bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Infection Prevention Time Required for Construction and Design at a Large Tertiary-Care Hospital, 2019
Authors: Dains Angie , Edmond Michael , Diekema Daniel , Holley Stephanie , Abosi Oluchi , Kukla Mary , Jenn Kyle , Kuse Andy , Miller Robert , Leiden Luke , Salinas Jorge 
Published: November 2020

Background: Including infection preventionists (IPs) in hospital design, construction, and renovation projects is important. According to the Joint Commission, “Infection control oversights during building design or renovations commonly result in regulatory problems, millions lost and even patient deaths.” We evaluated the number of active major construction projects at our 800-bed hospital with 6.0 IP FTEs and the IP time required for oversight. Methods: We reviewed construction records from October 2018 through October 2019. We classified projects as active if any construction occurred during the study period. We describe the types of projects: inpatient, outpatient, non–patient care, and the potential impact to patient health through infection control risk assessments (ICRA). ICRAs were classified as class I (non–patient-care area and minimal construction activity), class II (patients are not likely to be in the area and work is small scale), class III (patient care area and work requires demolition that generates dust), and class IV (any area requiring environmental precautions). We calculated the time spent visiting construction sites and in design meetings. Results: During October 2018–October 2019, there were 51 active construction projects with an average of 15 active sites per week. These sites included a wide range of projects from a new bone marrow transplant unit, labor and delivery expansion and renovation, space conversion to an inpatient unit to a project for multiple air handler replacements. All 51 projects were classified as class III or class IV. We visited, on average, 4 construction sites each week for 30 minutes per site, leaving 11 sites unobserved due to time constraints. We spent an average of 120 minutes weekly, but 450 minutes would have been required to observe all 15 sites. Yearly, the required hours to observe these active construction sites once weekly would be 390 hours. In addition to the observational hours, 124 hours were spent in design meetings alone, not considering the preparation time and follow-up required for these meetings. Conclusions: In a large academic medical center, IPs had time available to visit only a quarter of active projects on an ongoing basis. Increasing dedicated IP time in construction projects is essential to mitigating infection control risks in large hospitals.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None
Legal Requirements for Infection Prevention and Control Training Among Healthcare Personnel
Authors: Weil Lauren , Limeres Alexa , KC Astha , Holmes Carissa , Holiday Tara , Schaefer Melissa K , Perz Joseph 
Published: November 2020

Background: When healthcare providers lack infection prevention and control (IPC) knowledge and skills, patient safety and quality of care can suffer. For this reason, state laws sometimes dictate IPC training; these requirements can be expressed as applying to various categories of healthcare personnel (HCP). We performed a preliminary assessment of the laws requiring IPC training across the United States. Methods: During February–July 2018, we searched WestlawNext, a legal database, for IPC training laws in 51 jurisdictions (50 states and Washington, DC). We used standard legal epidemiology methods, including an iterative search strategy to minimize results that were outside the scope of the coding criteria by reviewing results and refining search terms. A law was defined as a regulation or statute. Laws that include IPC training for healthcare personnel were collected for coding. Laws were coded to reflect applicable HCP categories and specific IPC training content areas. Results: A total of 278 laws requiring IPC training for HCP were identified (range, 1–19 per jurisdiction); 157 (56%) did not specify IPC training content areas. Among the 121 (44%) laws that did specify IPC content, 39 (32%) included training requirements that focused solely on worker protections (eg, sharps injury prevention and bloodborne pathogen protections for the healthcare provider). Among the 51 jurisdictions, dental professionals were the predominant targets: dental hygienists (n = 22; 43%), dentists (n = 20; 39%), and dental assistants (n = 18; 35%). The number of jurisdictions with laws requiring training for other HCP categories included the following: nursing assistants (n = 25; 49%), massage therapists (n = 11; 22%), registered nurses (n = 10; 20%), licensed practical nurses (n = 10; 20%), emergency medical technicians and paramedics (n = 9; 18%), dialysis technicians (n = 8; 18%), home health aides (n = 8;16%), nurse midwives (n = 7; 14%), pharmacy technicians (n = 7; 14%), pharmacists (n = 6; 12%), physician assistants (n = 4; 8%), podiatrists (n = 3; 6%), and physicians (n = 2; 4%). Conclusions: Although all jurisdictions had at least 1 healthcare personnel IPC training requirement, many of the laws lack specificity and some focus only on worker protections, rather than patient safety or quality of care. In addition, the categories of healthcare personnel regulated among jurisdictions varied widely, with dental professionals having the most training requirements. Additional IPC training requirements exist at the facility level, but this information was not analyzed as a part of this project. Further analysis is needed to inform our assessment and identify opportunities for improving IPC training requirements, such as requiring IPC training that more fully addresses patient protections.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None
Population Standardized Infection Ratio (pSIR): A More Meaningful Reflection of Performance With Reduction in Device Use
Authors: Sharma Mamta , Bufalino Angelo , Huang Ren-huai , Sturm Lisa , Service Network , Erlinger Thomas , Fakih Mohamad 
Published: November 2020

