With the rapid expansion of the Infection Prevention Control/Healthcare Epidemiology (IPC/HE) fields over recent decades, the pivotal roles of IPC/HE in hospital regulation, quality improvement, patient safety, and healthcare finances have become increasingly apparent. Consequently, the demand for effective IPC/HE leaders has surged.1,2 Training in IPC/HE is essential for all infectious diseases (ID) fellows (both adult and pediatric), including those planning a career in hospital epidemiology as well as those planning to focus on general ID, transplant, HIV, etc. ID fellows, however, have historically felt ill-prepared in IPC/HE. Joiner et al’s survey highlighted this gap, revealing that only half of respondents felt adequately trained in infection control, despite half of them participating in infection control in their practice.3 IPC/HE fellow education is not currently standardized, and most IPC/HE training is led by individual mentors and healthcare facilities.

Surveillance by clinical epidemiology teams for invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in healthcare settings can be challenging due to several factors including low sensitivity of noninvasive conventional microbiologic diagnostics, nonspecific clinical presentation, and complex patient populations. Recently, availability of microbial cell-free DNA testing (cfDNA) via the Karius Test has shown promise for increased diagnostic sensitivity of IFIs. However, how to best incorporate cfDNA results into IFI surveillance remains a vexing challenge. Herein, we provide perspectives on the benefits and challenges of use of cfDNA for IFI surveillance.

These guidelines update the 2013 “Updated US Public Health Service (PHS) Guidelines for the Management of Occupational Exposures to Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Recommendations for Postexposure Prophylaxis,” hereafter referred to as the 2013 PHS Guidelines.1,2 The availability of new medication options, new information on the window of detection for different human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) tests, and the risk of transmission from people with undetectable viral loads prompted this update. The primary intended audience for these recommendations remains anyone involved in the provision of HIV post-exposure management to healthcare personnel (HCP).

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention assembled a working group of representatives from federal agencies in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) who identified the priority topics for update and conducted systematic literature reviews to formulate recommendations (see Appendix). All recommendations were reviewed by the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) at public meetings, and by a non-consensus forming panel of external experts. New evidence-based recommendations are developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework and classified according to the HICPAC recommendation scheme when evidence supported recommendation development.3,4 Other recommendations in this document are classified as good practice statements according to the criteria set forth by GRADE.5 The working group solicited additional feedback on recommendations from relevant agencies, subject-matter experts, and the public.

Recommendations that have changed since the 2013 PHS guidelines include:

• new antiretroviral drug regimens for post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP);

• a shortened duration of post-exposure follow-up HIV testing;

• elimination of routine laboratory tests for antiretroviral drug toxicity; and

• considerations for PEP for HCP with exposures to source patients with undetectable viral loads.

Important strategies in the principles of exposure management remain: primary prevention strategies; the prompt reporting and management of occupational exposures; adherence to recommended HIV PEP regimens when indicated; the role of expert consultation in management of exposures; and follow-up of exposed HCP.

This multisociety guidance was endorsed by SHEA, APIC, IDSA, PALTmed, and AGS. It provides recommendations for infection prevention and control (IPC) in the context of the complexity of nursing home care in the United States: increased medical acuity of residents, the spread of multidrug-resistant organisms, and the threat of emerging pathogens. Recommendations and implementation suggestions address IPC leadership, staffing, and resources, healthcare personnel and residents‘ adherence to precautions and effective hand hygiene, outbreak preparedness, training, occupational health, cleaning and disinfection in the care environment, and the involvement of IPC in the facility. The guidance also addresses the challenges of maintaining a home-like care space while sustaining necessary IPC measures. The guidance covers the role of regulatory bodies like the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It should serve as a resource for IPC program leaders in nursing homes who are aiming to enhance infection prevention efforts.

