A pilot model of a public-private partnership for implementation of a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnostic testing program to facilitate a safe school reopening.

Objective: We developed an implementation plan to integrate diagnostic testing for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) into a public school system. Implementation barriers were identified and strategies were mapped to overcome them. Design: A COVID-19 diagnostic testing program leveraging a public-private partnership was developed for a public school system. Setting: A suburban school district and a local hospital during the 2020-2021 academic year. Methods: Using Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) constructs and evidenced-based implementation strategies, the program was designed as a "closed system" and was adapted based on stakeholder feedback. Implementation barriers and facilitators were identified and mapped to CFIR constructs to provide insights into factors influencing program adoption. Results: Preimplementation stages of engagement, feasibility, and readiness planning were completed. The program did not progress to implementation due to multiple factors, including changes in school leadership (inner setting and process-level constructs), improved access to outside testing, and lack of an existing paradigm for in-school testing (external constructs). Limited support from key stakeholders and opinion leaders was also a barrier (process-level construct). Conclusions: Although this locally initiated program did not progress beyond the preimplementation stage, the processes developed and barriers identified may be useful to inform planning efforts in other testing programs within public school systems. Future programs may consider incorporating multiplex diagnostic testing for influenza in addition to COVID-19. With relaxation of infection control measures, the prevalence of other respiratory viruses will increase. Actionable results will be needed to inform decisions about closures and quarantines.

The Science Behind Safe School Re-opening: Leveraging the Pillars of Infection Control to Support Safe Elementary and Secondary Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

There are limited tools for adapting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection control plans to school settings. We present an infection prevention model for optimizing safe re-opening for elementary and secondary schools during the global COVID-19 pandemic and review the current evidence behind various infection prevention interventions in school settings. The model is adapted from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fundamental pillars for infection prevention and includes 4 categories of intervention: epidemiologic controls (town prevalence metrics, diagnostic testing, quarantine strategies), administrative controls (state vaccination policies, alternative school models, symptom screens, quarantine breaks), engineering/environmental controls (distancing, outdoor space, ventilation), and personal protective equipment (PPE)/hand hygiene (face coverings, hand sanitizing). The adapted infection control pillars model utilizes implementation science-informed considerations to maximize pragmatism and adherence by leveraging evidence-based strategies. It highlights the necessity of redundant infection prevention interventions, acknowledges the importance of community buy-in to achieve real-world effectiveness, and addresses tactics to overcome implementation barriers. Recommendations are grounded in the Dynamic Sustainability Framework and include suggestions to maintain infection prevention effectiveness over time to ensure ongoing safety.

The impact of school opening model on SARS-CoV-2 community incidence and mortality.

The role that traditional and hybrid in-person schooling modes contribute to the community incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections relative to fully remote schooling is unknown. We conducted an event study using a retrospective nationwide cohort evaluating the effect of school mode on SARS-CoV-2 cases during the 12 weeks after school opening (July-September 2020, before the Delta variant was predominant), stratified by US Census region. After controlling for case rate trends before school start, state-level mitigation measures and community activity level, SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates were not statistically different in counties with in-person learning versus remote school modes in most regions of the United States. In the South, there was a significant and sustained increase in cases per week among counties that opened in a hybrid or traditional mode versus remote, with weekly effects ranging from 9.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.7-16.1) to 21.3 (95% CI = 9.9-32.7) additional cases per 100,000 persons, driven by increasing cases among 0-9 year olds and adults. Schools can reopen for in-person learning without substantially increasing community case rates of SARS-CoV-2; however, the impacts are variable. Additional studies are needed to elucidate the underlying reasons for the observed regional differences more fully.

The Impact of School Opening Model on SARS-CoV-2 Community Incidence and Mortality: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

The role that in-person schooling contributes to community incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections and deaths remains unknown. We conducted an event study evaluating the effect of in-person school on SARS-CoV-2 cases and deaths per 100,000 persons during the 12-weeks following school opening, stratified by US Census region. There was no impact of in-person school opening and COVID-19 deaths. In most regions, COVID-19 incidence rates were not statistically different in counties with in-person versus remote school modes. However, in the South, there was a significant and sustained increase in cases per week among counties that opened for in-person learning versus remote learning, with weekly effects ranging from 7.8 (95% CI: 1.2-14.5) to 18.9 (95% CI: 7.9-29.9) additional cases per 100,000, driven by increases among 0-9 year olds and adults.

Infection prevention measures in acute care settings based on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 transmission patterns and risk: a review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, when facing extraordinary infection prevention challenges, acute care settings have balanced routine patient safety needs while minimizing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission risk to patients and healthcare personnel (HCP). Mitigation strategies in acute care settings are based on a combination of basic science, environmental, and epidemiologic evidence. Here, we review the literature on SARS-CoV-2 transmission, how it has shaped infection prevention interventions in acute care settings, and the results of such measures to reduce transmission. RECENT FINDINGS: HCP adherence to transmission-based precautions in acute care settings, such as the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), is essential to mitigating SARS-CoV-2 spread. Although the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated in nonrespiratory body sites, such exposure has not been shown to definitively cause transmission in humans. Epidemiologic evidence has demonstrated that implementation and adherence to infection prevention strategies reduces acute setting transmission. SUMMARY: Given SARS-CoV-2 infection occurs primarily through respiratory transmission, preventing HCP acquisition requires fidelity to consistent PPE usage. Infection prevention strategies and implementation of transmission-based precautions have reduced spread and outbreaks. Epidemiologic studies of acute care outbreaks often include reports of PPE nonadherence and community exposure contributing to SARS-CoV-2 transmission within this setting.

