQ Safety Program used webinars, audio presentations, educational tools, and office hours to engage stewardship leaders and clinical staff to address attitudes and cultures that challenge judicious antibiotic prescribing and incorporate best practices for the management of common infections. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of the Safety Program was antibiotic prescriptions per 100 acute respiratory infection (ARI) visits. Data on total visits and ARI visits were also collected. The number of visits and prescribing rates from baseline (September 1, 2019) to completion of the program (November 30, 2020) were compared. Results: Of 467 practices enrolled, 389 (83%) completed the Safety Program; of these, 292 (75%) submitted complete data with 6 590 485 visits to 5483 clinicians. Participants included 82 (28%) primary care practices, 103 (35%) urgent care practices, 34 (12%) federally supported practices, 39 (13%) pediatric urgent care practices, 21 (7%) pediatric-only practices, and 14 (5%) other practice types. Visits per practice per month decreased from a mean of 1624 (95% CI, 1317-1931) at baseline to a nadir of 906 (95% CI, 702-1111) early in the COVID-19 pandemic (April 2020), and were 1797 (95% CI, 1510-2084) at the end of the program. Total antibiotic prescribing decreased from 18.2% of visits at baseline to 9.5% at completion of the program (-8.7%; 95% CI, -9.9% to -7.6%). Acute respiratory infection visits per practice per month decreased from baseline (n = 321) to a nadir of 76 early in the pandemic (May 2020) and gradually increased through completion of the program (n = 239). Antibiotic prescribing for ARIs decreased from 39.2% at baseline to 24.7% at completion of the program (-14.5%; 95% CI, -16.8% to -12.2%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of US ambulatory practices that participated in the AHRQ Safety Program, significant reductions in the rates of overall and ARI-related antibiotic prescribing were noted, despite normalization of clinic visits by completion of the program. The forthcoming AHRQ Safety Program content may have utility in ambulatory practices across the US.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Tract Infections , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Child , Cohort Studies , Health Services Research , Humans , Pandemics , United States
5.
J Am Geriatr Soc ; 70(3): 659-668, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1626892

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 circulating variants coupled with waning immunity pose a significant threat to the long-term care (LTC) population. Our objective was to measure salivary IgG antibodies in residents and staff of an LTC facility to (1) evaluate IgG response in saliva post-natural infection and vaccination and (2) assess its feasibility to describe the seroprevalence over time. METHODS: We performed salivary IgG sampling of all residents and staff who agreed to test in a 150-bed skilled nursing facility during three seroprevalence surveys between October 2020 and February 2021. The facility had SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in May 2020 and November 2020, when 45 of 138 and 37 of 125 residents were infected, respectively; they offered two Federal vaccine clinics in January 2021. We evaluated quantitative IgG in saliva to the Nucleocapsid (N), Spike (S), and Receptor-binding domain (RBD) Antigens of SARS-CoV-2 over time post-infection and post-vaccination. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-four residents and 28 staff underwent saliva serologic testing on one or more survey visits. Over three surveys, the SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence at the facility was 49%, 64%, and 81%, respectively. IgG to S, RBD, and N Antigens all increased post infection. Post vaccination, the infection naïve group did not have a detectable N IgG level, and N IgG levels for the previously infected did not increase post vaccination (p < 0.001). Fully vaccinated subjects with prior COVID-19 infection had significantly higher RBD and S IgG responses compared with those who were infection-naïve prior to vaccination (p < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Positive SARS-COV-2 IgG in saliva was concordant with prior infection (Anti N, S, RBD) and vaccination (Anti S, RBD) and remained above positivity threshold for up to 9 months from infection. Salivary sampling is a non-invasive method of tracking immunity and differentiating between prior infection and vaccination to inform the need for boosters in LTC residents and staff.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/immunology , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunoglobulin G/immunology , Saliva/immunology , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Female , Humans , Male , Nursing Homes , SARS-CoV-2 , Seroepidemiologic Studies , United States/epidemiology
6.
JAMIA Open ; 4(4): ooab095, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1584261