In Antimicrobial Stewardship and Infection Prevention and Control, programmatic goals often strive to achieve clinical benefit by practice change in the direction of doing less. Practically, this may include reducing the number of tests ordered, encouraging shorter and more narrow courses of antimicrobials, or discontinuing practices that are no longer contextually appropriate. Because promoting practice change in the direction of doing less is a critical aspect of day-to-day operations in Antimicrobial Stewardship and Infection Prevention and Control, the goals of this Society for Healthcare Epidemiology Research Committee White Paper are to provide a roadmap and framework for leveraging principles of implementation and de-implementation science in day-to-day practice. Part II of this series focuses on some practical case studies, including real-world examples of applied de-implementation science to promote discontinuation of practices that are ineffective, overused, or no longer effective.

The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, the Association of Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society represent the core expertise regarding healthcare infection prevention and infectious diseases and have written multisociety statement for healthcare facility leaders, regulatory agencies, payors, and patients to strengthen requirements and expectations around facility infection prevention and control (IPC) programs. Based on a systematic literature search and formal consensus process, the authors advocate raising the expectations for facility IPC programs, moving to effective programs that are:

• Foundational and influential parts of the facility’s operational structure

• Resourced with the correct expertise and leadership

• Prioritized to address all potential infectious harms

This document discusses the IPC program’s leadership—a dyad model that includes both physician and infection preventionist leaders—its reporting structure, expertise, and competencies of its members, and the roles and accountability of partnering groups within the healthcare facility. The document outlines a process for identifying minimum IPC program medical director support. It applies to all types of healthcare settings except post-acute long-term care and focuses on resources for the IPC program. Long-term acute care hospital (LTACH) staffing and antimicrobial stewardship programs will be discussed in subsequent documents.

In 2011, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and Ronald McDonald House Charities® (RMHC®) established a formal collaboration to develop the first IPC guideline. Both organizations agreed that RMH programs staff and other organizations operating similar programs would benefit from a standardized approach. In 2023, the collaboration was re-established to revise and update the original IPC guideline. This SHEA Practice Update on “Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) in Residential Facilities for Pediatric Patients and Their Families” addresses preventing transmission of infectious agents in “home away from home” residential settings, of which the Ronald McDonald Houses (RMHs) serve as a prototype.

Rodriguez-Nava et al. present a proof-of-concept study evaluating the use of a secure large language model (LLM) approved for healthcare data for retrospective identification of a specific healthcare-associated infection (HAI)—central line-associated bloodstream infections—from real patient data for the purposes of surveillance.1 This study illustrates a promising direction for how LLMs can, at a minimum, semi-automate or streamline HAI surveillance activities.

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) result in substantial patient harm and avoidable costs. Pay-for-performance programs (PFP) through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have resulted in reductions of HAIs like central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, through robust infection prevention programs and practices. Hospital Onset Bacteremia and Fungemia (HOB) is proposed as an alternative quality measure for public reporting and PFP, and was endorsed by the National Quality Forum in 2022. This broad measure is designed as an electronic quality measure that avoids manual abstraction and excludes risk adjustment. HOB would substantially expand the scope of focus of existing bloodstream infection measurement, and is currently being considered for voluntary reporting in 2025. In this article, we provide arguments for and against adopting HOB as a PFP measure linked to CMS payments.

This multisociety infection prevention guidance document was developed for individuals and organizations that engage in sterilization or high-level disinfection (HLD). It was endorsed by SHEA, APIC, ASGE, IDSA, and SGNA. This guidance is based on a synthesis of published scientific evidence, theoretical rationale, current practices, practical considerations, writing group consensus, and consideration of potential harm when applicable. The supplementary material includes a summary of recommendations. The guidance provides an overview of the Spaulding Classification and considerations around manufacturers’ instructions for use (MIFUs). Its recommendations address: point-of-use treatment prior to sterilization or HLD, preparation of reusable medical devices at the location of processing, sterilization, and immediate use steam sterilization (IUSS), HLD of lumened and non-lumened devices, processing of reusable medical devices used with lubricating or defoaming agents, monitoring for effectiveness of processing, handling of devices after HLD, augments and alternatives to HLD, processing of investigational devices, tracking of reusable medical devices, and approaches to implementation.