Legionella pulmonary abscess and pleural space infection in an immunocompetent patient.

A 34-year-old woman is admitted to the hospital with dyspnoea, dry cough and left-sided flank pain. Her Legionella urinary test was positive and CT imaging demonstrated multifocal pneumonia with pulmonary abscesses. Although she had initial clinical improvement on appropriate antibiotic therapy, her hospital course was complicated by worsening flank pain, hypoxemia and leucocytosis, prompting clinical re-evaluation and assessment for development of complications involving the pleural space. CT imaging revealed interval development of a loculated complicated parapneumonic effusion. Successful treatment required chest tube drainage assisted by fibrinolytic therapy. This case highlights the importance of considering Legionella in patients with pulmonary abscess, demonstrates an approach to a patient with a non-resolving pneumonia and illustrates the management of parapneumonic effusions.

Primary Care Providers' Perspectives on Using Automated HIV Risk Prediction Models to Identify Potential Candidates for Pre-exposure Prophylaxis.

Identifying patients at increased risk for HIV acquisition can be challenging. Primary care providers (PCPs) may benefit from tools that help them identify appropriate candidates for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). We and others have previously developed and validated HIV risk prediction models to identify PrEP candidates using electronic health records data. In the current study, we convened focus groups with PCPs to elicit their perspectives on using prediction models to identify PrEP candidates in clinical practice. PCPs were receptive to using prediction models to identify PrEP candidates. PCPs believed that models could facilitate patient-provider communication about HIV risk, destigmatize and standardize HIV risk assessments, help patients accurately perceive their risk, and identify PrEP candidates who might otherwise be missed. However, PCPs had concerns about patients' reactions to having their medical records searched, harms from potential breaches in confidentiality, and the accuracy of model predictions. Interest in clinical decision-support for PrEP was greatest among PrEP-inexperienced providers. Successful implementation of prediction models will require tailoring them to providers' preferences and addressing concerns about their use.

Effectiveness of 3 Versus 6 ft of Physical Distancing for Controlling Spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Among Primary and Secondary Students and Staff: A Retrospective, Statewide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: National and international guidelines differ about the optimal physical distancing between students for prevention of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission; studies directly comparing the impact of ≥3 versus ≥6 ft of physical distancing policies in school settings are lacking. Thus, our objective was to compare incident cases of SARS-CoV-2 in students and staff in Massachusetts public schools among districts with different physical distancing requirements. State guidance mandates masking for all school staff and for students in grades 2 and higher; the majority of districts required universal masking. METHODS: Community incidence rates of SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-2 cases among students in grades K-12 and staff participating in-person learning, and district infection control plans were linked. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for students and staff members in traditional public school districts with ≥3 versus ≥6 ft of physical distancing were estimated using log-binomial regression; models adjusted for community incidence are also reported. RESULTS: Among 251 eligible school districts, 537 336 students and 99 390 staff attended in-person instruction during the 16-week study period, representing 6 400 175 student learning weeks and 1 342 574 staff learning weeks. Student case rates were similar in the 242 districts with ≥3 versus ≥6 ft of physical distancing between students (IRR, 0.891; 95% confidence interval, .594-1.335); results were similar after adjustment for community incidence (adjusted IRR, 0.904; .616-1.325). Cases among school staff in districts with ≥3 versus ≥6 ft of physical distancing were also similar (IRR, 1.015, 95% confidence interval, .754-1.365). CONCLUSIONS: Lower physical distancing requirements can be adopted in school settings with masking mandates without negatively affecting student or staff safety.

Drug Resistance During HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis.

Clinical studies have demonstrated that use of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with or without emtricitabine as antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) can decrease the risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) acquisition when medication adherence is high. However, the potential for PrEP to promote antiretroviral resistance remains an important public health consideration. We performed a search of the medical literature to identify studies that address HIV drug resistance during PrEP use. In this review, we summarize findings about emergent drug resistance during clinical trials of PrEP, case reports of seroconversions in patients adherent to PrEP, and animal studies of PrEP effectiveness against drug-resistant viral strains. We also discuss the potential utility of novel PrEP formulations for protection against drug-resistant HIV, the impact of drug resistance on HIV treatment options, and mathematical models that estimate the potential contribution of PrEP to population-level drug resistance. Evidence suggests that selection for HIV drug resistance with PrEP use is infrequent and most likely to occur when PrEP is used during undiagnosed acute HIV infection. Breakthrough infections during PrEP use with high adherence are possible, but appear to be rare. The prevalence of drug-resistant HIV strains needs to be monitored as PrEP is scaled up. However, the benefit of a decreased HIV incidence with wider PrEP use is likely to outweigh the risk of harms from possible increases in the prevalence of HIV drug resistance.