Comparison of the Impact of COVID-19 on Veterans Affairs and Non-federal Hospitals: a Survey of Infection Prevention Specialists.

BACKGROUND: As the COVID-19 pandemic evolves, it is critical to understand characteristics that have allowed US healthcare systems, including the Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-federal hospitals, to mount an effective response in the setting of limited resources and unpredictable clinical demands generated by this system shock. OBJECTIVE: To compare the impact of and response to resource shortages to both VA and non-federal healthcare systems during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Cross-sectional national survey administered April 2021 through May 2022. PARTICIPANTS: Lead infection preventionists from VA and non-federal hospitals across the US. MAIN MEASURES: Surveys collected hospital demographic factors along with 11 questions aimed at assessing the effectiveness of the hospital's COVID response. KEY RESULTS: The response rate was 56% (71/127) from VA and 47% (415/881) from non-federal hospitals. Compared to VA hospitals, non-federal hospitals had a larger average number of acute care (214 vs. 103 beds, p<.001) and intensive care unit (24 vs. 16, p<.001) beds. VA hospitals were more likely to report no shortages of personal protective equipment or medical supplies during the pandemic (17% vs. 9%, p=.03) and more frequently opened new units to care specifically for COVID patients (71% vs. 49%, p<.001) compared with non-federal hospitals. Non-federal hospitals more frequently experienced increased loss of staff due to resignations (76% vs. 53%, p=.001) and financial hardships stemming from the pandemic (58% vs. 7%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In our survey-based national study, lead infection preventionists noted several distinct advantages in VA versus non-federal hospitals in their ability to expand bed capacity, retain staff, mitigate supply shortages, and avoid financial hardship. While these benefits appear to be inherent to the VA's structure, non-federal hospitals can adapt their infrastructure to better weather future system shocks.

Comparison of the Impact of COVID-19 on Veterans Affairs and Non-federal Hospitals: a Survey of Infection Prevention Specialists.

BACKGROUND: As the COVID-19 pandemic evolves, it is critical to understand characteristics that have allowed US healthcare systems, including the Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-federal hospitals, to mount an effective response in the setting of limited resources and unpredictable clinical demands generated by this system shock. OBJECTIVE: To compare the impact of and response to resource shortages to both VA and non-federal healthcare systems during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Cross-sectional national survey administered April 2021 through May 2022. PARTICIPANTS: Lead infection preventionists from VA and non-federal hospitals across the US. MAIN MEASURES: Surveys collected hospital demographic factors along with 11 questions aimed at assessing the effectiveness of the hospital's COVID response. KEY RESULTS: The response rate was 56% (71/127) from VA and 47% (415/881) from non-federal hospitals. Compared to VA hospitals, non-federal hospitals had a larger average number of acute care (214 vs. 103 beds, p<.001) and intensive care unit (24 vs. 16, p<.001) beds. VA hospitals were more likely to report no shortages of personal protective equipment or medical supplies during the pandemic (17% vs. 9%, p=.03) and more frequently opened new units to care specifically for COVID patients (71% vs. 49%, p<.001) compared with non-federal hospitals. Non-federal hospitals more frequently experienced increased loss of staff due to resignations (76% vs. 53%, p=.001) and financial hardships stemming from the pandemic (58% vs. 7%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In our survey-based national study, lead infection preventionists noted several distinct advantages in VA versus non-federal hospitals in their ability to expand bed capacity, retain staff, mitigate supply shortages, and avoid financial hardship. While these benefits appear to be inherent to the VA's structure, non-federal hospitals can adapt their infrastructure to better weather future system shocks.

Healthcare-associated infection prevention and control practices in Israel: results of a national survey.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare-associated infection (HAI) is a common and largely preventable cause of morbidity and mortality. The COVID-19 pandemic has presented unprecedented challenges to health systems. We conducted a national survey to ascertain hospital characteristics and the use of HAI prevention measures in Israel. METHODS: We e-mailed surveys to infection prevention and control (IPC) leads of acute care hospitals in Israel. The survey included questions about the use of practices to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), and Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). The survey also assessed COVID-19 impact and healthcare worker well-being. RESULTS: IPC leads from 15 of 24 invited hospitals (63%) completed the survey. Only one-third of respondents reported strong support for IPC from hospital leadership. Although several prevention practices were used by all hospitals (e.g., maximum sterile barrier precautions for CLABSI and real-time assessment of environmental cleaning for CDI), use of other practices was suboptimal-particularly for CAUTI and VAP. COVID-19 had a profound impact on Israeli hospitals, with all hospitals reporting opening of new units to care for COVID patients and most reporting moderate to extreme financial hardship. All hospitals reported highly successful plans to vaccinate all staff and felt confident that the vaccine is safe and effective. CONCLUSION: We provide a status report of the IPC characteristics and practices Israeli hospitals are currently using to prevent HAIs during the COVID-19 era. While many globally accepted IPC practices are widely implemented, opportunities to increase the use of certain IPC practices in Israeli hospitals exist.

