ABSTRACT
Background. Antibiotic Stewardship Programs (ASPs) assist front-line clinicians in synthesizing emerging data and establishing best practices. Our ASP team directly maintained and edited an internal web application, Duke CustomID , to disseminate updated guideline, policy, and drug information during COVID-19. We aimed to describe website engagement and maintenance during the dynamic pandemic period. Methods. We performed a descriptive, time-series analysis using Google Analytics software to measure engagement with Duke CustomID during a 1-year prepandemic period through the Omicron surge: January 2019 to March 2022. We measured total page views (or 'hits'), COVID-specific page hits, and days requiring COVID-specific page edits by week. Given fluctuations in hospitalization rates, we defined the primary outcome as the rate of hits divided by total hospitalizations. Weekly data were assessed graphically with positive COVID tests and COVID hospitalizations. We used negative binomial regression to quantify the association between COVID hospitalizations and hit rates and to trend engagement over time, adjusted for seasonality. We stratified data by COVID page and calculated a hit/edit ratio. Results. Engagement with CustomID increased during the pandemic period, especially during surges (Figure). Hits in the pre-pandemic period were median 1707 (range 1165-2354) per week, and hit rates median 1.95 per hospitalization (range 1.40-2.86). Peaks were observed in March 2020 (hit rate 4.59) and January 2022 (hit rate 3.87). On average, for every 100 COVID hospitalizations, the hit rate increased by 0.08 (0.004-0.16, p=0.04). Engagement slowly increased over the study period (relative rate week 1 versus 170: 1.15, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.28, p=0.02). COVID page edits per week had a median of 2 (range 0-12). Adult Inpatient Guidelines and COVID Monoclonal Antibody pages had highest use (Table). Duke CustomID Hits and Maintenance Efforts over the Pandemic Top: COVID-specific CustomID hits per week (Green), Positive COVID tests per week (Blue) over time Middle: Total custom ID page hits relative to total hospitalizations per week (teal), COVID hospitalizations (Red) Bottom: Number of edits to COVID-specific CustomID pages per week, stratified by management pages and drug pages Several dates of significance are highlighted including the Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) for remdesivir, the COVID Vaccines, and Paxlovid Duke CustomID COVID-19 Page Hits and Edits COVID specific pages on Duke CustomID with total hits, edits, and ratio over the pandemic Conclusion. Our ASP's website was a highly utilized, practical tool for disseminating practice-changing information during the pandemic. Use increased over time and especially during surges. An electronic reference customized for local practice and rapidly updated by ASPs offers critical support for front-line clinicians.
ABSTRACT
Background. COVID-19 shifted antibiotic stewardship program resources and changed antibiotic use (AU). Shifts in patient populations with COVID surges, including pauses to surgical procedures, and dynamic practice changes makes temporal associations difficult to interpret. Our analysis aimed to address the impact of COVID on AU after adjusting for other practice shifts. Methods. We performed a longitudinal analysis of AU data from 30 Southeast US hospitals. Three pandemic phases (1: 3/20-6/20;2: 7/20-10/20;3: 11/20-2/21) were compared to baseline (1/2018-1/2020). AU (days of therapy (DOT)/1000 patient days (PD)) was collected for all antimicrobial agents and specific subgroups: broad spectrum (NHSN group for hospital-onset infections), CAP (ceftriaxone, azithromycin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, and doxycycline), and antifungal. Monthly COVID burden was defined as all PD attributed to a COVID admission. We fit negative binomial GEE models to AU including phase and interaction terms between COVID burden and phase to test the hypothesis that AU changes during the phases were related to COVID burden. Models included adjustment for Charlson comorbidity, surgical volume, time since 12/2017 and seasonality. Results. Observed AU rates by subgroup varied over time;peaks were observed for different subgroups during distinct pandemic phases (Figure). Compared to baseline, we observed a significant increase in overall, broad spectrum, and CAP groups during phase 1 (Table). In phase 2, overall and CAP AU was significantly higher than baseline, but in phase 3, AU was similar to baseline. These phase changes were separate from effects of COVID burden, except in phase 1 where we observed significant effects on antifungal (increased) and CAP (decreased) AU (Table). Conclusion. Changes in hospital AU observed during early phases of the COVID pandemic appeared unrelated to COVID burden and may have been due to indirect pandemic effects (e.g., case mix, healthcare resource shifts). By pandemic phase 3, these disruptive effects were not as apparent, potentially related to shifts in non-COVID patient populations or ASP resources, availability of COVID treatments, or increased learning, diagnostic certainty, and provider comfort with avoiding antibacterials in patients with suspected COVID over time. (Figure Presented).