Background: Interventions to reduce unnecessary device use may select a higher-risk population, leading to a paradoxical increase in SIR for some high-performing facilities. The standardized utilization ratio (SUR) adjusts for device use for different units and facilities. We evaluated the performance of a population SIR (pSIR) metric compared to device SIR (dSIR) in the situations of increased, decreased, and no change in SUR for a large system. Methods: We evaluated hospitals that had a reduction, increase, and no substantial change (±5% relative change) in their SUR in FY2019 (July 2018–June 2019) compared to baseline FY2017 (July 2016–June 2017). The dSIR (defined as Σ observed events divided by Σ predicted events based on actual device days) and pSIR (defined as Σ observed events divided by Σ predicted events based on predicted device days). We calculated the cumulative attributable difference (CAD) for catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) for the same facilities based on dSIR and pSIR. Results: Overall, the system SUR dropped from 0.92 in 2017 to 0.85 in 2019 (7.3% decrease). Of the 48 hospitals included, 25 (52%) exhibited a drop, 13 (27%) exhibited an increase, and 10 (21%) had no change in SUR during 2019. For hospitals in which SUR decreased, the dSIR decreased by 15.9% from 0.88 to 0.74, and the pSIR decreased by 32.3% from 0.85 to 0.58 (Table 1). In 2019, the CAD for CAUTI to a target SIR of 1 was 133 for the dSIR compared to 181 for the pSIR, and 36% more events were avoided. Conclusions: The traditional SIR (dSIR) underestimated improvements in infection rates compared to the pSIR because it failed to account for reduced device utilization associated with infection prevention interventions. The pSIR accounts for overall risk of infection associated with device exposure in a population and better reflects the efficacy of prevention efforts compared to dSIR. The pSIR should be considered in situations in which interventions have led to substantial reductions in device use.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None
Prevalence of Healthcare-Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance in Rural Alberta Acute-Care Facilities
Authors: Ellison Jennifer , Chandran Uma , Happe Jennifer , Shen Ye , Shurgold Jayson , Taylor Geoffrey , Bush Kathryn 
Published: November 2020