Eligibility for Posthospitalization Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background A recent randomized trial, the MICHELLE trial, demonstrated improved posthospital outcomes with a 35-day course of prophylactic rivaroxaban for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at high risk of venous thromboembolism. We explored how often these findings may apply to an unselected clinical population of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods and Results Using a 35-hospital retrospective cohort of patients hospitalized between March 7, 2020, and January 23, 2021, with COVID-19 (MI-COVID19 database), we quantified the percentage of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who would be eligible for rivaroxaban at discharge per MICHELLE trial criteria and report clinical event rates. The main clinical outcome was derived from the MICHELLE trial and included a composite of symptomatic venous thromboembolism, pulmonary embolus-related death, nonhemorrhagic stroke, and cardiovascular death at 35 days. Multiple sensitivity analyses tested different eligibility and exclusion criteria definitions to determine the effect on eligibility for postdischarge anticoagulation prophylaxis. Of 2016 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who survived to discharge and did not have another indication for anticoagulation, 25.9% (n=523) would be eligible for postdischarge thromboprophylaxis per the MICHELLE trial criteria (range, 2.9%-39.4% on sensitivity analysis). Of the 416 who had discharge anticoagulant data collected, only 13.2% (55/416) were actually prescribed a new anticoagulant at discharge. Of patients eligible for rivaroxaban per the MICHELLE trial, the composite clinical outcome occurred in 1.2% (6/519); similar outcome rates were 5.7% and 0.63% in the MICHELLE trial's control (no anticoagulation) and intervention (rivaroxaban) groups, respectively. Symptomatic venous thromboembolism events and all-cause mortality were 6.2% (32/519) and 5.66% in the MI-COVID19 and MICHELLE trial control cohorts, respectively. Conclusions Across 35 hospitals in Michigan, ≈1 in 4 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 would qualify for posthospital thromboprophylaxis. With only 13% of patients actually receiving postdischarge prophylaxis, there is a potential opportunity for improvement in care.

Improving Hand Hygiene Adherence in Healthcare Workers Before Patient Contact: A Multimodal Intervention in Four Tertiary Care Hospitals in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene is key to preventing healthcare-associated infection and the spread of respiratory viruses like the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19. Unfortunately, hand hygiene adherence of healthcare workers (HCWs) in Japan is suboptimal according to previous studies. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to evaluate hand hygiene adherence among physicians and nurses before touching hospitalized patients and to evaluate changes in hand hygiene adherence after a multimodal intervention was implemented. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a pre- and postintervention study with HCWs at four tertiary hospitals in Niigata, Japan. Hand hygiene observations were conducted from June to August 2018 (preintervention) and February to March 2019 (postintervention). INTERVENTION: The multimodal hand hygiene intervention recommended by the World Health Organization was tailored to each hospital and implemented from September 2018 to February 2019. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We observed hand hygiene adherence before touching patients in each hospital and compared rates before and after intervention. Intervention components were also evaluated. RESULTS: There were 2,018 patient observations preintervention and 1,630 postintervention. Overall, hand hygiene adherence improved from 453 of 2,018 preintervention observations (22.4%) to 548 of 1,630 postintervention observations (33.6%; P < .001). Rates improved more among nurses (13.9 percentage points) than among doctors (5.7 percentage points). Improvement varied among the hospitals: Hospital B (18.4 percentage points) was highest, followed by Hospitals D (11.4 percentage points), C (11.3 percentage points), and Hospital A (6.5 percentage points). CONCLUSIONS: A multimodal intervention improved hand hygiene adherence rates in physicians and nurses in Niigata, Japan; however, further improvement is necessary. Given the current suboptimal hand hygiene adherence rates in Japanese hospitals, the spread of COVID-19 within the hospital setting is a concern.