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Despite the importance of physical distancing in reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, this practice is challenging in healthcare. We piloted use of wearable proximity beacons among healthcare workers (HCWs) in an inpatient unit to highlight considerations for future use of trackable technologies in healthcare settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a feasibility pilot study in a non-COVID adult medical unit from September 28 to October 28, 2020. HCWs wore wearable proximity beacons, and interactions defined as <6 feet for ≥5 s were recorded. Validation was performed using direct observations. RESULTS: A total of 6172 close proximity interactions were recorded, and with the removal of 2033 false-positive interactions, 4139 remained. The highest proportion of interactions occurred between 7:00 Am-9:00 Am. Direct observations of HCWs substantiated these findings. DISCUSSION: This pilot study showed that wearable beacons can be used to monitor and quantify HCW interactions in inpatient settings. CONCLUSION: Technology can be used to track HCW physical distancing.

7.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 43(5): 570-575, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1442666

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of procalcitonin (PCT) results in antibiotic decisions for COVID-19 patients at hospital presentation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter retrospective observational study of patients ≥18 years hospitalized due to COVID-19 at the Johns Hopkins Health system. Patients who were transferred from another facility with >24 hours stay and patients who died within 48 hours of hospitalization were excluded. METHODS: Elevated PCT values were determined based on each hospital's definition. Antibiotic therapy and PCT results were evaluated for patients with no evidence of bacterial community-acquired pneumonia (bCAP) and patients with confirmed, probable, or possible bCAP. The added value of PCT testing to clinical criteria in detecting bCAP was evaluated using receiving operating curve characteristics (ROC). RESULTS: Of 962 patients, 611 (64%) received a PCT test. ROC curves for clinical criteria and clinical criteria plus PCT test were similar (at 0.5 ng/mL and 0.25 ng/mL). By bCAP group, median initial PCT values were 0.58 ng/mL (interquartile range [IQR], 0.24-1.14), 0.23 ng/mL (IQR, 0.1-0.63), and 0.15 ng/mL (IQR, 0.09-0.35) for proven/probable, possible, and no bCAP groups, respectively. Among patients without bCAP, an elevated PCT level was associated with 1.8 additional days of CAP therapy (95% CI, 1.01-2.75; P < .01) compared to patients with a negative PCT result after adjusting for potential confounders. Duration of CAP therapy was similar between patients without a PCT test ordered and a low PCT level for no bCAP and possible bCAP groups. CONCLUSIONS: PCT results may be abnormal in COVID-19 patients without bCAP and may result in receipt of unnecessary antibiotics.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Community-Acquired Infections , Pneumonia , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Bacteria , Biomarkers , Community-Acquired Infections/diagnosis , Community-Acquired Infections/drug therapy , Community-Acquired Infections/microbiology , Humans , Pneumonia/drug therapy , Procalcitonin , ROC Curve
8.
Am J Health Syst Pharm ; 78(21): 1968-1976, 2021 10 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1246684

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The purpose of this manuscript is to describe our experience developing an antimicrobial stewardship (AS) module as a clinical decision support tool in the Epic electronic health record (EHR). SUMMARY: Clinical decision support systems within the EHR can be used to decrease use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, improve antibiotic selection and dosing, decrease adverse effects, reduce antibiotic costs, and reduce the development of antibiotic resistance. The Johns Hopkins Hospital constructed an AS module within Epic. Customized stewardship alerts and scoring systems were developed to triage patients requiring stewardship intervention. This required a multidisciplinary approach with a team comprising AS physicians and pharmacists and Epic information technology personnel, with assistance from clinical microbiology and infection control when necessary. In addition, an intervention database was enhanced with stewardship-specific interventions, and workbench reports were developed specific to AS needs. We herein review the process, advantages, and challenges associated with the development of the Epic AS module. CONCLUSION: Customizing an AS module in an EHR requires significant time and expertise in antimicrobials; however, AS modules have the potential to improve the efficiency of AS personnel in performing daily stewardship activities and reporting through a single system.


