SHEA position statement on pandemic preparedness for policymakers: building a strong and resilient healthcare workforce.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, many areas in the United States experienced healthcare personnel (HCP) shortages tied to a variety of factors. Infection prevention programs, in particular, faced increasing workload demands with little opportunity to delegate tasks to others without specific infectious diseases or infection control expertise. Shortages of clinicians providing inpatient care to critically ill patients during the early phase of the pandemic were multifactorial, largely attributed to increasing demands on hospitals to provide care to patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and furloughs.1 HCP shortages and challenges during later surges, including the Omicron variant-associated surges, were largely attributed to HCP infections and associated work restrictions during isolation periods and the need to care for family members, particularly children, with COVID-19. Additionally, the detrimental physical and mental health impact of COVID-19 on HCP has led to attrition, which further exacerbates shortages.2 Demands increased in post-acute and long-term care (PALTC) settings, which already faced critical staffing challenges difficulty with recruitment, and high rates of turnover. Although individual healthcare organizations and state and federal governments have taken actions to mitigate recurring shortages, additional work and innovation are needed to develop longer-term solutions to improve healthcare workforce resiliency. The critical role of those with specialized training in infection prevention, including healthcare epidemiologists, was well-demonstrated in pandemic preparedness and response. The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the need to support growth in these fields.3 This commentary outlines the need to develop the US healthcare workforce in preparation for future pandemics.

SHEA position statement on pandemic preparedness for policymakers: introduction and overview.

Throughout history, pandemics and their aftereffects have spurred society to make substantial improvements in healthcare. After the Black Death in 14th century Europe, changes were made to elevate standards of care and nutrition that resulted in improved life expectancy.1 The 1918 influenza pandemic spurred a movement that emphasized public health surveillance and detection of future outbreaks and eventually led to the creation of the World Health Organization Global Influenza Surveillance Network.2 In the present, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed many of the pre-existing problems within the US healthcare system, which included (1) a lack of capacity to manage a large influx of contagious patients while simultaneously maintaining routine and emergency care to non-COVID patients; (2) a "just in time" supply network that led to shortages and competition among hospitals, nursing homes, and other care sites for essential supplies; and (3) longstanding inequities in the distribution of healthcare and the healthcare workforce. The decades-long shift from domestic manufacturing to a reliance on global supply chains has compounded ongoing gaps in preparedness for supplies such as personal protective equipment and ventilators. Inequities in racial and socioeconomic outcomes highlighted during the pandemic have accelerated the call to focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) within our communities. The pandemic accelerated cooperation between government entities and the healthcare system, resulting in swift implementation of mitigation measures, new therapies and vaccinations at unprecedented speeds, despite our fragmented healthcare delivery system and political divisions. Still, widespread misinformation or disinformation and political divisions contributed to eroded trust in the public health system and prevented an even uptake of mitigation measures, vaccines and therapeutics, impeding our ability to contain the spread of the virus in this country.3 Ultimately, the lessons of COVID-19 illustrate the need to better prepare for the next pandemic. Rising microbial resistance, emerging and re-emerging pathogens, increased globalization, an aging population, and climate change are all factors that increase the likelihood of another pandemic.4.

Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America position statement on pandemic preparedness for policymakers: mitigating supply shortages.

The COVID-19 has had major direct (e.g., deaths) and indirect (e.g., social inequities) effects in the United States. While the public health response to the epidemic featured some important successes (e.g., universal masking ,and rapid development and approval of vaccines and therapeutics), there were systemic failures (e.g., inadequate public health infrastructure) that overshadowed these successes. Key deficiency in the U.S. response were shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) and supply chain deficiencies. Recommendations are provided for mitigating supply shortages and supply chain failures in healthcare settings in future pandemics. Some key recommendations for preventing shortages of essential components of infection control and prevention include increasing the stockpile of PPE in the U.S. National Strategic Stockpile, increased transparency of the Stockpile, invoking the Defense Production Act at an early stage, and rapid review and authorization by FDA/EPA/OSHA of non-U.S. approved products. Recommendations are also provided for mitigating shortages of diagnostic testing, medications and medical equipment.

SHEA position statement on pandemic preparedness for policymakers: pandemic data collection, maintenance, and release.

The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology in America (SHEA) strongly supports modernization of data collection processes and the creation of publicly available data repositories that include a wide variety of data elements and mechanisms for securely storing both cleaned and uncleaned data sets that can be curated as clinical and research needs arise. These elements can be used for clinical research and quality monitoring and to evaluate the impacts of different policies on different outcomes. Achieving these goals will require dedicated, sustained and long-term funding to support data science teams and the creation of central data repositories that include data sets that can be "linked" via a variety of different mechanisms and also data sets that include institutional and state and local policies and procedures. A team-based approach to data science is strongly encouraged and supported to achieve the goal of a sustainable, adaptable national shared data resource.

Achromobacter cluster related to COVID-19 supply chain issues.

Isolation of an unusual organism, Achromobacter xylosoxidans, from 2 cardiac surgical patients on the same day prompted an investigation to search for cases and cause. An extensive review demonstrated a pseudo-outbreak related to practices to conserve laboratory saline due to short supply resulting from supply chain shortage from the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Associations between Present-on-Admission Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders and Short-Term Outcomes in Patients with Pneumonia.

OBJECTIVES: Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders are used to express patient preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This study examined whether early DNR orders are associated with differences in treatments and outcomes among patients hospitalized with pneumonia. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of 768,015 adult patients hospitalized with pneumonia from 2010 to 2015 in 646 US hospitals. The exposure was DNR orders present on admission. Secondary analyses stratified patients by predicted in-hospital mortality. Main outcomes included in-hospital mortality, length of stay, cost, intensive care admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, noninvasive ventilation, vasopressors, and dialysis initiation. RESULTS: Of 768,015 patients, 94,155 (12.3%) had an early DNR order. Compared with those without, patients with DNR orders were older (mean age 80.1 ± 10.6 years vs 67.8 ± 16.4 years), with higher comorbidity burden, intensive care use (31.6% vs 30.6%), and in-hospital mortality (28.2% vs 8.5%). After adjustment via propensity score weighting, these patients had higher mortality (odds ratio [OR] 2.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.33-2.45) and lower use of intensive therapies such as vasopressors (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.81-0.85) and invasive mechanical ventilation (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.66-0.70). Although there was little relationship between predicted mortality and DNR orders, among those with highest predicted mortality, DNR orders were associated with lower intensive care use compared with those without (66.7% vs 80.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with early DNR orders have higher in-hospital mortality rates than those without, but often receive intensive care. These orders have the most impact on the care of patients with the highest mortality risk.

Intravenous to Oral Antibiotic Switch Therapy Among Patients Hospitalized With Community-Acquired Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a leading cause of hospital admissions and antimicrobial use. Clinical practice guidelines recommend switching from intravenous (IV) to oral antibiotics once patients are clinically stable. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults admitted with CAP and initially treated with IV antibiotics at 642 US hospitals from 2010 through 2015. Switching was defined as discontinuation of IV and initiation of oral antibiotics without interrupting therapy. Patients switched by hospital day 3 were considered early switchers. We compared length of stay (LOS), in-hospital 14-day mortality, late deterioration (intensive care unit [ICU] transfer), and hospital costs between early switchers and others, controlling for hospital characteristics, patient demographics, comorbidities, initial treatments, and predicted mortality. RESULTS: Of 378 041 CAP patients, 21 784 (6%) were switched early, most frequently to fluoroquinolones. Patients switched early had fewer days on IV antibiotics, shorter duration of inpatient antibiotic treatment, shorter LOS, and lower hospitalization costs, but no significant excesses in 14-day in-hospital mortality or late ICU admission. Patients at a higher mortality risk were less likely to be switched. However, even in hospitals with relatively high switch rates, <15% of very low-risk patients were switched early. CONCLUSIONS: Although early switching was not associated with worse outcomes and was associated with shorter LOS and fewer days on antibiotics, it occurred infrequently. Even in hospitals with high switch rates, <15% of very low-risk patients were switched early. Our findings suggest that many more patients could be switched early without compromising outcomes.

Use of expert consensus to develop a shared list of procedures with potential for aerosol generation during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic highlighted the lack of agreement regarding the definition of aerosol-generating procedures and potential risk to healthcare personnel. We convened a group of Massachusetts healthcare epidemiologists to develop consensus through expert opinion in an area where broader guidance was lacking at the time.

Characterizing burnout among healthcare epidemiologists in the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic: A study of the SHEA Research Network.

A multisite research team proposed a survey to assess burnout among healthcare epidemiologists. Anonymous surveys were disseminated to eligible staff at SRN facilities. Half of the respondents were experiencing burnout. Staffing shortages were a key stressor. Allowing healthcare epidemiologists to provide guidance without directly enforcing policies may improve burnout.

Back to the future: Redefining "universal precautions" to include masking for all patient encounters.

Despite recent guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) allowing institutions to relax in-facility masking strategies and due to our evolving understanding of respiratory pathogen transmission during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we propose an updated standard for universal precautions in healthcare settings: permanently including universal masking in routine patient-care interactions. Such a practice prioritizes safety for patients, healthcare providers (HCPs), and visitors.

Association of fluoroquinolones or cephalosporin plus macrolide with Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) after treatment for community-acquired pneumonia.

OBJECTIVE: Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is the most common cause of gastroenteritis, and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is the most common infection treated in hospitals. American Thoracic Society (ATS)/Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) CAP guidelines recommend empiric therapy with a respiratory fluoroquinolone or cephalosporin plus macrolide combination, but the CDI risk of these regimens is unknown. We examined the association between each antibiotic regimen and the development of hospital-onset CDI. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from 638 US hospitals contributing administrative including 177 also contributing microbiologic data to Premier, Inc. We included adults admitted with pneumonia and discharged from July 2010 through June 2015 with a pneumonia diagnosis code who received ≥3 days of either empiric regimen. Hospital-onset CDI was defined by a diagnosis code not present on admission and positive laboratory test on day 4 or later or readmission for CDI. Mixed propensity-weighted multiple logistic regression was used to estimate the associations of CDI with antibiotic regimens. RESULTS: Our sample included 58,060 patients treated with either cephalosporin plus macrolide (36,796 patients) or a fluoroquinolone alone (21,264 patients) and with microbiological data; 127 (0.35%) patients who received cephalosporin plus macrolide and 65 (0.31%) who received a fluoroquinolone developed CDI. After adjustment for patient demographics, comorbidities, risk factors for antimicrobial resistance, and hospital characteristics, CDI risks were similar for fluoroquinolones versus cephalosporin plus macrolide (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-1.38). CONCLUSION: Among patients with CAP at US hospitals, CDI was uncommon, occurring in ∼0.33% of patients. We did not detect a significant association between the choice of empiric guideline recommended antibiotic therapy and the development of CDI.

Derivation and validation of a risk assessment model for drug-resistant pathogens in hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia.

OBJECTIVE: To derive and validate a model for risk of resistance to first-line community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) therapy. DESIGN: We developed a logistic regression prediction model from a large multihospital discharge database and validated it versus the Drug Resistance in Pneumonia (DRIP) score in a holdout sample and another hospital system outside that database. Resistance to first-line CAP therapy (quinolone or third generation cephalosporin plus macrolide) was based on blood or respiratory cultures. SETTING: This study was conducted using data from 177 Premier Healthcare database hospitals and 11 Cleveland Clinic hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized for CAP. EXPOSURE: Risk factors for resistant infection. RESULTS: Among 138,762 eligible patients in the Premier database, 12,181 (8.8%) had positive cultures and 5,200 (3.8%) had organisms resistant to CAP therapy. Infection with a resistant organism in the previous year was the strongest predictor of resistance; markers of acute illness (eg, receipt of mechanical ventilation or vasopressors) and chronic illness (eg, pressure ulcer, paralysis) were also associated with resistant infections. Our model outperformed the DRIP score with a C-statistic of 0.71 versus 0.63 for the DRIP score (P < .001) in the Premier holdout sample, and 0.65 versus 0.58 (P < .001) in Cleveland Clinic hospitals. Clinicians at Premier facilities used broad-spectrum antibiotics for 20%-30% of patients. In discriminating between patients with and without resistant infections, physician judgment slightly outperformed the DRIP instrument but not our model. CONCLUSIONS: Our model predicting infection with a resistant pathogen outperformed both the DRIP score and physician practice in an external validation set. Its integration into practice could reduce unnecessary use of broad-spectrum antibiotics.

Influenza Testing and Treatment Among Patients Hospitalized With Community-Acquired Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Influenza is a leading cause of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), and results of influenza tests can direct therapy. However, among adults hospitalized with CAP, little is known about the frequency and timing of influenza testing, treatment, and their associations with outcomes. RESEARCH QUESTION: In patients with CAP, is testing for influenza associated with antiviral treatment and shorter antibiotic courses, and is early treatment associated with better clinical outcomes? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This study included adults admitted with pneumonia in 2010 to 2015 to 179 US hospitals contributing to the Premier database. We assessed influenza testing and compared antimicrobial utilization and the outcomes of test-positive, test-negative, and untested patients. Associations of early antiviral treatment (oseltamivir) with 14-day in-hospital mortality, hospital length of stay, and cost were studied. RESULTS: Among 166,268 patients with CAP, 38,703 (23.3%) were tested for influenza, of whom 11.5% tested positive. Testing increased from 15.4% to 35.6% from 2010 to 2015 and was 28.9% during flu season (October-May) vs 8.2% in June to September. Patients testing positive for influenza received antiviral agents more often and antibacterial agents less often and for shorter courses than patients testing negative (5.3 vs 6.4 days; P < .001). Influenza-positive patients receiving oseltamivir on hospital day 1 (n = 2,585) experienced lower 14-day in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.96), lower costs (adjusted ratio of means, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.95), and shorter length of stay (adjusted ratio of means, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.84-0.93) vs patients receiving oseltamivir later or not at all (n = 1,742). INTERPRETATION: Even during flu season, most patients with CAP in this study went untested for influenza. A positive influenza test result was associated with antiviral treatment, and early treatment was associated with lower mortality, suggesting that more widespread testing might improve patient outcomes.

Etiology, Treatments, and Outcomes of Patients With Severe Community-Acquired Pneumonia in a Large U.S. Sample.

OBJECTIVES: Compare the clinical practice and outcomes in severe community-acquired pneumonia (sCAP) patients to those in non-sCAP patients using guideline-defined criteria for sCAP. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. SETTING: One hundred seventy-seven U.S. hospitals within the Premier Healthcare Database. PATIENTS: Hospitalized adult (≥ 18 yr old) patients with pneumonia. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Adult patients (≥ 18 yr old) with a principal diagnosis of pneumonia or a secondary diagnosis of pneumonia paired with a principal diagnosis of sepsis or respiratory failure were included. Patients with at least one guideline-defined major criterion for severe pneumonia were compared with patients with nonsevere disease. Among 154,799 patients with pneumonia, 21,805 (14.1%) met criteria for sCAP. They had higher organ failure scores (1.9 vs 0.63; p < 0.001) and inpatient mortality (22.0 vs 5.0%; p < 0.001), longer lengths of stay (8 vs 5 d; p < 0.001), and higher costs ($20,046 vs $7,543; p < 0.001) than those with nonsevere disease. Patients with sCAP had twice the rate of positive blood cultures (10.0% vs 4.5%; p < 0.001) and respiratory cultures (34.2 vs 21.1%; p < 0.001) and more often had isolates resistant to first-line community-acquired pneumonia antibiotics (10% of severe vs 3.1% of nonsevere; p < 0.001). Regardless of disease severity, Streptococcus pneumoniae was the most common pathogen recovered from blood cultures and Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas species were the most common pathogens recovered from the respiratory tract. Although few patients with sCAP had cultures positive for a resistant organism, 65% received vancomycin and 42.8% received piperacillin-tazobactam. CONCLUSIONS: sCAP patients had worse outcomes and twice the rate of culture positivity. S. aureus and S. pneumoniae were the most common organisms in respiratory and blood specimens, respectively. Although only recommended for sCAP patients, nearly all pneumonia patients received blood cultures, a quarter of nonsevere patients received sputum cultures, and treatment with broad-spectrum agents was widespread, indicating fertile ground for antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship programs.

Monitored COVID-19 mRNA vaccine second doses for people with adverse reactions after the first dose.

Background: After Emergency Use Authorization of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, guidance was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that persons with an immediate allergic reaction to a messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccine should be evaluated by an allergist/immunologist before receipt of the second dose. Methods: In vaccinating health-care personnel, we referred those with significant reactions to allergy/immunology specialists so that they could safely receive the second dose. Results: We found that many reactions after the first dose were nonallergic but could be debilitating and a barrier to the second dose. We created a protocol of premedications to allow health-care personnel to safely receive their second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose. Conclusion: This protocol is adaptable and can be used in settings where allergy/immunology referral is not immediately available.

Bacterial coinfection in influenza pneumonia: Rates, pathogens, and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from pandemics suggests that influenza is often associated with bacterial coinfection. Among patients hospitalized for influenza pneumonia, we report the rate of coinfection and distribution of pathogens, and we compare outcomes of patients with and without bacterial coinfection. METHODS: We included adults admitted with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and tested for influenza from 2010 to 2015 at 179 US hospitals participating in the Premier database. Pneumonia was identified using an International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) algorithm. We used multiple logistic and gamma-generalized linear mixed models to assess the relationships between coinfection and inpatient mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, length of stay, and cost. RESULTS: Among 38,665 patients hospitalized with CAP and tested for influenza, 4,313 (11.2%) were positive. In the first 3 hospital days, patients with influenza were less likely than those without to have a positive culture (10.3% vs 16.2%; P < .001), and cultures were more likely to contain Staphylococcus aureus (34.2% vs 28.2%; P = .007) and less likely to contain Streptococcus pneumoniae (24.9% vs 31.0%; P = .008). Of S. aureus isolates, 42.8% were methicillin resistant among influenza patients versus 53.2% among those without influenza (P = .01). After hospital day 3, pathogens for both groups were similar. Bacterial coinfection was associated with increased odds of in-hospital mortality (aOR, 3.00; 95% CI, 2.17-4.16), late ICU transfer (aOR, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.98-4.04), and higher cost (risk-adjusted mean multiplier, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.59-1.96). CONCLUSIONS: In a large US inpatient sample hospitalized with influenza and CAP, S. aureus was the most frequent cause of bacterial coinfection. Coinfection was associated with worse outcomes and higher costs.