ABSTRACT
Background. The COVID-19 pandemic placed a strain on inpatient clinical and hospital programs due to increased patient volume and rapidly evolving data on best COVID-19 management strategies. However, the impact of the pandemic on ASPs has not been well described. Methods. We performed a cross-sectional electronic survey of stewardship pharmacy and physician leaders in 37 hospitals within the Duke Antimicrobial Stewardship Outreach Network (DASON) (community) and Duke/UNC Health systems (academic) in April-May 2021. The survey included 60 questions related to staffing changes, use of COVID-targeted therapies, related restrictions, and medication shortages. Results. Twenty-seven facilities responded (response rate of 73%). Pharmacy personnel was reduced in 17 (63%) facilities by an average of 16%. Impacted pharmacy personnel included the stewardship lead in 15/17 (88.2%) hospitals. Converting to remote work was rare and only reported in academic institutions (n=2, 7.4%). ASP personnel were reassigned to non-stewardship duties in 12 (44%) hospitals with only half returning to routine ASP work as of May 2021. Respondents estimated that 62% of routine ASP activities were diverted during the time of the pandemic. Non-traditional, pandemic-related ASP activities included managing multiple drug shortages, of which ventilator support medications (91%) were most common affecting patient care at 52% of facilities. Steroid and hydroxychloroquine shortages were less frequent (44% and 22%, respectively). Despite staff reductions, pharmacists often served as primary contact for remdesivir approvals either using a criteria-based checklist at dispensing or as part of a dedicated phone approval team (Figure). Most (77%) hospitals used a criteria-based pharmacist review strategy after remdesivir FDA approval. Restriction processes for other COVID-19 therapies such as tocilizumab, hydroxychloroquine, and ivermectin were reported in 64% of hospitals. Proportion of facilities implementing specific remdesivir allocation strategies from the time of the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) through FDA approval Conclusion. Pandemic response diverted routine ASP work and has not yet returned to baseline. Despite the reduction in pharmacy personnel due to the pandemic, the ASP pharmacy lead took on a novel and critical stewardship role throughout the pandemic exemplified by their involvement in novel treatment allocation for COVID patients.
ABSTRACT
Background. We aimed to describe SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infections among employees in a large, academic institution. Methods. We prospectively tracked and traced COVID-19 infections among employees across our health system and university. Each employee with a confirmed positive test and 3 presumed positive cases were interviewed with a standard contact tracing template that included descriptive variables such as high-risk behaviors and contacts, dates worked while infectious, and initial symptoms. Using this information, the most likely location of infection acquisition was adjudicated (Table 1). We compared behavior frequency between community and unknown, likely community and community and unknown cases using descriptive statistics. Results. From 3/2020 to 4/2021 we identified 3,140 COVID-19 infections in 3,119 employees out of a total of 34,562 employees (9.0%) (Figure 1). Of those 3,119 employees 1,685 (54.0%) were clinical employees working in the health system, 916 (29.4%) were non-clinical employees working in the health system, and 518 (16.6%) were university employees. Descriptive characteristics for the COVID-19 infections and adjudications are outlined in Table 2. Severe disease among employees was significantly less frequent compared to patients in the health system (15.3% vs 2.2%, p< 0.01). The frequency of travel within 14 days, masked gatherings and unmasked gatherings/ activities was not significantly different between the community and unknown, likely community groups or the community and unknown groups (Table 3). Conclusion. The majority of COVID-19 infections were linked to acquisition in the community, and few were attributed to workplace exposures. Employees with unknown sources of COVID-19 participated in higher-risk activities at approximately the same frequency as employees with community sources of COVID-19. The most frequently reported initial symptoms were mild and non-specific and rarely included fever. Despite a comprehensive testing and benefit program, a large proportion of COVID-positive employees worked with symptoms, highlighting ongoing challenges with presenteeism in healthcare.
ABSTRACT
Background. Children infected with SARS-CoV-2 often have mild or no symptoms, making symptom screening an ineffective tool for determining isolation precautions. As an infection control measure, universal pre-procedural and admission SARS-CoV-2 testing for pediatric patients was implemented in April and August 2020, respectively. Limited data exist on the utility screening programs in the pediatric population. Methods. We performed a retrospective cohort study of pediatric patients (birth to 18 years) admitted to a tertiary care academic medical center from April 2020 to May 2021 that had one or more SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care or polymerase chain reaction tests performed. We describe demographic data, positivity rates and repeat testing trends observed in our cohort. Results. A total of 2,579 SARS-CoV-2 tests were performed among 1,027 pediatric inpatients. Of these, 51 tests (2%) from 45 patients (4.3%) resulted positive. Community infection rates ranged from 4.5-60 cases/100,000 persons/day during the study period. Hispanic patients comprised 16% of the total children tested, but were disproportionately overrepresented (40%) among those testing positive (Figure1). Of 654 children with repeated tests, 7 (0.1%) converted to positive from a prior negative result. Median days between repeat tests was 12 (IQR 6-45), not necessarily performed during the same hospital stay. Five of these 7 patients had tests repeated < 3 days from a negative result, of which only 2 had no history of recent infection by testing performed at an outside facility. Pre-procedural tests accounted for 35% of repeat testing, of which 0.9% were positive. Repeated tests were most frequently ordered for patients in hematology/ oncology (35%) and solid organ transplant/surgical (33%) wards, each with < 3% positive conversion rate. Notably, no hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the study period. Conclusion. The positivity rate of universal pre-procedural and admission SARSCoV-2 testing in pediatric patients was low in our inpatient cohort. Tests repeated < 3 days from a negative result were especially low yield, suggesting limited utility of this practice. Diagnostic testing stewardship in certain populations may be useful, especially as community infection rates decline.
ABSTRACT
Background. Data on occupational acquisition of COVID-19 in healthcare settings are limited. Contact tracing efforts are high resource investments. Methods. Duke Health developed robust COVID-19 contact tracing methods as part of a comprehensive prevention program. We prospectively collected data on HCW exposures and monitored for development of symptomatic (SYX) and asymptomatic (ASYX) COVID-19 infection after documented high-, medium, and low-risk exposures. HCWs were required to self-report exposures or were identified through contact tracing as potentially exposed to COVID-19 positive HCWs, patients or visitors. Contact tracers interviewed exposed HCWs and assessed the risk of exposure as high-, medium-, or low-risk based on CDC guidance (Table 1). Testing was recommended at 6 days after high- or medium-risk exposures and was provided upon HCW request following low-risk exposures. Our vaccination campaign began in 12/2020. Results. 12,916 HCWs registered in the contact tracing database. From March 2020-May 2021, we identified 6,606 occupational exposures (0.51 exposures/HCW). The highest incidence of workplace exposures per number of HCWs in each job category was among respiratory therapists (RT) (0.95 exposures/RT), nursing assistants (NA) (0.79 exposures/NA), and physicians (0.64 exposures/physician). The most common exposure risk level was medium (51.4%), followed by low (35.5%), and then high (13.1%). A total of 260 (2%) HCW had positive tests/conversions;28 (10.8%) were ASYX at the time of testing. High-risk exposures had a significantly greater number of post-exposure infections compared to medium- and low-risk exposures (12.5% vs. 4.2%, vs. 0.4%;p < 0.001). The rate of SYX infection following exposure to a fellow HCW (179/3,198;5.6%) was higher than that following exposure to a patient (81/3,408;2.4%;p< 0.001). Conclusion. Conversion following exposure to COVID-19 in the healthcare setting with appropriate protective equipment was low. Incomplete testing of all exposed individuals was a limitation and our data may under-estimate the true conversion rate. Our findings support our local practice of not quarantining HCWs following non-household exposures. Limiting contact tracing to only high or medium risk exposures may best utilize limited personnel resources.