Extant literature shows that small conversations with strangers can help improve individuals’ wellbeing while reducing feelings of loneliness. Nevertheless, previous studies on talking to strangers tend to focus on young participants in controlled experimental settings, leaving a gap in understanding older adults’ experiences and their likelihood of adopting talking to strangers as part of their daily healthy ageing practices. Considering the problem of worsened social isolation and loneliness among older people during the Covid-19 pandemic, it is even more important to include them in the promotion of social inclusion through micro-conversations with strangers. To understand older adults’ attitudes and experiences of talking to strangers, this study interviewed 19 older people based on their trial of talking to strangers over a three-month period. Findings reveal that their willingness and confidence varied by age and gender, with retired individuals being more active in engaging with strangers. Time constraints and lack of self-efficacy were identified as barriers, particularly among those still working or with caregiving responsibilities. Rather than personal gains, the act of kindness towards others was emphasised as the key motive. These insights are valuable for policy makers and organisations supporting older people’s wellbeing, highlighting the potential for older individuals to serve as conversation initiators, promoting mutual kindness and wellbeing in communities.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has demonstrated the importance of stewardship of viral diagnostic tests to aid infection prevention efforts in healthcare facilities. We highlight diagnostic stewardship lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic and discuss how diagnostic stewardship principles can inform management and mitigation of future emerging pathogens in acute-care settings. Diagnostic stewardship during the COVID-19 pandemic evolved as information regarding transmission (eg, routes, timing, and efficiency of transmission) became available. Diagnostic testing approaches varied depending on the availability of tests and when supplies and resources became available. Diagnostic stewardship lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic include the importance of prioritizing robust infection prevention mitigation controls above universal admission testing and considering preprocedure testing, contact tracing, and surveillance in the healthcare facility in certain scenarios. In the future, optimal diagnostic stewardship approaches should be tailored to specific pathogen virulence, transmissibility, and transmission routes, as well as disease severity, availability of effective treatments and vaccines, and timing of infectiousness relative to symptoms. This document is part of a series of papers developed by the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America on diagnostic stewardship in infection prevention and antibiotic stewardship.1

The 2021 focused update to the Infections Diseases Society of America/Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (IDSA/SHEA) guidelines for management of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) prioritizes the use of fidaxomicin over vancomycin for the treatment of initial and recurrent CDI. These recommendations have significant clinical and financial ramifications for hospitals and patients with CDI. Antimicrobial stewardship programs must balance the needs, goals, and barriers faced by patients and health systems when determining the best treatment strategy for CDI. In this commentary, we provide antimicrobial stewardship programs with a decision-making framework that acknowledges the fundamental principles of ethics to provide equitable patient care.

