ABSTRACT
After implementing a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection prevention bundle, the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of non-severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (non-SARS-CoV-2) hospital-acquired respiratory viral infection (HA-RVI) was significantly lower than the IRR from the pre-COVID-19 period (IRR, 0.322; 95% CI, 0.266-0.393; P < .01). However, HA-RVIs incidence rates mirrored community RVI trends, suggesting that hospital interventions alone did not significantly affect HA-RVI incidence.
ABSTRACT
With concerns for presymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 and increasing burden of contact tracing and employee furloughs, several hospitals have supplemented pre-existing infection prevention measures with universal masking of all personnel in hospitals. Other hospitals are currently faced with the dilemma of whether or not to proceed with universal masking in a time of critical mask shortages. We summarize the rationale behind a universal masking policy in healthcare settings, important considerations before implementing such a policy and the challenges with universal masking. We also discusses proposed solutions such as universal face shields.
Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , COVID-19 , Humans , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Stem Cell TransplantationABSTRACT
We performed surveillance for hospital-acquired COVID-19 (HA-COVID-19) and compared time-based, electronic definitions to real-time adjudication of the most likely source of acquisition. Without real-time adjudication, nearly 50% of HA-COVID-19 cases identified using electronic definitions were misclassified. Both electronic and traditional contact tracing methods likely underestimated the incidence of HA-COVID-19.
ABSTRACT
We implemented universal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing of patients undergoing surgical procedures as a means to conserve personal protective equipment (PPE). The rate of asymptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was <0.5%, which suggests that early local public health interventions were successful. Although our protocol was resource intensive, it prevented exposures to healthcare team members.