ABSTRACT
Background. COVID-19 patients can remain positive by PCR-testing for several months. Pre-admission or pre-procedure testing can identify recovered asymptomatic patients who may no longer be contagious but would require precautions according to current CDC recommendations (10 days). This can result in unintended consequences, including procedure delays or transfer to appropriate care (e.g., psychiatric or post-trauma patients requiring admission to COVID-19 units instead of psychiatric or rehabilitation facilities, respectively). Methods. We conducted a structured survey of healthcare epidemiologists and infection prevention experts from the SHEA Research Network between March-April, 2021. The 14-question survey, presented a series of COVID-19 PCR+ asymptomatic patient case scenarios and asked respondents if (1) they would consider the case recovered and not infectious, (2) if they have cleared precautions in such cases, and if so, (3) how many transmission events occurred after discontinuing precautions. The survey used one or a combination of 5 criteria: history of COVID-19 symptoms, history of exposure to a household member with COVID-19, COVID-19 PCR cycle threshold (CT), and IgG serology. Percentages were calculated among respondents for each question. Results. Among 60 respondents, 56 (93%) were physicians, 51 (86%) were hospital epidemiologists, and 46 (77%) had >10y infection prevention experience. They represented facilities that cumulatively cared for >29,000 COVID-19 cases;46 (77%) were academic, and 42 (69%) were large ( >400 beds). One-third to one-half would consider an incidentally found PCR+ case as recovered based on solo criteria, particularly those with two consecutive high CTs or COVID IgG positivity recovered (53-55%) (Table 1). When combining two criteria, half to four-fifths of respondents deemed PCR+ cases to be recovered (Table 2). Half of those had used those criteria to clear precautions (45-64%) and few to none experienced a subsequent transmission event resulting from clearance. Conclusion. The majority of healthcare epidemiologists consider a combination of clinical and diagnostic criteria as recovered and many have used these to clear precautions without high numbers of transmission.
ABSTRACT
Background. OC is the 6th largest U.S. county with 70 NHs. Universal decolonization (chlorhexidine for routine bathing, and twice daily nasal iodophor Mon-Fri every other week) was adopted in 24 NHs prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and 12 NHs (11 of those adopting decolonization) participated in a COVID prevention training program with a rolling launch from July-Sept 2020. We evaluated the impact of these initiatives on staff and resident COVID cases. Methods. We conducted a quasi-experimental study of the impact of decolonization and COVID prevention training on staff and resident COVID cases during the CA winter surge (11/16/20-1/31/21), when compared to non-participating NHs. Decolonization NHs received weekly visits for encouraging adherence during the pandemic, and NHs in the COVID training program received 3 in-person training sessions for all work shifts plus weekly feedback about adherence to hand hygiene, masking, and breakroom safety using video monitoring. We calculated incident 1) staff COVID cases, 2) resident COVID cases, and 3) resident COVID deaths adjusting for NH average daily census. We assessed impact of initiatives on these outcomes using linear mixed effects models testing the interaction between any training participation and calendar date when clustering by NH. Because of the overlap of the two initiatives, we evaluated 'any training' vs 'no training.' Results. 63 NHs had available data. 24 adopted universal decolonization, 12 received COVID training (11 of which participated in decolonization), and 38 were not enrolled in either. During the winter surge, the 63 NHs experienced 1867 staff COVID cases, 2186 resident COVID cases, and 251 resident deaths due to COVID, corresponding to 29.6, 34.7, and 4.0 events per NH, respectively. In NHs participating in either initiative, staff COVID cases were reduced by 31% (OR=0.69 (0.52, 0.92), P=0.01), resident COVID cases were reduced by 43% (OR=0.57 (0.39, 0.82), P=0.003), and resident deaths were reduced (non-significantly) by 26% (OR=0.74 (0.46, 1.21), P=0.23). The grey box represents the California COVID-19 winter surge (11/16/20-1/31/21). Incident and cumulative COVID-19 cases and deaths for each nursing home were divided by the nursing home's average daily census and multiplied by 100, representing events per 100 beds, which were aggregated across groups. Conclusion. NHs are vulnerable to COVID-19 outbreaks. A universal decolonization and COVID prevention training initiative in OC, CA significantly reduced staff and resident COVID cases in this high-risk care setting.
