Epidemiology and genomics of a slow outbreak of methicillin-resistant Staphyloccus aureus (MRSA) in a neonatal intensive care unit: Successful chronic decolonization of MRSA-positive healthcare personnel.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the genomic analysis and epidemiologic response related to a slow and prolonged methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) outbreak. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). METHODS: We conducted an epidemiologic investigation of a NICU MRSA outbreak involving serial baby and staff screening to identify opportunities for decolonization. Whole-genome sequencing was performed on MRSA isolates. RESULTS: A NICU with excellent hand hygiene compliance and longstanding minimal healthcare-associated infections experienced an MRSA outbreak involving 15 babies and 6 healthcare personnel (HCP). In total, 12 cases occurred slowly over a 1-year period (mean, 30.7 days apart) followed by 3 additional cases 7 months later. Multiple progressive infection prevention interventions were implemented, including contact precautions and cohorting of MRSA-positive babies, hand hygiene observers, enhanced environmental cleaning, screening of babies and staff, and decolonization of carriers. Only decolonization of HCP found to be persistent carriers of MRSA was successful in stopping transmission and ending the outbreak. Genomic analyses identified bidirectional transmission between babies and HCP during the outbreak. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to fast outbreaks, outbreaks that are "slow and sustained" may be more common to units with strong existing infection prevention practices such that a series of breaches have to align to result in a case. We identified a slow outbreak that persisted among staff and babies and was only stopped by identifying and decolonizing persistent MRSA carriage among staff. A repeated decolonization regimen was successful in allowing previously persistent carriers to safely continue work duties.

Perceptions of a virtual interview process for pharmacy residents during the COVID-19 pandemic: A multisite survey of residency candidates, preceptors, and residency program directors.

PURPOSE: To describe the perceptions of residency candidates, residency practitioners (current residents and preceptors), and residency program directors (RPDs) regarding a virtual interview process for pharmacy residency programs across multiple institutions. METHODS: In May 2021, an anonymous web-based questionnaire characterizing perceptions of the virtual interview process used during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was distributed to residency candidates, residency practitioners, and RPDs across 13 institutions. Quantitative responses measured on a 5-point Likert scale were summarized with descriptive statistics, and open-ended questions were analyzed using thematic qualitative methods. RESULTS: 236 residency candidates and 253 residency practitioners/RPDs completed the questionnaire, yielding response rates of 27.8% (236 of 848), and 38.1% (253 of 663), respectively. Overall, both groups perceived the virtual interview format positively. When asked whether virtual interviews should replace in-person interviews moving forward, 60.0% (18 of 30) of RPDs indicated they agreed or strongly agreed, whereas only 30.5% (61 of 200) of current preceptors/residents and 28.7% (66 of 230) of residency candidates agreed or strongly agreed. Thematic analysis of qualitative responses revealed that while virtual interviews were easier logistically, the lack of in-person interactions was a common concern for many stakeholders. Lastly, the majority (65.0%) of residency candidates reported greater than $1,000 in savings with virtual interviews. CONCLUSION: Virtual interviews offered logistical and financial benefits. The majority of RPDs were in favor of offering virtual interviews to replace in-person interviews, whereas the majority of residency candidates and practitioners preferred on-site interviews. As restrictions persist with the ongoing pandemic, our results provide insight into best practices for virtual pharmacy residency interviews.

Clostridium difficile: Diagnosis and the Consequence of Over Diagnosis.

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is a leading cause of healthcare-associated infections, accounting for significant disease burden and mortality. The clinical spectrum of C. difficile ranges from asymptomatic colonization to toxic megacolon and fulminant colitis. CDI is characterized by new onset of ≥ 3 unformed stools in 24 h and is confirmed by laboratory test for the presence of toxigenic C. difficile. Currently, laboratory tests to diagnose CDI include toxigenic culture, glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH), nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT), and toxins A/B enzyme immunoassay (EIA). The sensitivities of these tests are variable with toxin EIA ranging from 53 to 60% and with NAAT at about 95%. Overall, the specificity is > 90% for these methods. However, the positive predictive value (PPV) depends on the disease prevalence with lower CDI rates associated with lower PPVs.Notably, the widespread use of the highly sensitive NAAT and its relatively lower clinical specificity have led to overdiagnosis of C. difficile by identifying carriers when NAAT is used as the sole diagnostic method. Overdiagnosis of C. difficile has resulted in unwarranted treatment, possibly attributing to resistance to metronidazole and vancomycin, increased risk for overgrowth of vancomycin-resistant enterococci strains in stool specimens, and increased hospitalization thereby impacting patient safety and healthcare costs.Strategies to optimize the clinical sensitivity and specificity of current laboratory tests are critical to differentiate the clinical CDI from colonization. To achieve high diagnostic yield, if preagreed institutional criteria for stool submission are not used, a multistep approach to CDI diagnosis is recommended, such as either GDH or NAAT followed by toxins A/B EIA in conjunction with laboratory stewardship by evaluating C. difficile test orders for appropriateness and providing feedback. Furthermore, antimicrobial stewardship, along with provider education on appropriate testing for C. difficile, is vital to differentiate CDI from colonization.