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents , Antimicrobial Stewardship , Decision Support Systems, Clinical , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Electronic Health Records , Humans
9.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 43(4): 474-480, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1226396

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Physical distancing among healthcare workers (HCWs) is an essential strategy in preventing HCW-to-HCWs transmission of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). OBJECTIVE: To understand barriers to physical distancing among HCWs on an inpatient unit and identify strategies for improvement. DESIGN: Qualitative study including observations and semistructured interviews conducted over 3 months. SETTING: A non-COVID-19 adult general medical unit in an academic tertiary-care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: HCWs based on the unit. METHODS: We performed a qualitative study in which we (1) observed HCW activities and proximity to each other on the unit during weekday shifts July-October 2020 and (2) conducted semi-structured interviews of HCWs to understand their experiences with and perspectives of physical distancing in the hospital. Qualitative data were coded based on a human-factors engineering model. RESULTS: We completed 25 hours of observations and 20 HCW interviews. High-risk interactions often occurred during handoffs of care at shift changes and patient rounds, when HCWs gathered regularly in close proximity for at least 15 minutes. Identified barriers included spacing and availability of computers, the need to communicate confidential patient information, and the desire to maintain relationships at work. CONCLUSIONS: Physical distancing can be improved in hospitals by restructuring computer workstations, work rooms, and break rooms; applying visible cognitive aids; adapting shift times; and supporting rounds and meetings with virtual conferencing. Additional strategies to promote staff adherence to physical distancing include rewarding positive behaviors, having peer leaders model physical distancing, and encouraging additional safe avenues for social connection at a safe distance.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Adult , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Personnel , Hospital Units , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Physical Distancing , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 43(8): 1054-1057, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1226395

ABSTRACT

In a multicenter cohort of 963 adults hospitalized due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), 5% had a proven hospital-acquired infection (HAI) and 21% had a proven, probable, or possible HAI. Risk factors for proven or probable HAIs included intensive care unit admission, dexamethasone use, severe COVID-19, heart failure, and antibiotic exposure upon admission.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross Infection , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/etiology , Hospitalization , Hospitals , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Risk Factors
12.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 8(1): ofaa578, 2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-990784

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Bacterial infections may complicate viral pneumonias. Recent reports suggest that bacterial co-infection at time of presentation is uncommon in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, estimates were based on microbiology tests alone. We sought to develop and apply consensus definitions, incorporating clinical criteria to better understand the rate of co-infections and antibiotic use in COVID-19. METHODS: A total of 1016 adult patients admitted to 5 hospitals in the Johns Hopkins Health System between March 1, 2020, and May 31, 2020, with COVID-19 were evaluated. Adjudication of co-infection using definitions developed by a multidisciplinary team for this study was performed. Both respiratory and common nonrespiratory co-infections were assessed. The definition of bacterial community-acquired pneumonia (bCAP) included proven (clinical, laboratory, and radiographic criteria plus microbiologic diagnosis), probable (clinical, laboratory, and radiographic criteria without microbiologic diagnosis), and possible (not all clinical, laboratory, and radiographic criteria met) categories. Clinical characteristics and antimicrobial use were assessed in the context of the consensus definitions. RESULTS: Bacterial respiratory co-infections were infrequent (1.2%); 1 patient had proven bCAP, and 11 (1.1%) had probable bCAP. Two patients (0.2%) had viral respiratory co-infections. Although 69% of patients received antibiotics for pneumonia, the majority were stopped within 48 hours in patients with possible or no evidence of bCAP. The most common nonrespiratory infection was urinary tract infection (present in 3% of the cohort). CONCLUSIONS: Using multidisciplinary consensus definitions, proven or probable bCAP was uncommon in adults hospitalized due to COVID-19, as were other nonrespiratory bacterial infections. Empiric antibiotic use was high, highlighting the need to enhance antibiotic stewardship in the treatment of viral pneumonias.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL