ABSTRACT
Background. In April 2021, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre opened a Mobile Health Unit (MHU, i.e. medical tents) under the direction of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care in response to a surge in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 during wave three of the pandemic. Providing care to patients in non-conventional spaces is not new, however, experience in safely caring for COVID-19 patients in these settings is lacking. Our aim is to describe the implementation of our MHU and associated outcomes of these COVID-19 patients. Methods. A multidisciplinary clinical and operations team was created to plan, execute and operate a safe environment for COVID-19 patients and healthcare workers within the MHU. Patient selection was restricted to patients with COVID-19 who were clinically recovering from severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Ventilation was optimized with air flow directed away from patient areas, velocity reduced to below 0.25 meters per second, and air exchanges of 24-28 per hour. All healthcare workers working in the MHU were offered COVID-19 vaccine and required to complete mandatory education if they declined (vaccination rate of 87% was achieved among dedicated staff). Universal masking and eye protection was used throughout the MHU with designated areas for donning and doffing personal protective equipment. Results. In total, 32 patients with COVID-19 were managed in the MHU between 26 April and 21 May, 2021. Table 1 provides the summary of patient characteristics. All patients had a median of one-day of transmission-based precautions remaining in their course and were infected with Alpha variant with exception of one patient with the Gamma variant. Among those patients with genotyping available, all were infected with SARS-CoV-2 carrying the N501Y mutation. Four of the 32 patients required transfer to the main hospital for medical indication while the others were discharged home or to rehabilitation. None of the healthcare workers who worked within the MHU developed COVID-19 infection. Conclusion. We safely cared for patients recovering from COVID-19 infection in an MHU to support system healthcare capacity. Our experience, including the specific hierarchy of controls implemented, may be helpful for future pandemic planning.
ABSTRACT
Background. The emergence of the E484K mutation of SARS-CoV-2 poses a risk of immune evasion but the risk of re-infection during acute infection is not well defined. Our aim was to assess the risk of re-infection among patients with existing acute E484K mutation negative COVID-19 infection who were exposed to an E484K mutation positive SARS-CoV-2 infected patient. Methods. We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted with acute E484K negative COVID-19 infection and shared a hospital room with a patient who was E484K mutation positive during their period of communicability. The primary outcome was laboratory confirmed and/or clinical evidence of re-infection within the E484K negative population within 30 days of exposure and the secondary outcome was the 30-day risk of death or re-admission to hospital due to COVID-19. Results. We identified 41 patients who were E484K mutation negative who shared a hospital room with some of the identified 34 E484K positive patients. Six (14%) underwent repeat COVID-19 testing and remained E484K negative and none developed signs or symptoms of COVID-19 re-infection during the 30 days following exposure. The mortality rate was 7% (3/41) and re-admission rate was zero at 30 days from exposure. Conclusion. Despite the small sample size, we did not observe any evidence of re-infection among patients with COVID-19 who shared a hospital room with E484K positive patients during their acute infection. If necessary due to high hospital occupancy, patients with discordant E484K results can be safely cohorted in a shared room.
ABSTRACT
Background. Transmission of Vancomycin Resistant Enterococcus (VRE) from environment to patient and patient to patient can both occur in healthcare settings. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a cohort of exposed patients on an inpatient unit with an extensive VRE outbreak needed to switch physical locations with a non-exposed patient population. By comparing outcomes of both cohorts, we aimed to determine the role of the physical environment (both direct and indirect contact) as compared to the patient population, in ongoing VRE transmission. Methods. From 10 March to 21 April 2021, 41 new nosocomial acquisitions of VRE were detected as part of a VRE outbreak on a 34-bed acute care unit. Prior to the switch of units, extensive cleaning of the unit was conducted including electrostatic adjuncts to standard cleaning and environmental swabbing for VRE yielded no positive surfaces. The exposed cohort included 3 of 30 patients with VRE while the non-exposed cohort had 0 of 28 VRE positive patients based on prevalence testing on 21 April 2021. Following the physical relocation of both cohorts on 22 April, 2021, prospective VRE screening was performed on both units for one month including on admission, discharge and weekly prevalence screening. Hand hygiene compliance rates on both units was measured using group electronic monitoring. Results. Figure 1 depicts the timeline and number of VRE cases before and after the unit switch. Following relocation of the VRE exposed cohort to the new unit, no further VRE transmission was detected (0/235 VRE screens;0 VRE cases per 1000 patient days). Conversely, there were new VRE transmissions (3/99 VRE screens, 5 VRE cases per 1000 patient days) in the non-exposed cohort. When the units resumed their original location, one additional case of VRE was identified in the exposed cohort upon return to their original location. These transmissions occurred despite HH compliance of 94% (141,610/150,706) during the entire study period on the outbreak unit, which was consistently higher than on the non-outbreak unit (141,589/227,136, 62%). Conclusion. The environmental reservoir for VRE may be more important in transmission than the patient reservoir. These findings underscore the importance of environmental cleaning to contain VRE outbreaks.
ABSTRACT
Background. Wave one of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Canada, resulted in significant institutional outbreaks associated with high case fatality among older adults. Our hospital formally partnered with congregate care homes in north Toronto to support infection control and clinical management before wave two of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of this program on resident and healthcare worker (HCW) outcomes. Methods. A multicentre quasi-experimental study was conducted comparing outcomes between wave one (March-June, 2020) and wave two (October-December, 2020) among 17 congregate care homes (4 long term care homes and 13 residential homes). During wave two, weekly meetings and 42 on-site visits were conducted along with on-site daily hospital presence for all COVID-19 outbreaks to support infection control and resident management. The primary outcomes included COVID-19-case fatality rate as well as overall resident fatality including COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 related causes. Secondary outcomes included healthcare worker COVID-19 infections, and infection control practices among homes with paired audits (n=6), including hand hygiene, use of personal protective equipment, environmental cleaning and physical distancing practices. Results. Among 2203 residents during wave one and 2287 residents during wave two, there was reduction in COVID-19 case fatality rate (38.1% vs. 13.4%;p< 0.01), overall COVID-19-related fatality (2.3% vs. 1.0%;p< 0.01) and non COVID-19 related fatality (8.3% vs. 3.5%;p< 0.01). Weekly staff testing and increased syndromic surveillance was implemented during wave two. Among 2590 staff, there were 2.6% vs.4.2% staff who tested positive for COVID-19 during wave one and two, respectively. Changes in infection control practice were observed in regard to directly observed hand hygiene (83.3% vs. 100%), use of personal protective equipment (16.7% vs. 83.3%), environmental cleaning (66.7% vs. 100%) and physical distancing (66.7% vs. 83.3%). Conclusion. Integration of hospital with community congregate care homes was associated with improvements in resident outcomes during wave two of the pandemic. Further longitudinal support and evaluation is needed to ensure sustainability.
ABSTRACT
Background: Human coronaviruses (CoVs) are a major cause of respiratory infection and institutional outbreaks, yet the epidemiology and clinical outcomes of these viruses is poorly described among the elderly residing in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of LTCF residents with positive nasopharyngeal or mid-turbinate swabs for CoVs (OC43, 229E, NL63 and HKU1) between January 2013 and December 2018. Demographic and clinical data were obtained from resident charts including clinical presentation, treatment, outcome, and transmission to other residents. Variables were compared using univariate analysis. Results: 3268 residents met inclusion criteria (median age 93 years, 90% male) comprising 7.5% (246/3268) of all positive respiratory virus specimens detected during the study period. 97(39%) of cases were associated with a respiratory outbreak while 149(61%) were sporadic cases that did not result in transmission. OC43 (52%) was the most commonly identified CoV and was more commonly associated with outbreak cases (76% vs. 37%;P < 0.001). In total, 87% of all cases had two or more of runny nose/congestion, cough, sore throat/hoarse voice or fever. The most common symptoms among residents were cough (85%), runny nose/congestion (79%), and sore throat/hoarse voice (59%) and only 17% of residents had a measured temperature of ≥ 37.8C. Only 6% of residents received antibiotic treatment for suspected secondary bacterial pneumonia. The 30-day mortality rate was 3.7% with 67% of deaths attributable to the CoV infection. There was no statistically significant difference in symptoms, treatment or outcomes associated with outbreaks or seasonality. Conclusion: CoVs make up an important proportion of respiratory viral infections among LTCF residents and may result in frequent outbreaks. Most residents remain afebrile and have self-limited illness while only a small minority develop secondary bacterial pneumonia and death. Given these findings the benefits of control measures should be weighed against the impact on resident quality of life. Disclosures: All authors: No reported disclosures. FAU - Williams, Victoria R