Background: Antibiotic-resistant organisms (AROs) are associated with greater disease severity and poor outcomes. Previous studies have investigated AROs and healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) within larger urban acute-care settings, but similar data for rural settings are scarce. In this stud, we aimed to fill this gap. Methods: Data on antimicrobial resistance (AMR), additional precautions and HAI were collected from 8 rural Alberta acute-care facilities over a 24-hour period from February 4–28, 2019. Data were gathered as part of the national Canadian, Rural, and Northern Acute Care Point Prevalence (CNAPP) survey. All inpatients on included units were reviewed. CNAPP protocol surveillance definitions were used. Results: In total, 961 patients were surveyed, of whom 94 of 961 (9.8%) were on additional precautions. Contact precautions only were most common (54 of 94, 57.4%) and were predominantly in place for MRSA (30 of 94, 31.9%). Of 961 patients, 100 (~10%) met the surveillance definitions for any infection. The most common infections were skin and soft-tissue infections (29 of 100, 29.0%) and bloodstream infections (28 of 100, 28.0%). An HAI occurred in 30 of 961 patients (3.1%); the most common HAIs were surgical site infections (8 of 30, 26.7%) and urinary tract infections (8 of 30, 26.7%). An antimicrobial was prescribed to 333 of 961 patients (34.6%) at the time of the survey, with ceftriaxone the most commonly prescribed (68 of 333, 20.4%). Most patients receiving an antimicrobial (237 of 333, 71.2%) did not meet the surveillance definition for any infection. The most common reason for any antimicrobial administration was empiric therapy (167 of 333, 50.1%). Conclusions: Investigations into antimicrobial use and the burden of HAIs in rural acute-care settings have been limited. In this study, we (1) established provincial baseline data for burden of disease in these facilities due to HAIs and (2) demonstrated that antimicrobial use is common, though most patients who were prescribed an antimicrobial did not meet study definitions for infection. It will be important to continue this type of surveillance in this understudied population to monitor the burden of HAIs over time, to establish antimicrobial utilization trends, and to continue to identify potential antimicrobial stewardship initiatives.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None
Effectiveness of Annual Flu Vaccination Until Week Four of the 2019–2020 Season
Authors: Chico-Sánchez Pablo , Mora-Muriel Juan Gabriel , Gras-Valentí Paula , Jimenez-Sepulveda Natali J. , Algado-Sellés Natividad , Gomez-Sotero Isel , Soler Victor , Esclapez-Martinez Ana , Canovas-Javega Sandra , Sanchez-Paya Jose 
Published: November 2020

Background: Annual flu vaccination is the most effective way to prevent the disease and its complications. Vaccine effectiveness (EV) varies from season to season, requiring annual re-evaluation. The objective of this study was to estimate the preliminary effectiveness of the influenza vaccine until epidemiological week 4 of the 2019–2020 season, in patients admitted to a tertiary-level hospital. Method: We conducted a case-control study at University General Hospital, Alicante, Spain, during the 2019–2020 season. We included all patients hospitalized with influenza confirmed by laboratory test (ie, PCR positive for influenza) during the period between epidemiological week 40 of 2019 and epidemiological week 4 of 2020. These were considered cases, and those with clinical suspicion of influenza and negative RT-PCR were considered controls. Vaccination coverage was calculated in cases and in controls, determining the odds ratio. We calculated the vaccine effectiveness (VE) and its 95% confidence interval using the following formula: VE = (1 − odds ratio) ×100. Result: We included 545 patients: 61 cases and 484 controls. The overall EV for influenza cases prevention was 40.7% (95% CI, −17.1 to 70.1), and for those >1 year of age, the overall EV was 56.9% (95% CI, 13.9–78.5). Conclusion: The 2019–2020 Influenza vaccine was effective in preventing influenza cases in patients admitted up to week 4 of the 2019–2020 season. These results are preliminary and may vary; they should be re-evaluated at the end of the season.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None
10-Year Trends in Urine Testing and Treatment in Patients with Spinal Cord Injury: An Opportunity for Targeted Stewardship
Authors: Nelson Alison , Gupta Kalpana , Strymish Judith , Nee Maura , Linsenmeyer Katherine 
Published: November 2020

