ABSTRACT
This study aims to examine how distance to risk center in the COVID-19 context moderates the effects of two contrasting risk message frames (amplifying vs. attenuating) on tourists' post-pandemic travel intention via the mediation of ontological security threat and perceived coping efficacy. Two experiments were designed to test the proposed conceptual model. Results of experiment 1 showed that risk messages predicted tourists' ontological security threat, perceived coping efficacy, and travel intention. Results of experiment 2 showed that ontological security threat and perceived coping efficacy partially mediated the effects of risk messages on travel intention. Moreover, distance to risk center moderated the relationships between risk message frames and travel intention via ontological security threat and perceived coping efficacy, demonstrating different patterns (i.e., "ripple effect”, "psychological typhoon eye effect”, "marginal zone effect”). This study contributes to an enhanced understanding of the effect of risk message framing in the COVID-19 context by clarifying the role of geographic distance, which is beneficial for destinations to adopt differentiated risk communication strategies for different pandemic areas and levels of pandemic severity. © 2023 The Authors
ABSTRACT
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 nonfrontline 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 nonfrontline 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.
ABSTRACT
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. (Figure Presented).
ABSTRACT
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].Figure.Percent of Environmental Surfaces Recontaminated with C. auris within 12 hours of Cleaning by Facility Type 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;Xttri m 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.
ABSTRACT
Background: Emerging studies have reported an increased proportion of complicated cases of acute appendicitis and increased prehospital delay during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We wondered whether there was a difference in the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic appendectomy during the 69-day level 3 alert in our community. Materials and Methods: Adult patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis between May 19 and July 26, during the years of 2019, 2020, and 2021 at our institution, were included. Patient demographics, clinical presentation, interval from emergency department (ED) arrival to operation, operation duration, hospital stay, and postoperative complications were analyzed using SPSS Statistics. The Kruskal-Wallis and Pearson Chi-square tests were used for the analysis of numerical and nominal variables, respectively. Results: A total of 94, 102, and 63 cases were included during the corresponding periods in 2019, 2020, and 2021, respectively. Patient age, sex, symptom duration at presentation, percentage of leukocytosis, bacteremia, complicated appendicitis, and white blood cell count showed no group differences. The interval between ED arrival and surgery was not significantly different (P = 0.753). There were no significant differences in the operation duration (P = 0.094), estimated blood loss (P = 0.273), or proportion of drain insertion (P = 0.626). The length of hospital stay (P = 0.681), incidence of postoperative complications (P = 0.894), and postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification (P = 0.241) were not significantly different among the groups. Conclusion: Adult patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy at our institution during the level 3 alert of the COVID-19 pandemic had no statistically significant differences in perioperative outcomes, including operation time, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, and complication rates.
ABSTRACT
While remote working has been applied as an emerging flexible modern work arrangement and as an effective way to maintain social distancing during pandemics, it may result in negative workplace outcomes. Despite the eulogy on remote working, more research is needed to examine its possible negative effects on employees in the workplace. This study aims to fill these gaps by examining the effects of remote working on work-family conflict and workplace wellbeing during pandemics, and how such effects are moderated by employees’ general self-efficacy and job autonomy. Survey data was collected from 399 Chinese employees during COVID-19. The results show that remote working has a positive effect on work-family conflict, which in turn decreases workplace wellbeing. Further analyses show that while the work-family conflict dimension of family interfering with work (FIW) has a negative effect on wellbeing, the effect of the work-family conflict dimension of work interfering with family (WIF) on wellbeing is not significant. Besides, the effect of remote working on FIW is positively moderated by general self-efficacy and job autonomy. Lastly, the effect of remote working differs depending on the extent to which remote working is implemented. Our study contributes to the literature by explaining the negative effect of remote working on workplace wellbeing during pandemics and clarifying its boundary conditions. Our results provide managers useful guidelines regarding how to implement remote working. © 2022 Elsevier Ltd
ABSTRACT
This paper investigates the impact of different oil price shocks on systemic risk under different market conditions. We show that the negative impact of negative oil price shocks on systemic risk is greater than the positive impact of positive oil price shocks. Systemic risk is always negatively affected by oil-specific demand shocks but positively affected by oil supply shocks when the market is under medium and low systemic risk levels. By testing the effect of crises, we find that the influence of positive and negative oil price shocks on systemic risk was declined due to the COVID-19 pandemic. © 2022 Elsevier B.V.
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. 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.
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. Federal mandate requires NHs to perform weekly COVID-19 testing of staff. Testing is effective due to barriers to disclosing mild illness, but it is unclear how long the mandate will last. We explored if environmental samples can be used to signal staff COVID-19 cases as an alternative screening tool in NHs. Methods. We conducted a cross sectional study to assess the value of environmental sampling as a trigger for COVID-19 testing of NH staff using data from currently performed weekly staff sweeps. We performed 35 sampling sweeps across 21 NHs from 6/2020-2/2021. For each sweep, we sampled up to 24 high touch objects in NH breakrooms (N=226), entryways (N=216), and nursing stations (N=194) assuming that positive samples were due to contamination from infected staff. Total staff and positive staff counts were tallied for the staff testing sweeps performed the week of and week prior to environmental sampling. Object samples were processed for SARSCoV-2 using PCR (StepOnePlus) with a 1 copy/mL limit of detection. We evaluated concordance between object and staff positivity using Cohen's kappa and calculated the positive and negative predictive value (PPV, NPV) of environmental sweeps for staff positivity, including the attributable capture of positive staff. We tested the association between the proportion of staff positivity and object contamination by room type in a linear regression model when clustering by NH. Results. Among 35 environmental sweeps, 49% had SARS-CoV-2 positive objects and 69% had positive staff in the same or prior week. Mean positivity was 16% (range 0-83%) among objects and 4% (range 0-22%) among staff. Overall, NPV was 61% and Cohen's kappa was 0.60. PPV of object sampling as an indicator of positive staff was 100% for every room type, with an attributable capture of positive staff of 76%, with values varying by room type (Table). Breakroom samples were the strongest indicator of any staff cases. Each percent increase in object positivity was associated with an increase in staff positivity in entryways (7.2% increased staff positivity, P=0.01) and nursing stations (5.7% increased staff positivity, P=0.05). Conclusion. If mandatory weekly staff testing ends in NHs, environmental sampling may serve as an effective tool to trigger targeted COVID-19 testing sweeps of NH staff.
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.