Antimicrobial prescribing and the associated discipline of antimicrobial stewardship have inherent ethical and moral dimensions. We contend that the explicit, formal application of ethical principles and frameworks can strengthen and further justify the value of antimicrobial stewardship programs and their work. To illustrate the value of this process, we highlight 3 ethical scenarios that antimicrobial stewardship programs regularly encounter at the prescriber, institutional, and societal levels, and we analyze these scenarios using the Beauchamp and Childress biomedical ethics framework.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has created personal protective equipment (PPE) shortages, particularly of N95 respirators. Institutions have used decontamination strategies including vaporous hydrogen peroxide (VHP) to augment respirator supplies. VHP can be used to decontaminate nonporous surfaces without compromising material integrity. However, little is known about its impact on N95 respirator efficacy. We assessed whether repeated VHP reprocessing altered 4 key respirator efficacy qualities: quantitative fit, qualitative fit, seal check, and filtration rate. Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study from June 15 to August 31, 2020. In total, 7 participants were fitted to a 3M 1860 small or regular N95 respirator based on qualitative and quantitative fit testing. Respirators underwent 25 disinfection cycles with the Bioquell BQ-50 VHP generator. After each cycle, participants donned and doffed respirators and performed a seal check. Participants were given 2 attempts to pass their seal check. Every 10 cycles, qualitative fit testing was done using an aerosolized Bitrex solution. Quantitative fit testing was conducted using a PortaCount Pro 8038 Fit Tester to generate a fit factor score. Appropriate fit is defined as a fit factor score of 100 or greater. Quantitative testing was done at cycles 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 20, and 25. Filtration efficiencies of particles ≥0.3 µm in diameter were measured using the TSI Optical Particle Sizer 3330 at cycles 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25. The Fisher exact test was used to assess qualitative fit and seal check. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to analyze quantitative fit and filtration rate. Results: We observed no seal-check or quantitative-fit test failures during the study window. All participants passed qualitative fit testing. Although there was a significant degree of variability in fit factor scores across disinfection cycles (mean score 163.5, p <0.05), there was no significant difference between participants (p = 0.6) (Figure 1). There was no statistically significant change in mean filtration rate from cycle 10 to 25 (P = .05), and the filtration rate remained >95% by cycle 25 (Figure 2). Conclusions: VHP reprocessing did not diminish the efficacy of N95 respirators based on the 4 metrics we assessed: filtration rate, seal check, qualitative fit, and quantitative fit. Of significance, the filtration rate remained well above the 95% standard filtration for N95 respirators—even through 25 cycles of reprocessing. VHP reprocessing is a safe, viable strategy to disinfect N95 respirators and extend their use, particularly during supply shortages.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

In 829 hospital encounters for patients with COVID-19, 73.2% included orders for antibiotics; however, only 1.8% had respiratory cultures during the first 3 hospital days isolating bacteria. Case–control analysis of 30 patients and 96 controls found that each antibiotic day increased the risk of isolating multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB) in respiratory cultures by 6.5%.

Background: Resin-containing blood culture bottles (RBB) are used to increase the isolation of microorganisms by binding antimicrobials in sampled blood. Since RBB implementation in April 2018, our infection preventionists noted an increase in positive blood cultures on routine surveillance. Objective: To describe the change in bacterial isolation post-RBB implementation. Methods: All positive blood culture sets drawn in adult inpatient units or the emergency room between October 2017 and September 2018 and their associated organisms were obtained from the hospital laboratory database. Then, regardless of central-line placement or “present on admission” designation, the 2019 NHSN surveillance definitions for laboratory-confirmed bloodstream infection (LCBI-1 and LCBI-2) were applied to categorize all positive cultures as “common commensals” (CCs) or pathogens. A univariate analysis was performed using the Mantel-Haenszel χ2 test (OpenEpi version 3.01). Results: Although the number of monthly blood cultures drawn remained effectively stable before and after implementation (pre-RBB median, 3,512.5; post-RBB median, 3,626), the rate ratio of positive cultures increased by 1.36 times: pre-RBB median, 127 sets per month and post-RBB median, 172.5 sets per month (χ2 = 5.785; P = .008). The rate ratio of pathogen-containing cultures increased by 1.40 times (pre-RBB median, 98 sets per month and post-RBB median, 137.5 sets per month; χ² = 5.615; P = .009) with only a 1.24 increase in CCs (pre-RBB median, 29 and post-RBB median, 36; χ² = 0.553; P = .229) (Fig. 1). Conclusions: After RBB implementation, the monthly incidence rate of pathogen-containing sets increased. Additionally, the increase in these sets as well as of overall positive blood cultures was statistically significant. Current literature on RBBs does not suggest preferential increased isolation of pathogens. Further study is needed to determine whether our findings are related to blood-culturing practices or the RBBs themselves.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

We conducted a quality improvement project at a large public tertiary-care academic hospital to reduce reported hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) rates. We introduced diagnostic stewardship and provider education, resulting in a 2-fold reduction in C. difficile nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) orders and markedly lower hospital CDI rate.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:734–736