Assessing classroom and laboratory spread of COVID-19 in a university after elimination of physical distancing.

The objective of this study was to assess COVID-19 classroom transmission in the university setting when physical distancing was eliminated. Data was collected in fall 2021 at a private university. Universal masking, robust contact tracing, vaccination requirement, and enforced testing were in place. Exposures were classified as classroom versus non-classroom. ANOVA and chi-squared tests were used to identify significant relationships between predictors and COVID-19 test result. Logistic regression was conducted to investigate the relationship between exposure type and test result. A total of 162 student cases were identified with 1,658 associated close contacts. One-third of contacts (31.1%, n = 516) only had a non-classroom exposure, 63.8% (n = 1,057) only had a classroom exposure, and 5.1% (n = 85) had both. Close contacts were significantly more likely to test positive if they had a non-classroom exposure (60 of 601; 10.0%) compared to a classroom exposure (1 of 1057; 0.1%) (OR 58.8, CI 18.5-333.3, p < 0.001). Removing physical distancing in classrooms that had universal masking did not result in high rates of COVID-19 transmission. This has policy implications because eliminating physical distancing does not greatly increase transmission risk when universal masking is in place.

Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the infection prevention and control field: Findings from focus groups conducted with association for professionals in infection control & epidemiology (APIC) members in fall 2021.

INTRODUCTION: Emergence of the Delta variant in 2021 changed the pandemic landscape and led to healthcare surges across the US, despite availability of COVID-19 vaccine. Anecdotal information indicated that the infection prevention and control (IPC) field was changing, but formal assessment was needed. METHODS: Focus groups (6) were conducted with APIC members in November and December, 2021 to elicit infection preventionists' (IP) opinions changes to the IPC field due to the pandemic. Focus groups were audio recorded via Zoom and transcribed. Content analysis was used to identify major themes. RESULTS: Ninety IPs participated. IPs described multiple changes to the IPC field during the pandemic, including being more involved in policy development, the challenge of transitioning back to routine IPC while still responding to COVID-19, increased need for IPs across practice settings, difficulties in recruiting and retaining IPs, presenteeism in healthcare, and extensive burnout. Participants suggested approaches to improve IPs' wellbeing. CONCLUSIONS: The ongoing pandemic has brought significant changes to the IPC field, including a shortage of IPs just as the field is expanding rapidly. The continued overwhelming workload and stress due to the pandemic has resulted in burnout among IPs and the need for initiatives to improve their wellbeing.

Infection Preventionists' Experiences During the Second Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Findings From Focus Groups Conducted with Association for Professionals in Infection Control & Epidemiology (APIC) Members.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 epidemiology changed dramatically in spring 2021 when vaccine became widely available and the Delta variant emerged. There was a need to identify current infection prevention challenges due to changing pandemic epidemiology. METHODS: Six focus groups were conducted via Zoom with APIC members in November and December, 2021 to elicit infection preventionists' (IP) experiences with the COVID-19 pandemic after the Delta variant had emerged. Each focus group was audio recorded then transcribed verbatim. Content analysis was used to identify major themes. RESULTS: In total, 90 IPs participated (average of 15 IPs per focus group). Participating IPs described multiple issues they have faced during the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic after the Delta variant emerged, including continuing challenges with personal protective equipment, changes in pandemic restrictions that caused confusion and pushback, the hope when vaccine first became available and then despair when there was more vaccine breakthrough than anticipated, staffing and medical supply shortages, overwhelming workloads, and anger towards healthcare personnel and IPs. However, IPs felt more valued by leadership, and reported greater internal collaboration and external coordination of care. CONCLUSIONS: The second year of the pandemic brought ongoing and new challenges for IPs, but also better coordination of care. Strategic initiatives are needed to address the identified challenges, such as how to prioritize tasks when IPs are overwhelmed.