ABSTRACT
Background. There is increasing evidence that patients hospitalized with COVID-19 receive unnecessary antibiotics. The consequences of antibiotic overuse as it relates to antimicrobial resistance and development of secondary infections remains uncertain. The objective of this study is to compare antibiotic prescription patterns in patients with a history of COVID-19 to those without a history of COVID-19 and determine if there are differences in the frequency of secondary infections from Clostridioides difficile (C. difficile), multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria, and candida infections. Methods. This study is a single-center, retrospective cohort study of 18,757 adults hospitalized during the COVID-19 pandemic from March 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021. Patients were stratified as COVID-19 positive, throughout all hospitalizations subsequent to the date of initial positivity, or COVID-19 negative. Differences in antibiotic practice patterns between the two groups were quantified using days of therapy per 1000 patient days (DOT/1000 PD). The frequency of C. difficile infection, MDRbacteria, and candida infections were assessed among the two groups. Results. During the 12-month study period, on average, the COVID-19 positive group received 21.81% more antibiotics than COVID-19 negative patients, with up to 56.15% increase seen in the first month of the pandemic (Table 1, Figure 1) The COVID-19 positive group had an increased frequency of Candidemia (0.73% versus 0.18%, p< .00001) and decreased isolation of ESBL organisms (1.17% versus 1.87%, p< 0.01416) compared to the COVID-19 negative group. There were no significant differences in frequency of C. difficile infection, isolation of other MDR-organisms, or Candida auris between the two groups. (Table 2) Conclusion. Patients with a history of COVID-19 infection received an average of 21.81% more antibiotics, have higher rates of candidemia, but lower rates of ESBL infection than those without a history of COVID-19 infection. The potential increase in antibiotic exposure could account for the increase in candidemia in patients with a history of COVID-19. Future studies include investigating the decrease in ESBL infections seen, perhaps due to receipt of broad antibiotics in COVID-19 patients that target ESBL bacteria.
ABSTRACT
Background. At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare workers (HCWs) raised concerns about personal risks of acquiring infection during patient care. This led to more stringent infection prevention practices than CDC guidelines during a time of uncertainty about transmission and limited U.S. testing capacity. Hospitals were challenged to protect against true COVID-19 exposure risks, while avoiding use of unproven measures that could interfere with timely, high quality care. We evaluated hospital experiences with HCW COVID-19 exposure concerns impacting clinical workflow/management. Methods. We conducted a 32-question structured survey of hospital infection prevention leaders (one per hospital) from CDC Prevention Epicenters, University of California (CA) Health system, HCA Healthcare, and the Southern CA Metrics Committee between May-Dec, 2020. We assessed facility characteristics and COVID-19 exposure concerns causing changes in respiratory care, procedure delays/modifications, requests to change infection prevention processes, disruptions in routine medical care, and health impacts of PPE overuse. Percentages were calculated among respondents for each question. Results. Respondents represented 53 hospitals: 22 (42%) were small (< 200 beds), 14 (26%) medium (200-400 beds), and 17 (32%) large ( >400 beds) facilities. Of these, 11 (21%) provided Level 1 trauma care, and 22 (41%) provided highly immunocompromised patient care;75% had cared for a substantial number of COVID-19 cases before survey completion. Majority reported changes in respiratory care delivery (71%-87%), procedural delays (75%-87%), requests to change infection prevention controls/ protocols (58%-96%), and occupational health impacts of PPE overuse including skin irritation (98%) and carbon dioxide narcosis symptoms (55%) (Table). Conclusion. HCW concerns over work-related COVID-19 exposure contributed to practice changes, many of which are unsupported by CDC guidance and resulted in healthcare delivery delays and alterations in clinical care. Pandemic planning and response must include the ability to rapidly develop evidence to guide infection prevention practice.