Background: Guidelines regarding asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) have consistently recommended against screening and treatment in most circumstances. However, screening of patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) is common practice and in some cases is a formal protocol at the organizational level. A previous study found that more than one-third of patients with ASB detected on routine screening cultures performed at annual visits in 2012 received antibiotics. However, the role of antibiotic stewardship has become more prominent over the last decade. We hypothesized that diagnostic and therapeutic stewardship efforts may be impacting the practice of annual urine-culture screening for SCI patients. We evaluated urine culture screening and treatment rates over a 10-year period. Methods: Patients with SCI seen in the VA Boston HCS for an annual exam in 2018 were eligible for inclusion and formed the baseline cohort for this study. Annual visits for the cohort over a 10-year period (January 1, 2009–December 31, 2018) were included in the analysis. Electronic data collection and manual chart review were utilized to capture outcomes of interest including urine culture, antibiotic prescriptions and indication within 15 days, and documentation of urinary or infectious symptoms. The main outcomes were (1) rate of urine cultures performed ±3 days of the visit, (2) rate of antibiotic treatment in asymptomatic patients, and (3) trend over time of urine culturing and treating. The χ2 test for trend was used to compare rates over time. Results: In total, 1,962 annual visits were made by the 344 unique patients over the 10-year period and were available for analysis. Among these, 639 (32.6%) visits had a urine culture performed within 3 days. The proportion of visits with a collected culture decreased from (109 of 127) 85.8% of visits in 2009 to (65 of 338) 19.2% of visits in 2018, P ≤ .001 (Fig. 1). In the treatment analysis, 39 visits were excluded for active symptoms, concern for uncontrolled infection, or prophylaxis as antibiotic indication. Among 600 remaining screening cultures, 328 had a bacterial pathogen or >100,000 mixed colonies consistent with ASB. Overall, 51 patients (17%) received antimicrobials. The rate of antibiotic treatment for ASB did not significantly decrease over time pP = 0.79 (Fig. 2). Conclusions: Over a 10-year period of annual SCI visits, the proportion of visits with a urine culture performed as routine screening significantly and consistently decreased. However, the rate of treatment for positive urine cultures remained consistent. These data support targeted diagnostic stewardship in this population to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None
A Journey of Hand Hygiene (HH) from Basic to Advance Level at a Tertiary-Care Hospital in Karachi, Pakistan
Authors: Roshanali Rozina 
Published: November 2020

Background: According to the WHO, hand hygiene is the primary measure to reduce infections. It is a simple act, but the lack of compliance among healthcare workers has been a great concern for all healthcare facilities. Healthcare facilities can perform a situation analysis of hand hygiene promotion and practices according to a set of indicators designed by the WHO in the form of a hand hygiene self-assessment framework. Results can be used to identify areas of improvement and to develop an action plan and strategies accordingly. Low- or middle-income country (LMIC) initial scoring within this framework was 195 points (ie basic level); thus, we aimed to achieve the advanced level, with a score of > 375. Methods: The WHO hand hygiene self-assessment framework is a diagnostic tool to identify key issues requiring attention and improvement. Repeated assessments are done to document the progress over time, which allows a health-care facility to track their progress in hand hygiene resources, to conduct promotion activities, to plan their actions, and to achieve improvement and sustainability. We developed an action plan under each category of WHO framework that included: system change, training and education, evaluation and feedback, reminders in workplace, and institutional safety climate for hand hygiene. We implemented the following measures: point-of-care hand hygiene stations were made available at all bedsides; mandatory training was introduced for all healthcare workers, and consumption of hand rub or hand sanitizers and liquid soap was monitored as a consumption indicator. In addition, posters were placed in all wards and clinics, time was dedicated for HH promotion, and a May 5th plan was implemented. HH leaders, role models, and champions were identified from each discipline. Patients were involved in HH promotion; HH leaflets were given to patients, HH e-learning tools were implemented, and a system for personal accountability was initiated, as well as a buddy system for new employees. Results: After implementation of multiple strategies in each section of the WHO self-assessment framework, we our overall score increased from basic (ie, 195) to advanced (ie, 395). In addition, category score increased in system change from 60 to 85, in training and education from 35 to 100, in evaluation and feedback from 52.5 to 100, in reminders in workplace from 17.5 to 45, and in institutional safety climate from 30 to 65. Conclusions: The WHO hand hygiene self-assessment framework should be utilized by all the hospitals in LMICs as a guide to improve hand hygiene levels.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None
Acquisition Rate of Scabies in Employees After Care of an Undiagnosed Crusted Scabies Patient
Authors: Crowley Patrick , Ramirez Hector , Ochoa Brennan , Brust Karen 
Published: November 2020

Background: Scabies is a contagious dermatosis caused by human mites, (Sarcoptes scabei, variant hominis). In crusted (Norwegian) scabies, the burden of mite infestation is higher and up to 2 million per person, facilitating easy skin-to-skin transmission and nosocomial transmission. We describe a case of undiagnosed crusted scabies and subsequent transmission to employees in our hospital. Methods: A 90-year-old female was admitted to our 636-bed, nonprofit, academic hospital for 22 days prior to diagnosis of crusted scabies by skin scraping. The patient was admitted to 2 different medical-surgical wards and the medical intensive care unit. We collected healthcare worker (HCW) demographics, including department of service, age, sex, pregnancy, and breastfeeding status in those who were at risk of exposure. We interviewed HCWs at 2 time points and collected information related to infestation, allergies to treatment, acceptance of empiric treatment, and whether employee was furloughed. Results: On initial screening, 20 of 124 at-risk HCWs had symptoms (Fig.). Most had a “new onset raised red rash or new pimple like rash (not on face), or linear rash” and 4 had “new onset uncontrollable itching.” All 124 HCWs were contacted 28 days later. One HCW that had not been compliant with prophylaxis became symptomatic and was diagnosed with scabies by dermatology. Of the remaining 20 HCWs, 3 were still having symptoms (2 had itching and 1 had a rash and a scrape performed by dermatology with confirmation of mites). All 3 were retreated with ivermectin. Overall, 21 of 124 exposed HCWs were ultimately symptomatic. Conclusions: During a 22-day admission of an undiagnosed and unisolated elderly patient with crusted scabies, the scabies mite was transmitted to 21 HCWs for an acquisition rate of 17%. Persistence of symptoms after treatment with permethrin occurred in 14%. The infectivity of this disease necessitates early recognition and infection control measures.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None
Adjustments to an Existing Colorectal Surgical Site Infection Prevention Bundle Lead to Fewer Infections
Authors: McMullen Kathleen , Dunn Gaylene , McDuffie Sheri , Freeman Bradley 
Published: November 2020

Background: Surgical site infections (SSI) related to colorectal procedures are detrimental to patients and publicly reportable events. Our institution implemented a successful bundle of interventions to decrease SSI rates in 2014. In 2018, compliance started to wane, with a concurrent increase in infections. In an effort to enhance compliance and incorporate up-to-date information, we convened a multidisciplinary team to streamline this process. Methods: Our team evaluated published studies on successful bundle components and updates to professional guidelines for SSI prevention to determine adjustments. Modifications included allowing surgeon preference for (rather than mandating) wound protector use and simplification of clean closure protocol (determined by intraoperative contamination, leading to more efficient closure time). In addition, measures were added to achieve perioperative patient optimization (maintenance of normothermia, prevention of intraoperative hypoxia, tighter glucose control and postoperative bathing). The bundle was implemented in stages starting January 2019. SSI rates were monitored throughout the process using NHSN definitions, and rates were compared using χ2 analysis (Epi Info, CDC). Results: From 2015 to 2017, bundle compliance was 90%, and 8 SSIs (rate, 3.8 per 100 procedures) were detected (Table 1). In 2018, compliance was 82%, with 4 SSIs (rate, 6.6 per 100 procedures). From January through September 2019, SSI rates decreased to a rate of 4.8 per 100 procedures, with notable increase in superficial SSI, with zero cases of deep or organ-space infections. Feedback from operating-room personnel indicated their commitment to bundle compliance and perceived intraoperative time savings. Conclusions: Revamping an existing colorectal SSI bundle, including relaxation of time-intensive and expensive intraoperative measures and increased focus on evidence-based guidelines, resulted in decreased deep-organ space SSI rates, as well as increased satisfaction from procedural team members. Successful implementation of care pathways to prevent infections is an iterative process and requires the engagement of practitioners.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None